Nuxx:D083982d-f261-4245-9217-49c363fa8a8c@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:37:03 -0700 (PDT) References:  <8uu1h9Fh5jU4@mid.individual.net>  <8uu5l9Fg4gU1@mid.individual.net>  <0847c8a1-d491-49d9-97e7-4e69de50524f@n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 21 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1300912623 21094 127.0.0.1 (23 Mar 2011 20:37:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:37:03 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=WrLs9woAAAD151hWKA9yknAtxFHW4kE4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2513 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39359

On Mar 23, 5:03=A0pm, Geoff Berrow  wrote: > On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:41:43 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar > >  wrote: > >(BTW Geoff, expressing opinions like the above is the real reason why > >the psycholists hate me...you may or may not agree with me, but why > >should I not be allowed to say what I think? =A0Why does it get their > >backs up so much...are they perhaps afraid of losing the debate?) > > I agree with some, perhaps most of it. =A0What I'm not sure of is why > you wish to argue the toss with them. =A0

I've largely given up doing so, as you'll notice by the fact that I rarely post to URC nowadays. But you're right, there probably wasn't much point in doing it for so long.

However, if (say) Chapman posts a particularly egregious anti-motorist untruth to URCM (completely by accident of course), I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be 1) allowed by the moderators to correct it and 2) not discriminated against by them in future for doing so. I'd be surprised if you disagreed.