Nuxx:MPG.262b0154c7d8660f98973a@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!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.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: URCM : Question to Moderators Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 22:43:18 +0100 References: <989sr5hdqhoj4ki1sj7ltild6kuucd2bga@4ax.com>    <0gd*DC57s@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <840da8d5-901b-491d-a381-b60dcda63fd3@k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 55 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100410-1, 10/04/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 917a12c6.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=k:V=5AWD7T:^YB8BB:[QQ60g@SS;SF6n7R9OH0:RnEN4jXf;XAKU?b6`:ITG5aA:c7GLl2TkNMNj? X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 3738 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:29290

In article , jmsmith2010 @live.co.uk says... > > On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 06:37:36 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?" >  wrote: > > >On Apr 8, 11:45 pm, Ian Jackson  > >wrote: > > > >>  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-%2d3cm... > >>  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-%2d3cq... > >>  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-%2d3ck... > > > >Clearly meta-discussion which added nothing. Thanks, Ian. > > > One of my replies was to your post, in its entirety, of : > > ===================================== > > Perish the thort. Hem-hem. > > ==================================== > > > What exactly did you think that added to the discussion - other than a > kick at me, to which I would not be able to respond? > > > > Also - I like the way that you are permitted to make snide comments > about other posters - which again they will not be able to respond to:

I did send a reply a while ago, and it's been held in the queue while other later replies have been (manually) passed (you know, like the bullying treatment that Matt B gets). So presumably whoever came across my post didn't want to make the decision and referred it to the Chief Moderator for "arbitration". Admittedly it is a tough decision: do you do the right thing and let the reply through, thereby admitting that Chapman's inflammatory post should have been blocked and probably pissing off the Chief Moderator, or do you block the reply and risk yet more obviously justified URCM-bashing in UNNM?

Anyway, we shall see. I think it probably will be rejected, but it'll be interesting to see what excuse they come up with. I would also like one of them to have the courtesy to explain to me why Chapman's stirring is being let through: I think they are actually reading his posts before they let them through (i.e. I don't think Chapman's whitelisted) because his posts don't seem to be approved straight away like some people's. If Chapman is allowed to be inflammatory because he hates motorists sufficiently then let's have that as policy; otherwise his nonsense should be rejected.

And note how he's yet again giving things a good stir because they've died down. He hasn't learnt a thing from Ian Smith's posts.