Nuxx:3486d2b0-5b4e-4d3e-b984-6a0f7428c091@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3486d2b0-5b4e-4d3e-b984-6a0f7428c091@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config Subject: Re: RFD: delete newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:41:46 -0700 (PDT) References:      <88s19mFtigU17@mid.individual.net> 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 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1277880106 31804 127.0.0.1 (30 Jun 2010 06:41:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:41:46 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100611 Firefox/3.6.4 GTB7.0 GTBA,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3363 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:61002

On Jun 28, 5:35 pm, Simon Brooke  wrote: > We have our faults, but dishonesty, bias and > favouritism are not among them.

Are you seriously claiming that you aren't remotely biased against Matt B, Judith, me, Derek C and other people who dare not to share the opinions on helmets etc that you and the other URCM moderators mysteriously and quite coincidentally all have in common?

Are you seriously claiming that when you let through inflammatory posts towards the aforementioned from those who share your opinions, but then stop the aforementioned from defending themselves (often ironically by saying that *they* are being inflammatory), you are not showing favouritism? Honestly?

If you really think those things, you're deluded, and if you don't, then you are indeed dishonest in claiming otherwise. With you personally, I'm not quite sure which it is.

(I note that *finally*, now that this RFD is on the table, an insult from an "in" person towards an "out" person has just been rejected (although there was still a "sorry" involved...another example of the blatant bias is that only "in" people get polite rejections). It's clearly a token gesture, it's too little too late, and it absolutely won't wash to suddenly start being reasonable now that you (plural) are scared of your private club being vanquished from uk.* (where private clubs absolutely do not belong). People aren't that stupid and they don't have such short memories.

The many previous approvals of jibes from the "in" crowd are a matter of record and will be individually cited as part of this process. The history of approved posts, together with those rejections reported on UNNM, provides irrefutable evidence that URCM is absolutely not being run according to what was promised, whether or not it's "working" for some people. Still, nice to know that you're all scared of what might happen. So you bloody well should be.)