Nuxx:65662e0e-3332-4bd8-9b98-53f27709b223@p16g2000vbo.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!p16g2000vbo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <65662e0e-3332-4bd8-9b98-53f27709b223@p16g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM Bore Poll Results: Not What Jackson Wanted? Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 04:59:28 -0800 (PST) References:  <623d9489-13b1-459b-98d1-2bc2c3070dd5@w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>   <95b2dece-cf7f-4674-b454-425726064f8d@a28g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> Lines: 36 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 1299416368 27537 127.0.0.1 (6 Mar 2011 12:59:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:59:28 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: p16g2000vbo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110218 Firefox/3.6.14,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3354 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38516

On Mar 6, 11:57=A0am, Simon Mason  wrote: > On Mar 5, 11:45=A0pm, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > . =A0It looks as though we owe Eleanor Blair a debt of gratitude for > > > getting the ball rolling, and I hope she won't be intimidated or > > bludgeoned into relenting (not that there's any sign of that > > thankfully). =A0She has done more good for URCM in her short time as > > moderator than all the others combined ever have. > > Does that include when she said this? > > "Yes, you are banned. =A0You should also have received confirmation by > mail."

Why should I hold that against her personally? I asked a question, and she answered, which is more than the other "moderators" usually do. All she was doing was reporting the consensus of the "moderators" on a decision which was made before she even arrived. Even if she was vehemently against the ban (and I strongly suspect that she isn't in favour of the bans on either Judith or me), she could hardly say so in public, and it wouldn't make any difference to anything if she was unless others also were.

Eleanor was the one who approved my post to URCM "by mistake" (and had the decency to apologise for doing so by email). By her own admission she wasn't looking at *who* was posting, but *what* was being posted...a fatal mistake if you believe some, but I think it's more evidence that she's the kind of moderator we need. (Yes, that's right, I don't put "moderator" in quotes when describing her.)

I stand by what I said above, and I hope you can now see why. Eleanor Blair could eventually turn things round in the way that people thought Sara might have if she had stayed on (not that I think anyone blames her for resigning...if you're a rational, decent-minded person then being outwardly on the same team as Jackson must be a trial indeed!)