Nuxx:MPG.262a6110302bc283989732@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!news.k-dsl.de!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: A comment from an URCM moderator sought please. Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:19:30 +0100 References:  Lines: 30 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 100409-1, 09/04/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 0e0cfb6d.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=1CcN1Yg`1nOYW7lQM;eP^A0g@SS;SF6nGR9OH0:RnENDif50d?e;NTD`:ITG5aA:cGb]DoHDH`oKB X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 2611 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:29271

In article , jmsmith2010 @live.co.uk says... > > Post from a "non-member" rejected in URCM

Well, they had to reject at least my first post to show that I wasn't welcome. To be fair, they did at least let through my post when I started a new thread as advised (and that thread is the busiest recent thread by far, much to the irritation of some I'm sure). I'm just not sure why Chapman's inflammatory reply to that thread was let through (manually).

I'm a bit more concerned about the other "reject unconstructive" that I received, the real reason for which was simply that I'd used Chapman's own words to show yet again that he didn't genuinely believe that motoring offences were being prioritised correctly from a cyclist safety point of view. Couldn't have that. It seems likely from the timings that Jackson rejected both posts (and also approved his own, despite the fact that that "doesn't" happen).

And did you see the message that Damerell mistakenly sent to URCM instead of just the other URCM "moderators" (it was rejected from URCM)? Strange that on the one hand we're told that only a post's contents are important and it doesn't matter who posted them, yet on the other hand the "moderators" are speculating about whether x used to post as y on another newsgroup. Of course it's even more strange when you consider how often we've been told that people's posting history on other newsgroups isn't a factor when their URCM posts are "moderated".

All in all, it's business as usual with URCM really.