Nuxx:A652ef7d-058c-4d49-99a2-97a9ce35b967@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: 1st CFV - Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:37:15 -0700 (PDT) References:  Lines: 28 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.145.66.52 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248287836 3790 127.0.0.1 (22 Jul 2009 18:37:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:37:16 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.145.66.52; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2745 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:719334

On Jul 20, 7:07=A0pm, Pedt Scragg  wrote: > Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

If you are the sort of person who, when reading an opposing point of view which you can't refute, prefers to censor that point of view rather than even contemplating the possibility that you might be wrong and *that's* why you can't refute the opposing point of view, go right ahead and vote for the proposal. If, on the other hand, you actually care about the truth, and aren't so arrogant and stubborn that you are incapable of ever admitting you're wrong and changing your mind about anything no matter what evidence is presented to you, vote against the proposal.

What percentage of URC posters fall into the first category, and what percentage fall into the second? We will find out. Unfortunately, I don't think there's much doubt as to how the majority will vote, given the extensive arrogance and attempts to censor "awkward" truths that we've had to date.

> The rationale previously referred to telephone harassment suffered > by a poster to uk.rec.cycling. =A0This didn't add anything to the > proposal and was needlessly controversial so, following suggestions > in the discussion, this has been removed.

Jackson and his unsuitability for being a moderator, then his complete willingness to take Chapman's word for it simply because he hates motorists should be enough for you.
 * Alleged* harassment. If you needed any proof as to the bias of