Nuxx:68abf5f1-00c5-42b9-b14e-b15a50b43c23@w7g2000yqe.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!w7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <68abf5f1-00c5-42b9-b14e-b15a50b43c23@w7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Address needed before posting Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 15:44:16 -0800 (PST) References:    <1jwzqeb.hwcyez6jleb1N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>  <8sd6d8F4moU1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 21 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 1298245456 31185 127.0.0.1 (20 Feb 2011 23:44:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:44:16 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: w7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5.8; U; en) Presto/2.7.62 Version/11.01,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2487 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:37695

On Feb 20, 6:55=A0pm, "The Todal"  wrote: > > You aren't really applying your minds to the problem.

Superb post, particularly the bit about U-turns.

After this thread there can't be anyone left who doesn't see that the "moderators" are determined to moderate by personality and opinion rather than content, and that was always the real reason for URCM's formation. No amount of reasoning or criticism will persuade them to change the way they do things because they're already well aware of the problem, they just don't see it as a problem, they see it as a successful implementation of their plan to set up a private club where they can hide from inconvenient truths.

The problem will not go away until change is forced or a large number of the current shower resign. Surely even the most charitable of us can see by now that the "moderators" (apart from Eleanor Blair at any rate) simply don't have the will to run a fairly moderated newsgroup. What other possible explanation even remotely fits the behaviour we've seen from them again and again?