Nuxx:MPG.2628452c646429b9989727@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!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.freenet.ag!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!news.mediascape.de!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM : Question to Moderators Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 20:56:01 +0100 References: <989sr5hdqhoj4ki1sj7ltild6kuucd2bga@4ax.com>  Lines: 54 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 100408-1, 08/04/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 88713da5.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=<?GXFBb2?YIe@hNFIWl:K@0g@SS;SF6nGR9OH0:RnENDGfk7D_jF1XC`:ITG5aA:cGL_OSPmP\?HF X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 3283 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:29246

In article , key@under.the.invalid says... > > JMS  wrote in > news:989sr5hdqhoj4ki1sj7ltild6kuucd2bga@4ax.com: > > > I recently stated that I had a Dutch bike which only had a rear > > brake. People pointed out it was probably illegal. > > > > Interesting posts from a few of the regulars: > > > >================================================================= > > Chapman: > > > > Funny, I thought the OP was a stickler for legality and safety. > > Maybe there is some device they think will protect them from the > > consequences of this rather dangerous setup :-) > > > >================================================================= > > David Hanson: > > > > It is mildly amusing to see someone who often goes on about > > cyclists not obeying the law hoist by their own petard. > > > > However, we should not labour the point as that would be against > > the concept of pleasant discussions about cycling, without the > > heat which certain people deliberately generated in another > > newsgroup, which this group was set up for. > > > >================================================================= > > > > Reply by Chapman: > > > > Perish the thort. Hem-hem. > > > >================================================================ > > Clive George: > > You might find more fun starting this thread in ulm. > > > >================================================================= > > > > I replied to each post to point out my surprise that they were > > allowed in a moderated group; but of course my queries were all > > rejected "meta". > > > > Perhaps some on the moderation panel would like to comment on the > > above posts - are such posts really acceptable in URCM - or does > > it depend on who makes the post and who it is a reply to? > > They all seem rather mild and inoffensive to me.

But why were they allowed through when Judith's replies weren't? We all know the answer: the "moderators" dislike the awkward truths that Judith has posted on URC and so are determined to make her unwelcome on URCM.