Nuxx:8d118667-5a4f-4eb0-8192-f51080fc191e@e21g2000vbz.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!e21g2000vbz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <8d118667-5a4f-4eb0-8192-f51080fc191e@e21g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Moderated cycling group : posts rejected Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:15:13 -0700 (PDT) References:   <4d9b9be9$0$19003$c3e8da3$47a2c32d@news.astraweb.com>  <4d9c14d0$0$31956$c3e8da3$f6d5ad96@news.astraweb.com> <2g6op6putqtulgqgqgp1hpfg0g0apibfrd@4ax.com> <87vcyr7lc8.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk>    Lines: 33 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 1302088513 16497 127.0.0.1 (6 Apr 2011 11:15:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:15:13 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e21g2000vbz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=WrLs9woAAAD151hWKA9yknAtxFHW4kE4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3173 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:40413

On Apr 6, 12:03=A0pm, Geoff Berrow  wrote: > > I've seen people try > to discredit what I say by implying that I only do so because I have a > ship (sic) on my shoulder.

LOL. :-) Maybe they think you're Neptune or something?

> >They might suggest, that if there was a lot of management activity going > >on throughout the rest of the hierarchy, the issues with URCM would be > >essentially ignored. =A0A handful of vocal posters, some of which are > >clearly playful, making a lot of noise and steam, and a lot of > >subsequent support from people who don't use the group but do take part > >in the uk.* management groups. > > I don't think so. =A0Even without the 'playful' posters I really can't > see the cock ups being ignored.

I would certainly hope not. URCM is blatantly not being moderated fairly. Therefore if uk.* is functioning properly then it should intervene, otherwise there doesn't seem much point in its existence.

> Let's not for get that, although this > might be an inconsequential corner of the Internet, the core issue > here is freedom of expression, which is something a lot of people care > about very deeply.

Hear hear. Of course it's difficult to ignore the fact that people like Ian Jackson apparently think there's too much freedom of expression, and the country would be better served by censorship of the media, etc.... But thankfully I think most people cherish freedom of expression in the way that I think you mean, and don't want us to turn into Little China.