Nuxx:MPG.2668c9ed6e56844a98975a@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!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news2.euro.net!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.news-service.com!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: urcm - Moderation Policy - inconsistencies Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:27:26 +0100 References: <86477fFm82U1@mid.individual.net> <87a177aa-00ba-47e9-ab02-a01ac8a6ddc4@z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>  <864k6kF5fkU1@mid.individual.net>  <8654n1Ff2fU1@mid.individual.net>  <8657oiF2okU1@mid.individual.net>  <866arhFvkpU1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 29f4fc9e.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=_BF@FCl[Y:S0S;jB3NT[1Vnok4Z\, spam@smaps.net says... > > You have just defined a need. What can be done to resolve it? > (Don't answer me - ask the other moderators.)

Hi Iain. You may well have picked up on this already, but just in case you haven't, the real reason that the moderators and their supporters go to such lengths to prevent discussions on particular subjects is that they're worried that the "wrong" side will win the debate.

It usually goes like this: the clique members desperately want x to be true for ideological reasons. But in the past, on groups like URC, they have been challenged on x and x has been shown to be either false or highly doubtful. However since they still *want* x to be true they refuse to accept that it's not. So to prevent "trolls" from irritatingly reminding them of the doubtfulness of x, they formed URCM, on the basis that they could then pretend that x was true and find excuses to block any posts which showed otherwise.

That's URCM in a nutshell, and I apologise if the above is already obvious to you (as it is to pretty much everyone else), but I thought I'd point it out anyway just in case. You'd think it would be easier just to accept that x wasn't true instead of these desperate attempts to hide from the truth in a nodding dog newsgroup and make demonstrably absurd claims that said newsgroup was being impartially moderated, but I guess some people just haven't developed the necessary strength of character to accept inconvenient truths (or ever admit to having been wrong about anything).

So while it's admirable that you're trying so hard to reason with these people, I'm afraid you won't get anywhere, because everything they are saying is based on the fundamental lie that URCM is not there to shield a small group of car-hating, lycra-clad extremists from reality.