Nuxx:Ae43c163-b511-4c06-a022-c1a56b10f364@u12g2000vbf.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!u12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Address needed before posting Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:28:57 -0800 (PST) References:        Lines: 58 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 1298508193 4902 127.0.0.1 (24 Feb 2011 00:43:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:43:13 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: u12g2000vbf.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: 3769 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:37799

On Feb 23, 10:47=A0pm, Tom Crispin  wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:48:22 +0000, Judith  > wrote: > > > > > > >On 23 Feb 2011 11:17:12 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson > > wrote: > > >>In article , > >>Geoff Berrow =A0 wrote: > >>>On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:44:02 +0000, Danny Colyer > >>> wrote: > >>>>I don't know what reasons Peter Fox might have given for his leaving, > >>>>but he did not resign because he was unhappy with the moderation proc= ess. > > >>>Oh, really? > > >>Yes, it is true that Peter Fox was unhappy with the moderation > >>process. =A0Nevertheless, the conclusion that Peter Fox resigned, for > >>these reasons, is false. > > >>As Danny says, if Peter wants to explain the circumstances then that > >>is up to him. > > >I thought that his message to me: > > >"FUCK OFF YOU SNIVELLING TURD" > > >showed that he had all the attributes and tact required of an URCM > >moderator. > > Normally, yes, but not when he had produced a web page openly critical > of the regime.

Note that he didn't actually mention URCM anywhere on the page. But that, it seems, didn't save him. Scary stuff.

I dread to think what would result if a party consisting of Jackson and like-minded individuals came to power. No cars, and if you're disabled and want to get anywhere without a train/tram/bus service then you're stuffed (it's for the "greater good"); no more elections; people being thrown in prison indefinitely with no reason being given; rampant Communism; and absolutely no criticism of the regime, even implied criticism, because the Secret Police are everywhere, both offline and online (at least in the places where you're still allowed to go online).

I really and truly think that if Jackson had free reign over how the country was run, it would be like that, and it would be an incredibly oppressive, nightmarish, dystopian experience for us all (even those who had initially voted Jackson in on false promises....) In view of that it's probably best that he's focussing his extreme authoritarianism on something unimportant like URCM rather than anything which might actually affect society.