Nuxx:F0b1a5f9-db24-4898-b095-c9d23978a4d3@a26g2000vbo.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!a26g2000vbo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Moderated cycling group : posts rejected Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 01:51:30 -0700 (PDT) References:       Lines: 50 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1302079890 19418 127.0.0.1 (6 Apr 2011 08:51:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:51:30 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: a26g2000vbo.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: 3857 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:40385

On Apr 6, 7:55 am, Mark Goodge  wrote: > On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 22:34:05 +0100, Tom Crispin put finger to keyboard and > typed: > > > > >On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:21:42 +0100, Mark Goodge > > wrote: > > >>On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:14:56 +0100, Micky Frost put finger to keyboard and > >>typed: > > >>>Does that mean I cannot post to the group, even if I use my Virgin > >>>address? How do you think I should provide evidence that I am not > >>>that other person? > > >>As Clive George has already said, the best way of doing that is to build up > >>a posting history in other groups. > > >I thought that it was explicitly stated during the RFD that posting > >history in other groups would not count for anything. > > It doesn't. But the moderators appear to be of the opinion that Micky Frost > is another sock on the same hand that operates Judith. If Micky Frost can > demonstrate that that isn't the case, then that particular reason for > banning him from the group disappears. And the best way of doing that is to > build up a posting history in a variety of groups, as the more posts he > makes about his own interests and concerns the more obvious it will become > that he is a separate individual. Unless, of course, the moderators are > right, in which case the more he posts the more obvious that will become, > too.

It's hardly a nice way of welcoming someone: "We're not even going to let you post until you build up a 'history' in other groups, just because in our opinion you sound like a banned poster, and even if you do build up a 'history' in other groups, there's no guarantee that we won't decide that you're the banned poster anyway and still refuse to let you post". If Micky Frost is new to Usenet, it seems like such a huge task to build up that history, just so he can (possibly) post to URCM, that he's very unlikely to bother. Anyway, some people on Usenet only post to one group, and they shouldn't be treated differently to anyone else because of that.

Would you *ever* want to tarnish UKRC's reputation by treating someone like that, even if you thought they might be a banned poster? Surely allowing them to post, at least initially, would be the lesser of two evils? Say you banned "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"; if you suspected, but had no evidence, that a new poster was actually him, what would you do?