Nuxx:0ab692c1-5ae1-4bc5-b21c-bdb6ef7b72b4@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <0ab692c1-5ae1-4bc5-b21c-bdb6ef7b72b4@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Moderated group voting procedure Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:16:30 -0700 (PDT) References:   Lines: 35 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.153.43.65 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248599790 15043 127.0.0.1 (26 Jul 2009 09:16:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:16:30 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.153.43.65; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3222 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:720349

On Jul 24, 6:15=A0pm, JNugent  wrote: > Secondly and more importantly, I take the view that if some people wish t= o > set up a new newsgroup, that's up to them.

Even if that new newsgroup is blatantly going to be run by a clique who intend to routinely censor particular opinions that certain people don't like because they can't refute them but they don't want them to be true? Do you think usenet is the place for private clubs where members can complain about others (e.g. motorists) without anyone being able to argue with their nonsense? Do you think it's right that they're trying to circumvent the process by pretending they want a "moderated" group when actually they have no intention whatsoever of applying truly impartial moderation, just censorship?

If you do subscribe to the new group, they'll be looking for any excuse they can possibly find to ban you and your posts, simply because you have the "wrong" opinions. No matter that you never troll or wind people up, and somehow manage never to have a go at even the nastiest and most deceitful of the car-hating nutters: the fact that you dare to argue with the party line is enough for most here ("moderators" included) to want to gag you.

If the whole exercise had truly been about impartial moderation, then you would have been asked to be a moderator yourself. But as it is, only "moderators" who are "on message", and sufficiently intolerant of opposing opinions (so no Simon Mason for example), have been chosen (and by one person at that), to ensure that censorship in the new group runs smoothly (and is undisputed by anyone who has any power).

That is why we must stop the new group now, during the voting stage, before it's too late, and Jackson and the rest are thumbing their nose at us, having pulled a fast one and got their censored heaven where they'll never again have to read those nasty true opinions that they find so troublesome.