Nuxx:A19e7bd5-c6f1-406b-9d09-5188a4bd57f7@hd10g2000vbb.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!hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM Post Held for Over 3 Days! Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 11:35:59 -0700 (PDT) References: <654cd483-0bd0-451b-a1c8-44d08e152075@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com>   <4d957ae7$0$22746$c3e8da3$63ee2bc3@news.astraweb.com> <1e4bp61hu963gh8n2noienmm42t3msmks2@4ax.com>   Lines: 20 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 1301682959 24175 127.0.0.1 (1 Apr 2011 18:35:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 18:35:59 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: hd10g2000vbb.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: 2595 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39833

On Apr 1, 7:04=A0pm, Geoff Berrow  wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 09:56:47 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar > >  wrote: > >Hopefully that post will have addressed the (stated) concerns of the > >"moderators". =A0So now we'll see whether they find a different excuse > >to reject it, admit that they think Micky Frost is actually a banned > >poster, or just allow the post since it conforms to the charter. =A0The > >last option is the best for the "moderators" if they want to stay in a > >job; it's also the most unlikely, which says a lot, and we get the > >same thing time and time again. > > Will they require all posters to cite references for all future posts > quoting report material, I wonder?

One would hope not, since URCM is not Wikipedia (and a very good thing too, since Chapman is an admin there...god only knows what they were thinking when they made that decision. Although there have been several RFCs arising from him abusing his admin privileges...maybe URCM isn't so dissimilar to Wikipedia after all!)