Nuxx:MPG.268a77bfcb7a9f03989795@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!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news2.euro.net!feeder.news-service.com!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling,uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: The info that the URCM mods didn't want you to see (for Simon Brooke) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:34:04 +0100 References: <884gkdF60tU1@mid.individual.net>     <9tudnc_UgMThLYLRnZ2dnUVZ7tqdnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 31 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 100621-1, 21/06/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: a4636972.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=?f1;3o`Sjl5UHB`dYe30o5nok4Z\, Frank.Leake@gmail.com says... > > Look you fucking thick cunt

Oh dear, no cake for you. You don't care that URCM is being run as a private club when it shouldn't be because the opinions being "enforced" are the same as yours. If they weren't then you'd be the first to complain. You're happy for perfectly reasonable, necessary rules to be disregarded as long as you benefit personally..."I'm all right Jack, and sod usenet". Self-centred or what?

It's the same with the other URCM apologists (moderators, wannabe moderators and tosspots alike): they say "It's being run impartially" but what they really mean is "It's not being run impartially, which suits me fine since my opinions are the same as the 'permitted' ones, but we all have to pretend it is being run impartially because otherwise the group [quite rightly] wouldn't be allowed on usenet". Dreadful dishonesty. Not *one* URCM supporter has had the guts to be upfront about the situation for even a moment. That in itself tells you so much about their mentality, and they use the same sort of deceitful approach when discussing all sorts of "difficult" subjects. If in doubt, engineer a charade and lie through your teeth: it's better than "losing". Despicable.

BTW do you think it makes you look sophisticated to studiously ignore the fact that "tosspot" has developed a new, much more common definition? Do you insist on similarly using "gay", "bitch" and "cock" as well? Stick-in-the-mud, implacably opposed to the grain and proud of it? Do you think it's a sign of intelligence to insist on living in the past, you stupid old man?