Nuxx:B69f68e0-40c0-4d8e-858b-e0d4bbafc77e@r4g2000vbq.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!r4g2000vbq.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 07:40:28 -0700 (PDT) References: <74d5df0d-37f8-43a7-a7d9-b5b6c6ec7934@a26g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> <546405783321530292.588814%steve%-malloc.co.uk@news.individual.net>  <8tuj8fFdm2U1@mid.individual.net>  <8u6kegFplvU1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 93 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 1300113629 21191 127.0.0.1 (14 Mar 2011 14:40:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:40:29 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r4g2000vbq.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: 5574 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38901

On Mar 14, 1:44=A0pm, "The Todal"  wrote: > Simon Mason wrote: > > On Mar 11, 12:35 pm, "The Todal"  wrote: > > >> A better analogy would be that you're in a pub and the same guy can > >> be overheard on a distant table, making provocative remarks about > >> politics or laws, and everyone is free to ignore him, or engage him > >> in conversation, either on his chosen topic or on some other more > >> interesting topic. And because he's quite intelligent he often has > >> some interesting points to make even if he does have a bee in his > >> bonnet about some topics. > > >> There is really no need to throw him out of the pub or prevent him > >> coming in, unless he is preventing other people conversing among > >> themselves or threatening violence in a way that makes people > >> fearful of their safety. > > > What if every day he directly called you a fuckwit, tosser, arsehole > > or cunt ? > > In a pub, I agree I would keep away from him and would want the landlord = to > intervene and get him to behave better or leave. That is where the analog= y > breaks down, because in a pub anyone can get through the door whereas in = a > moderated group, the contributions are filtered. In the unmoderated group= s > in usenet, rudeness and obscene words are commonplace. =A0I find they rea= lly > don't bother me. =A0In an unmoderated group we can all insult each other,= but > in the moderated group the posts are rejected if they are insulting or ev= en > patronising or condescending. > > It doesn't bother me to read a rude post and reject it. It doesn't bother= me > to read a rude email and respond to it (and I think I have always respond= ed > to emails sent to me as a moderator) in polite terms. > > > How would you view this cheerful eccentric then? > > Rudeness is generally a sign of frustration that one is not making onesel= f > understood. =A0It is therefore a sign of weakness. In a moderated group, = where > the insults are filtered out, people are more polite and considerate towa= rds > others. > > > Would the landlord not care how his customers were being treated? > > Or would he say "one more comment like that and you are barred"? > > I'd wager the latter. > > As I say, the analogy is faulty because anyone can walk through the door = and > mouth off in a pub. > > In a moderated group, fairness is important. You can't let a favoured pos= ter > make sarcastic remarks about other posters, in terms that enable everyone= to > identify the target, and then censor all responses. =A0The analogy with t= he > pub would be if the publican's friend loudly declares "I see they've let = the > riff-raff in again, such a shame, they lower the tone" and then if someon= e > says "fuck off, you snooty bastard" the landlord immediately throws the > latter person out of the pub.

Yet that is *exactly* how I, and other posters with "unfavoured" opinions, have been treated on URCM on multiple occasions. The "moderators" have been notified of such occurrences and yet have steadfastly ignored those notifications. This surely denotes that they fully intended to do what they did, rather than it just being a "mistake", and that that was why URCM was really set up. Why have they not been upfront about intending to treat posters in that way? Because they knew such a public newsgroup wouldn't be allowed, and probably wouldn't pass a vote anyway.

We have all been lied to. Jackson is the person who initiated that lie. Until there is a full admission that the above has been occurring, it shouldn't have occurred, and it won't occur anymore, URCM cannot be considered "fixed". But even if that does happen, Jackson should still go, preferably accompanied by his supporters.

Whatever your transport-related opinions, and your opinions of the likes of me, there's no excuse for the gross deceit which has taken place. People who find themselves in support of such deceit should ask themselves if the end really justifies the means.