Nuxx:MPG.262a8b342f4ebe0b989736@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!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!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: Re: A comment from an URCM moderator sought please. Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:19:46 +0100 References:     Lines: 41 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 100410-0, 10/04/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: dbd663a9.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=a>14[EAK1DM4A284j2F0g@SS;SF6nGR9OH0:RnENDGD2h]IONZVD`:ITG5aA:cG, key@under.the.invalid says... > > Guy Cuthbertson  wrote in > news:MPG.262a7cab52c06230989734@news.zen.co.uk: > > > In article , > > andyl@azaal.plus.com says... > >> > >> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:22:55 +0100, JMS  > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > Post from a "non-member" rejected in URCM > >> > >> Now that this is detailed on the rejects web page is there any > >> need for a full recitation of the rejected post here? Surely > >> those who are interested will go and look it up. Those who do > >> will find it rejected due to meta-discussion. > > > > Odd, since when I looked it had been rejected because it was > > "unconstructive". If you lot are going to make up excuses to > > reject posts from people you don't like then you should remember > > what excuse was used in each case, otherwise it becomes even more > > obvious that they are indeed just excuses. > > Surely it is possible for a post to be rejectable on more than ground?

But there's no way that my post (the one that Judith started this thread about) could *possibly* be construed as "meta-discussion", even by URCM "moderators" with an axe to grind! Terms such as "unconstructive" are vague enough that they can be (ab)used to block virtually any post, but "meta-discussion" is a different matter. How does "But doesn't it make sense for everyone if faster traffic is segregated from slower, more vulnerable traffic?" amount in any way to discussing URCM moderation decisions, the way URCM is being run/used or anything else "meta"?

I don't know whether Leighton was actually talking about Judith's post (she originally posted her OP on this thread to URCM, and it was rejected). If so he clearly hasn't been paying much attention as it was quite obvious what Judith was referring to.