Nuxx:626dbf4f-0144-4ff1-8aa6-2ec358a38b57@18g2000yqa.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!18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <626dbf4f-0144-4ff1-8aa6-2ec358a38b57@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Proposed uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 02:56:09 -0700 (PDT) References:   <0bpp45tv8m0rv3t990r3cldv6qbc7u90gk@4ax.com>     Lines: 27 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.132.160.236 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1246701369 25663 127.0.0.1 (4 Jul 2009 09:56:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 09:56:09 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.132.160.236; 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: 3041 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:55401 uk.rec.cycling:6676

On Jul 4, 7:29=A0am, "Trevor A Panther"  wrote: > > It would seem also > sensible to appoint moderators with =A0a broad sweep of known opinions.

Then you'll be voting against the proposal. The "moderation" panel has been hand-picked by Ian Jackson to ensure that they are all his friends, and that they're all "on message" in the key ways. Furthermore, those would-be "moderators" have been having cosy discussions behind closed doors, where they can be honest with each other about the real motives behind Jackson's proposal: to censor certain points of view, which some people don't like reading, because they know they can't refute them but they don't want them to be true (and rather than growing up and accepting reality, they'd prefer to shoot the messenger whenever someone tries to tell it like it is).

Anyone who genuinely wants to sort out the problems in URC has to realise that censorship dressed up as "moderation" won't help things, it'll just make things worse. Far better to get rid of the fanatical car-haters who are pretending to be "pro-cycling", and those who are intolerant of other people's points of view (i.e. the very attitude which is behind the URCM proposal). That is the only way to get a proper, non-controversial newsgroup about recreational cycling in the UK, so anyone who genuinely wants such a thing will vote against the proposal and set about getting rid of the problem posters identified above.