Nuxx:MPG.2567ca3b7c0d378c9896ac@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Chapstick  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Formal Complaint uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:56:14 -0000 References: <7lq71fF3emtruU1@mid.individual.net> <7lqffuF3egahcU1@mid.individual.net> <1j8x0op.1z03mvba2d2erN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> <20091109150428.173b1592@bluemoon> <7lsppeF3fevimU1@mid.individual.net>  <7lvhl3F3fhpqcU1@mid.individual.net>  <7lvq3fF3g8fo6U1@mid.individual.net> <7lvtcmF3b9ms6U1@mid.individual.net>  <7m009qF3faq8kU1@mid.individual.net>  <7m01uaF3fr7g3U1@mid.individual.net>  <7m0mdhF3g763tU1@mid.individual.net>   <6d4nf5t5c1qqvgfufpo4e9663huv41n3tc@4ax.com>  <1j923vc.1qkjplqgctwmwN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>  Lines: 48 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.13 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091112-1, 12/11/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: ebe2c5f3.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=kdQKYimoJniciY>OC:LG7`nok4Z\, andyl@azaal.plus.com says... > > newsgroups restricted to unn.moderation > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:15:49 +0000, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > > Clive George  wrote: > > > >> Even MattB > > > > You expect your moderation decisions to be respected when moderators use > > intemperate language such as this? > > Which moderator did that then? Clive isn't a moderator

has to wonder why you, he and the other "moderators" continue to lie about that...it's yet another element of routine dishonesty in the "running" of URCM.
 * YES HE IS*. As you well know he "moderates" under a pseudonym.  One

Clearly you're trying to make it look like URCM has more support than it does by wheeling him out as a "non-moderator" who just happens to support the "moderators" every time there's any criticism of URCM, but as usual with the various deceptions that we've had from the URCM "moderators", it's ill thought out and totally inadequate, and it involves an assumption that everyone else is a lot more gullible than they actually are.

> You read the RFD and CFV (you voted against)

Yes, of course. You all keep a record of who voted against URCM so that you can discriminate against their posts when "moderating". Voting against URCM, along with posting awkward truths about anti-motorist measures, is a cardinal sin if you don't want every one of your posts to URCM to be delayed and/or censored. That's exactly the way some of us thought it was going to be from the very beginning, and sadly we've been proven completely correct.

> so you should know > who the moderators are. There have been a number of posts to > unn.moderation and urc pointing this out (some by Clive). However if > you have forgotten the former and missed all the other posts it is dead > simple to check rather than spew forth groundless accusations.

Ridiculous.

-- Nobby