Nuxx:MPG.27a0d0b88ad6e989989885@news.zen.co.uk

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!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!txtfeed2.tudelft.nl!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Thanks to uk.religion.christian Moderators Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:43:46 -0000 References:  <5lbdj65gagia8dektibd9rr58m7sqol23e@4ax.com> 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: 8acca4d3.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=C]cX93h0]jK8gE[NeNNVcL0g@SS;SF6nGRiiCXJE[K>GbI^j>cZT0CA`:ITG5aA:cG\D0aR>X?QXO X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 2419 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:36413

In article <5lbdj65gagia8dektibd9rr58m7sqol23e@4ax.com>, blthecat@ckdog.co.uk says... > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:51:53 -0000, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > >So thank you to the UKRC moderators for doing a good job, and proving > >what most of us knew: it's almost never truly necessary to reject usenet > >posts, even on controversial subjects, and moderation should be a > >lightly used safety net rather than a way of shaping and pruning every > >remotely controversial discussion. > > Absolutely.

Brave man...you know you're going to get in trouble with Chapman now for agreeing with me, which I think comes under "defending Nuxx". You have been warned.

> >The URCM moderators are deeply > >insecure about whether they're really right about helmets etc, which is > >why they killfiled opposing arguments on URC, and they now reject them > >on URCM. > > I don't think they are insecure at all. I just think they want the > last word.

Possibly, although of course "last word" implies that they have deigned to let their opponent(s) state their argument at least once, which is by no means a given in the wacky/Wacko world of URCM.

The fact that more effective opposing arguments are blocked more aggressively does suggest to me at least some insecurity, but (here come three little words you'll never hear from any self-respecting right- thinking red-blooded URCM moderator or supporter) perhaps I'm mistaken.