Nuxx:967d576e-54ac-4591-a812-606800e5220d@j11g2000yqh.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!j11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <967d576e-54ac-4591-a812-606800e5220d@j11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling,uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Why Have Some Who Called URC "Unusable" Returned? Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:09:57 -0800 (PST) Lines: 24 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1297444198 26746 127.0.0.1 (11 Feb 2011 17:09:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:09:58 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j11g2000yqh.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: 2402 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:799032

Nearly a couple of years ago now, some of the people clamouring for URCM's creation said they wanted it because URC had "become unusable". Yet now we see that some of those people have come back to URC. Why is this?

I appreciate that some who wanted URCM have been dissatisfied with its operation, and so may be using URC simply because it's the only alternative for UK cycling on Usenet. But there are other people, who have always defended URCM's "unique" moderation style and still use URCM, who have come back to URC as well.

I'm genuinely curious as to why this is: Do they feel that URC has improved? Did they find themselves missing aspects of URC which are not replicated in URCM (e.g. the allowance of particular opposing opinions)? Were they maybe "exaggerating" how unusable URC was because they wanted URCM to be created for reasons which they didn't want to divulge? Or something else perhaps?

I just find it slightly odd that someone could say "Help, I can't stand URC, so please go to the trouble of creating URCM because we desperately need it", get URCM exactly as they want it, and then come back to URC: what exactly is the point in using both groups? Do they maybe use URC when they want to hear from their opponents, and URCM when they don't?