Nuxx:MPG.279ae6538c1d46fa989866@news.zen.co.uk

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!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Comments from URCM moderators and my reponse Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 23:02:12 -0000 References: <09e6bb69-2e74-42b3-aea7-75061b96e510@t23g2000vby.googlegroups.com>  <4c774b84-9a7f-42b5-a030-d1857ba149f1@u3g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>  <6cd434f0-eb03-417d-baff-a09bb86671e4@q18g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>  <20110114191331.5857511e@gododdin>  <20110114211930.2ebf9165@gododdin> Lines: 35 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: befe5fc6.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=@V`4OhB1=TXFB`leeB>^KSnok4Z\_4KE=9lfiYEn, stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com says... > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:33:56 +0000 > Tom Crispin  wrote: > > > So you made that comment to yourself that you had made a good play on > > words!?

That is utterly ridiculous. The number of times where no rejection text has been provided when it should have been, and yet now we have moderators not only putting in unnecessary "joke" text, but using it to congratulate themselves on their superb wit. How much more farcical can URCM get? Is this where the cracks really start showing?

> Yes, why not? It's part of the record.

What, the record that gets conveniently scrubbed after a couple of weeks so that people can't reference the extensive catalogue of absurd and often thoroughly unpleasant rejections we've all seen?

I suppose we can at least still see where we've had approvals of plainly abusive posts from "club members" like Damerell and Chapman.

> As, indeed, you have demonstrated.

The Crisp Man usually talks sense in regard to URCM (unlike most transport matters), and this is no exception. You've really lost it with that rejection.

> Joke's on you this time, I think.

I disagree with you (I know that means I'm wrong). It's just the latest chapter in the world's longest book: "Examples of How URCM Moderators are Stark Raving Bonkers in Ever Stranger and More Extreme Ways".