Nuxx:E1740ee2-5df1-41f1-9f22-a1703365eda7@e21g2000yqe.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!e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM Moderator Moderated Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:52:22 -0800 (PST) References:  Lines: 58 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 1297896742 21095 127.0.0.1 (16 Feb 2011 22:52:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5.8; U; en) Presto/2.7.62 Version/11.01,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3633 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:37637

On Feb 16, 9:37=A0pm, Judith  wrote: > > > Give it a rest. =A0I shall as far as this thread is concerned, and no, > that doesn't mean you're right because I've stopped arguing, it means > you've bored me to distraction by refusing to see the blindingly > obvious. =A0And that takes quite some doing on Usenet, as my posting > record shows. > ---

Well yes, the usual method is to make a "last word" post and then block any replies. While it would be nice to think that "moderation" was no longer being abused in that way, I doubt things have permanently improved on that front.

> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Wherever did you get that idea? =A0I can only imagine by either not > listening or trying to put words into my mouth, but either way you're > beating your very, very boring path again. > > If you seriously think traffic lights holding up some people for a few > excess seconds some of the time is in the same class of pointless as > pedal reflectors that would be invisible in any case then, errr, > hatstand! > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > I wonder if Matt B would have been allowed to post that to Clinch?

I should think that even URCM's few remaining out-and-out defenders (the Chapmans, the Lees, the Georges and the Andersons) wouldn't have the cheek to try to claim "Yes" to that, which is telling. Instead, at least three of them would be most likely to apply "standard difficult question protocol" and simply refuse to answer (none of URCM's defenders want to admit that posters are treated differently according to their opinions, and that that's the way they like it...something to do with such a newsgroup not being allowed on uk.*, perhaps? But who exactly is falling for this ridiculous charade?)

It's like when NA refuses to say whether he thinks C posted as LK. He would find it embarrassing to speak the truth, but he doesn't want to obviously lie, so a stony silence is what we get.