Nuxx:D6c109dc-0df8-4ad0-84a2-56d08a93a7cc@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 23:02:01 -0700 (PDT) References:          <24d88795-f3d2-44b7-b3c8-53626033b4a5@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>  <0ZqdnS-3L6rXfdDXnZ2dnUVZ8jednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>   <_jn4m.52269$OO7.33786@text.news.virginmedia.com> Lines: 28 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.163.209.43 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1246946521 3874 127.0.0.1 (7 Jul 2009 06:02:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 06:02:01 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.163.209.43; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3426 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:55644 uk.rec.cycling:6840

On Jul 6, 2:51=A0pm, "The Happy Hippy"  wrote: > I am still of the opinion that moderation will be - and is intended to be= - > to make it one rule for some and another for others. Any reason to reject= a > post will be used against some, while any reason to approve a post will b= e > used for others. That amounts to censorship not moderation.

That's quite possibly the best description of the proposed URCM that I've seen. As ever, the perpetrators seem to think they're being terribly clever and pulling the wool over people's eyes, but as ever, they underestimate people and hardly anyone is genuinely fooled.

Unfortunately, despite this deception, the group is still likely to pass because a sufficient number of voters agree with what is being done (even if they're too gutless and/or worried that the proposal would be blocked to say so, and instead just go along with the charade). A few notable "regulars" (e.g. Ian Smith, Tom Crispin) have shown that they do have principles after all by opposing the censorship, but the majority have confirmed that they're perfectly happy to be dishonest if they think it'll get them what they want.

(Of course, it won't really be what they want, because eventually URCM of URC regulars and idiotic shortsightedness go together like bread and butter.)
 * and* URC will die thanks to this proposal, but the dishonest majority