Nuxx:719a2ea4-775d-4e92-b14e-c1b6628782a0@k15g2000vbp.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!k15g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <719a2ea4-775d-4e92-b14e-c1b6628782a0@k15g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:52:28 -0700 (PDT) References:  <8voaovF386U3@mid.individual.net> Lines: 82 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 1301773948 13233 127.0.0.1 (2 Apr 2011 19:52:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 19:52:28 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: k15g2000vbp.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: 5441 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39934

On Apr 2, 11:06=A0am, Tony Raven  wrote: > "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote: > > > I suspect Wm. would say "fuck it, their loss" and wander off to do > > something more interesting. That's what sane people generally do in suc= h > > circumstances. > > I must say I find it curious as to why Nuxx is so desperate to be allowed > to join urcm.

Well, Phony Moany Tony, I think you'll find that it was something like 3 months between when I was banned and when I first mentioned it on UNNM. Does that sound like desperation to you? Also, I made maybe a dozen approved posts and a handful of rejected ones to URCM while I was allowed to post. Are those the actions of someone who is "desperate to be allowed to join URCM" do you think?

> Perhaps he could enlighten us. =A0Does he want to talk about > about his cycles and cycling or about car-haters and their redemption?

Just a hunch, but looking back at what I have actually posted to URCM is probably the best way of seeing what kind of posts I'm likely to make. We have posts like these:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling.moderated/msg/9d7451e434cdf3d= a

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling.moderated/msg/a3554d0865ccc15= 1

Be honest now, do you see anything wrong with them? You may not be particularly interested in them, but if someone wants to be on URCM, and occasionally make posts like those, then why on Earth should they not be allowed to do so? At the end of the day, URCM is supposed to be a public newsgroup, so it's not up to me to make a huge long case for why I want to be there, it's up to the "moderators" to make a convincing case for banning me if they want to, and they've singularly failed to do so. Why are they so desperate to keep me out? Have you noticed that they seem rather keen to stop particular opinions from being posted? What are they afraid of do you think?

As you know, my ban was nothing to do with any posts that I (actually) made to URCM, it was to do with some of the "moderators" and their supporters disliking me and my opinions, and holding my behaviour on other groups against me even years later. Do you even deny that? Do you think that's OK, and never mind what "the rules" are or whether we've all been lied to ever since the initial pre-RFD? Do you think the "end justifies the means"? Well I don't think it's OK, and so apart from anything else I object to both bans on principle.

I'm not "desperate" to get back in, and *when* (not "if") I do, I will probably post at around the same rate as before. Nevertheless, if someone like you or Chapman posts something particularly disingenuous about motorists or similar, I want to be able to challenge that if I feel it necessary, and no-one has a right to stop me. Just because you, Chapman and the "moderators" might not like people challenging your dogma, it doesn't mean that it's OK for you to stop them from doing so on false pretences.

> I fear it's very much like the knocking of the Jehovah's Witnesses at the > doors of the unbelievers.

As long as I'm posting on-charter, neither you nor anyone else should be concerned about my supposed reasons for posting. Chapman mostly posts to uk.rec.cycling.moderated because he wants to further his authoritarian anti-motorist agenda, but as long as he remains on the charter, he should still be allowed to post, and if he were banned for the same sorts of flimsy "reasons" as Judith and I were banned, I would object to that too. (Of course he wouldn't ever be banned because he's "on message".)

You see, people like Tom Crispin and me try to be objective and fair, and want to see the rules applied evenly to everyone; people like you and Chapman are sticklers for the rules when it suits you, but throw them out of the window when *that* suits you. All you're really concerned with is making the playing field uneven in favour of those who you agree with. So as long as you support the way that URCM is being "moderated", that in itself is a sure sign that it's being done in a highly partisan and improper fashion.

(You're not as bad as Chapman. But everything's relative.)