Nuxx:MPG.268c88a3a4bd119a98979c@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feeder.news-service.com!eweka.nl!hq-usenetpeers.eweka.nl!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!reader02.news.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: FAO Simon Brooke / Tips on How to Avoid URCM Rejections Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:10:32 +0100 References:  Lines: 35 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100623-1, 23/06/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: c1c34e0d.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=AD2Kj]f3nQ;E3WMIEjoi@2YjZGX^207P;`9A[DYkm6G7= X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 3070 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:31381

In article , guy.c@nothing.invalid says... > > More pathetic censorship

Good to see that at least when I reposted but referred to "a particular poster" rather than "Simon Brooke", it was let through. I still don't see how on Earth the original post could be in any way called a "personal attack" (and I doubt Simon would have taken it as such), but looking at the "recent activity" timings, it would appear that Jackson probably rejected it, and we all know that he likes to gag anyone who disagrees with him. (Does *anyone* here think the rejected post was a personal attack? Seriously, please say if so.)

Presumably a less fuckwitted "moderator" (perhaps Danny Colyer, again going by the timings) let through the resubmission, and he will no doubt be getting a bollocking from the Chief for doing so, as I'm sure the Chief would have rejected once again with some equally ridiculous excuse. He didn't want that post (and the opinions expressed therein) on his newsgroup, and now he's been defied, not only by me when I reposted it, but also by one of his underlings. No doubt he's fuming, and my heart bleeds, it really does.

Anyway the lesson here, almost certainly, is to try to post at times when the more unreasonable "moderators" (Jackson, Clinch and Braggins mostly) are less likely to be on Censorship Duty. Otherwise the lesson can only be "Don't refer to any clique members by name or it will be construed as a 'personal attack' whatever you're actually saying about them, and however easily one could still discover the identity of the person if you were just to refer to them as 'a particular poster'".

It would be interesting to see what percentage of controversial rejections have been by the above three "moderators". I suspect it's very high, and so possibly the easiest and most popular solution to the URCM problem would be to get rid of them and see how it goes.