Nuxx:MPG.268d2779ebf16d3a9897a4@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.news-service.com!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: URCM: Yet Another Blatant Example of Double Standards Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:28:15 +0100 Lines: 37 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100623-1, 23/06/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 1d6ac13c.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=8B?e:]\ObY6UG:6?LFGYH80g@SS;SF6n7ogMo?Vo4ZT7>D7cm_S?\RR1 X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 2958 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:31388

I know we've all given up hope of getting any kind of explanation from the "moderators" for things like this (leaving us with only one possible conclusion: they're doing them for exactly the reasons we suspect), but just for posterity (rather than discussion particularly), here's the latest example of a post which is only "non-inflammatory" when aimed at those who the URCM moderators dislike personally.

Obviously I've seen much worse, and I don't care what the stupid twat who posted it has to say anyway: I'm just posting it here so that people can see that this discrimination according to people's general opinions is still continuing unabated (and will until the inevitable RFD comes along). Only when posts like the below are either always approved, or always rejected, will we know that we've successfully removed the "private club" tumour from URCM.

On Jun 24, 8:06 am, Jim A  wrote: > On 06/23/2010 07:16 PM, Guy Cuthbertson wrote: > > > A particular poster has stated the following (possibly paraphrased) on > > more than one occasion: "I believe that if I am driving or cycling there > > is no chance of a child running out in front of me and causing an > > accident." > > > I personally think this is impossible to ensure. What do others think? > > What if someone is driving or cycling past a pelican crossing where > > people are waiting for the green man on the near side of the road? The > > driver/cyclist would have to slow to an absolute crawl to ensure that > > they could stop if someone ran out in front of them. People don't do > > this in the real world, there's no need to do it, and if they did do it > > then (understandably IMHO) those behind would get rather fed up. > > > I could go on and provide some more examples, as I think there are many, > > but I'll leave it there for now. > > Good. > > --www.slowbicyclemovement.org- enjoy the ride