Nuxx:5ed67fd9-a62a-4b63-a5c2-89787807aa36@p3g2000vbv.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!p3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <5ed67fd9-a62a-4b63-a5c2-89787807aa36@p3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Reject - abuse Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 09:54:17 -0800 (PST) References:  Lines: 25 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 1299002057 16620 127.0.0.1 (1 Mar 2011 17:54:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:54:17 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: p3g2000vbv.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 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2382 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38255

On Mar 1, 5:27=A0pm, Tom Crispin  wrote: > This is a formal complaint that a post was incorrectly rejected from > urcm as being abusive. > > Background: > There was a discussion in urcm about a faq. A poster offered two > alternative scenarios - one with a faq and the other without a faq. > > I offered a third - equally plausible - scenario. > > My post was rejected as being abusive. I believe that the moderator > who rejected it was being over sensitive, and therefore formally > appeal against the rejection.http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/= g.urcm/messages/nr-129891...

You'll get no more of a courteous response through making a "formal" complaint, as I think you know. Still, at least now there's only a 90% chance of receiving unreasonable rejections (depending on whether Eleanor Blair is on duty). It's about 90% anyway...I can't be bothered to check exactly how many "moderators" there are in this probably brief window between the last resignation and the next one.

I liked Rob Morley's recent rejected post. Not a man who minces his words if you get on the wrong side of him ;-) Why is Wm... so peculiar?  Does his nick stand for "Weird Man"?