Nuxx:9bee8df3-9743-4d24-84e2-9d0a1fc0457b@e9g2000vbk.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!e9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <9bee8df3-9743-4d24-84e2-9d0a1fc0457b@e9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM is now working pretty well on the whole Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 06:06:22 -0800 (PST) References:    <1c0dm656abu5cb5i5q15r5saa9oeq3hnn5@4ax.com> <1jx7bxi.prxj5027n83rN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> <8b2dm6p7rsfig3ph3qnbknaa0vdfrp7dl8@4ax.com> <1jx7d08.11lk0kk1tcc8b6N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>    <1jx8kch.8kp6n419un11cN%NEWS@sarlet.com>  <1jx9aup.1u0v49i1ugq448N%NEWS@sarlet.com>    Lines: 34 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 1299333982 22342 127.0.0.1 (5 Mar 2011 14:06:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:06:22 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110218 Firefox/3.6.14,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3686 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38486

On Mar 5, 1:07=A0pm, Clive George  wrote: > On 05/03/2011 12:38, Sara wrote: > > > In article, > > =A0 Clive George =A0wrote: > > >> Of course if you're not interested in keeping usenet alive, what are y= ou > >> doing posting here? > > > Should someone feel they have to make an effort to post to a group that > > doesn't seem much fun to them, just to keep usenet alive? > > Usenet is made by the posters. Those who don't post, and there are > several people on this group who post significantly more here than on > either of urc or urcm despite claiming to be interested in cycling on > usenet in the uk, aren't doing anything to help what they profess to be > interested in.

So if they're interested in cycling, but they're dissatisfied with the way that URCM is being run, you expect them to post to URCM anyway to "save Usenet"? Just an idea but wouldn't it be better to improve the "moderation" of URCM so that the people you refer to will post to URCM because they actually want to? Would you rather have a group of people who are posting out of some sense of duty when they don't really enjoy it, or a group of people who want to be there?

Sorry Clive, but I don't think the many who are fed up with Jackson and co's "moderation" are to blame...I rather think that the Jackson apologists, mentioning no names, are more responsible, as they are helping to maintain the status quo and put people off posting. So if you really want to help URCM then you'll come out against Jackson's draconian censorship. Unless, of course, you don't want to help cycling on Usenet, in which case why are you here? ;-)