Nuxx:5534460e-93df-4dea-a14d-bbf4e49d458a@t10g2000vbg.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!t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <5534460e-93df-4dea-a14d-bbf4e49d458a@t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Pre-RFD: uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:27:57 -0700 (PDT) References: <2lc*4xWHs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>  Lines: 34 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1243452478 17479 127.0.0.1 (27 May 2009 19:27:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 19:27:58 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.27; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3230 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:704705

On May 26, 6:48=A0pm, jms  wrote: > On 26 May 2009 17:25:06 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson > >  wrote: > >Below is a draft of the formal RFD I plan to use to start the official > >newsgroup creation process. =A0I've been informally advised by a member > >of the usenet.org.uk Committee that we should sort out the exact > >proposed charter before taking the matter forward. > > I do not think cross-posting should or =A0will be allowed by > usenet.org.uk: =A0has this been discussed with them?

If someone else had asked that question, it would have been answered, but because you're a "troll", it's been ignored. You see, it's about who people are and what "side" they're on, not what they actually say. Personally I don't think that's a very good way to moderate a newsgroup, or a very good motive for wanting a moderated newsgroup in the first place. And it'll be *impossible* to moderate a newsgroup in that way without the bias becoming entirely obvious extremely quickly, leading to endless (and justified) complaints about "moderation" policy. Yet another reason why the whole thing's doomed to failure.

I'd have more respect for Jackson etc if they just stopped this silly lying and admitted that rather than wanting a real moderated group, they simply want to ban certain people because of who they are and what opinions they've expressed. The likes of Chapman are quite clearly never going to be banned whatever they say, while others be a proper moderated group, it will simply be a "club" where people are invited, or not, depending on who they are and their opinions. It is downright deceptive to claim that real, proper, even-handed moderation has anything to do with it, and accordingly, the whole RFD will be based on lies and deception and I will be raising this with the appropriate people at the appropriate time.
 * will* be banned whatever they say...therefore the new group will not