Nuxx:47e6667b-77e4-4d61-b471-491a864d3953@s18g2000vbe.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!s18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <47e6667b-77e4-4d61-b471-491a864d3953@s18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 04:39:33 -0700 (PDT) References:   <20110311231219.46e037e6@surya> <4pcln6prfn7vvv3v2tgmqv60hbv0kuus4g@4ax.com>  <1jy0h9z.2shxli9zpp23N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>  <1jy1igk.1ji348l1s5vxwwN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> <2kk*xoZxt@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <1jy2p2s.c92nhprihttN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>  <20110314011852.46d72316@bluemoon> <11lrn615tjir9njkcba9r4n64obtld73v3@4ax.com> <1jy43jr.y7pcx91duhg0rN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>  <1jy49d1.11eycqzkdq4gN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> Lines: 19 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 1300102773 14205 127.0.0.1 (14 Mar 2011 11:39:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: s18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g 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: 2674 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38896

On Mar 14, 11:11=A0am, real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: > > Indeed. But if he's not the only one, concentrating on Ian would just be > silly, so it's best to avoid making it personal if possible, even if we > don't always avoid that trap.

It's pretty obvious to me that he is the nucleus of the problem, and that even if he does have supporters, they'll more-or-less give up trying to enforce his "unique" brand of "moderation" without him.

> > OK, maybe it's not all down to him, but he's the one in the spotlight. > > Let's not get dazzled by spotlights. > > Daniele > Daniele

I think I've been dazzled...I'm seeing double.