Nuxx:Fef3828a-cfdb-41d4-a5ad-fbf2f4151517@k38g2000vbn.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!k38g2000vbn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM is now dead Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:27:38 -0800 (PST) References:   <20110224135120.715c9f6c@bluemoon>   <1jx7mqv.930q4115d14d1N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>    <0d1cc6d6-037f-4d44-b17b-ec40686707ec@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> <1jx94xr.18odck8bk935wN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> <4804b5ba-c504-4b89-9508-4a385565050d@k18g2000vbq.googlegroups.com> <155804ad-f368-45f5-8bae-81d302fc34e4@m7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 54 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 1298658458 4268 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2011 18:27:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:27:38 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: k38g2000vbn.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: 4850 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:37986

On Feb 25, 5:44=A0pm, Simon Mason  wrote: > > Can you point me to any of the posts in urcm that Guy has made which > would show him to be the character you describe, because I haven't > seen any?

Intended provocation:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling.moderated/msg/6ad73266fa6cc5d= 0

Yes, it's not exactly a vicious attack, but it does show that he enjoys stirring more than you seem to think. It's by no means the only example. As for deliberate obfuscation, well, I don't *know* of any examples on URCM, but his response to being caught out regarding Lou Knee could not be a clearer instance of that. He desperately tried to throw all sorts of technical irrelevance in the way, and to get people to think he didn't make the post without actually saying he didn't, which is deceitful if not quite a lie. I also strongly suspect that he has lied about killfiling people, as detailed elsewhere in this thread. Still, if you think he's a great guy then that's up to you, it just surprises me that's all. Many others have said that he's just as responsible for the "problems" on URC as anyone else.

Incidentally the linked URCM post is one of the main problems I have with the "moderation": preferential treatment for people who, like Chapman, have the "right" transport-related opinions. That post of Chapman's was manually approved when it clearly shouldn't have been (presumably you agree with me there). If I had posted something like that, before being banned, there's no way it would have been approved. What compounded it was that when I posted on UNNM asking why it was approved, no "moderator" bothered replying, and when I tried to reply (without abuse) to Chapman's post on URCM, my post was blocked. It's very hard to put all that down to anything but bloody- mindedness from the "moderators" towards the likes of me. If they had approved Chapman's post by mistake then they would have said so.

Similar abuse was permitted against Judith, Matt B and me many times. I really don't see how that is in any way necessary in order to have a "pleasant cycling group". Things may have got better more recently though. It seems that such blatant and vexatious bias *may* now be a thing of the past, but there has been no public statement of regret for the previous unfairness, and we still have the instigator of that unfairness at the helm, who appears unrepentant and seems to want to force URCM back into the Dark Ages if anything.

It's the apparent nastiness, vindictiveness and maliciousness behind some of the moderation decisions and rejection notices we've seen which I think gets people's backs up about URCM. If it were all just well-meaning incompetence then that would be a different matter. Nor has the nastiness just been towards those who aren't considered "ordinary cyclists" by Jackson, as Ian Smith and Tom Crispin will tell you.