Nuxx:MPG.268dc05fee5a9a1d9897aa@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news.stack.nl!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!feed2.jnfs.ja.net!feed4.jnfs.ja.net!jnfs.ja.net!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!reader02.news.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM: Yet Another Blatant Example of Double Standards Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:20:37 +0100 References:  <4c239bf4$0$2527$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>  <4c23aa2f$0$28010$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> Lines: 33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100624-1, 24/06/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 3a14ba91.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=^R3c3e3SjRbMPDkm[1E13dYjZGX^207Pk`, ja@averyjim.myzen.co.uk says... > > > I don't really know why I'm bothering to ask, but do you think that if > > I, JMS or MattB had written a post like that, it would have been let > > through? > > No.

Thanks for your honesty...that elevates you above most URCM supporters already as most wouldn't have admitted that (and some will be annoyed that you did). Why do you think I/JMS/MattB are treated differently to you (and others) if not because of our respective opinions? It seems that the URCM moderators pigeon-hole people into "Good" and "Bad", and posts like the above are either approved or rejected according to that.

I think the pigeon-holing is done mostly according to whether you agree with the "moderators" on particular topics (e.g. cycle helmets and viewing motorists as selfish, irresponsible scum who need to be controlled and given a hard time), partly according to what you post in other groups (particularly criticising the "moderators" in UNNM), and partly according to how much of a personal dislike the current "moderator" has of the poster concerned. NONE of those things were in the URCM charter and it was explicitly denied several times by Wacko and the other "moderators" that any of them would ever happen (because it's not like some of us didn't predict it...funnily enough, Matt B, Judith and I were among those people).

So do you think it's right that those things are quite obviously happening very regularly (by your own admission)? Does it matter that URCM would never have been allowed as a uk.* newsgroup if the charter had been accurate about the above things (and that Wacko knew that all along and so lied through his teeth to get the group up and running)?