Nuxx:MPG.262b1cbbfb05ba2498973b@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!news.glorb.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.201.147.84.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Question for URCM Moderators Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 00:40:11 +0100 References:  Lines: 46 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 557eda54.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=diLVbQ`=Jhk:V^i7Zf86Zdnok4Z\k X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 3101 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:761112

In article , guy.c@nothing.invalid says... > > Could someone please comment on why this post from Chapman was manually > approved when it was clearly inflammatory? > > http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling.moderated/msg/6ad73266fa6c > c5d0 > > If I had said "The one remaining question is why you're bothering to > reply to Chapman" then would my post have got through?

I posted the following reply at 1330. It's been held in the "queue" ever since despite other posts being manually approved since. Obviously the "moderators" are having a bit of a dilemma: they know they *should* let the post through, but they don't want to for the usual sorts of "reasons", so they're desperately trying to think of a rejection excuse which won't make them look even worse on UNNM (which of course isn't possible).

I'll be interested to see what that excuse turns out to be when they do finally reject the post. After the approval of Chapman's post, "inflammatory" would surely be beyond the pale even for URCM, but with the track record of the "moderators" who knows?

--- Subject: Re: Should Fast and Slow Traffic be Segregated? From: Guy Cuthbertson 

People's replies have convinced me that segregation at junctions is mostly unworkable, although on longish stretches without junctions I still think that segregating cyclists from powered vehicles is potentially worthwhile, as long as the bit for cyclists is still clearly part of the "main road" to avoid every driveway turning into a junction as someone else said.

In article , guy.chapman@spamcop.net says... > > The one remaining question is why you're bothering to reply to Nuxx > Bar :-)

Please don't make inflammatory comments. No-one else is doing so and others have found this thread interesting judging by the number of replies. No-one is attacking you on this newsgroup so why do you have to attack others?