Nuxx:A074ebd3-0838-4561-8f44-c4e56ade2cfc@v16g2000vbq.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!v16g2000vbq.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 06:15:39 -0800 (PST) References: <4_ydnZpOJKf8keXQnZ2dnUVZ8jKdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>  <3fd9f5fc-ab1e-4b80-8141-f8ca23c707d8@u14g2000vbg.googlegroups.com> <1b69b10d-4e22-4938-8067-da805b1a0fb7@p12g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> Lines: 52 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 1299766539 6509 127.0.0.1 (10 Mar 2011 14:15:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:15:39 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: v16g2000vbq.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 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3998 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38668

On Mar 10, 10:22=A0am, Simon Mason  wrote: > > Judith's reason for wanting access to urcm is to abuse her previous > targets who are now not available to her. She has no interest in > cycling (she pretends to have one) and her behaviour will be the same > as in urc.

Has that been borne out by the posts that she has actually made to uk.rec.cycling.moderated? If you're so sure that she's going to abuse people on URCM then why not wait for her to actually do so before banning her? Then a ban would be pretty difficult to argue with, wouldn't it?

Do you think it's right that they have never yet given Judith an official reason for her ban? Why do you suppose the "moderators" are continually so secretive and reluctant to answer simple and reasonable questions? Doesn't that indicate to you that they know that what they're doing isn't entirely on the level? Why would they have anything to hide if they were genuinely trying to do what they claimed they were going to do in the initial RFD? Does it matter to you if the initial RFD was a calculated deception, as long as the group is now what you want it to be?

> From your previous posts, ignoring the abuse Guy got, the subject > matter would be solely car centric. Mainly rants about safety cameras > and the so called "war" on the motorist, so again, not really any > relevance to cycling and much more suitable for posting in > uk.rec.driving.

Remember, people were supposed to get a clean sheet on URCM. Can you honestly say that, based on my posts to URCM, I should be banned?

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?qt_s=3D1&q=3Dauthor%3Anuxx%40bar.inv= alid+group%3Auk.rec.cycling.moderated

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?qt_s=3D1&q=3Dauthor%3Aguy.c%40nothin= g.invalid+group%3Auk.rec.cycling.moderated

Do you honestly think that none of those posts were relevant to cycling, and none of them were of any value to any cyclist? Do you honestly think that I would have been banned if it wasn't for the fact that Jackson and co disliked me due to my behaviour on URC (and my criticism of the regime on UNNM)?

Do you think I should be banned from URCM? Especially when the "reason" given for that ban was a *suspicion* that I posted forgeries to *UNNM*? If Jackson wants to take account of people's behaviour outside URCM then why not make that official? Why is he forever saying one thing to placate reasonable people, then doing another? Why is he so bloody dishonest? Can you see why he gets people's backs up, or are you as oblivious to his shortcomings as you are to Chapman's?