the other place

I don't say this lightly, but I have reached the conclusion that the
moderators of u.r.c.m are a power-crazed bunch of *******.

It seems that aggressive and inflammatory language is perfectly
acceptable when communicating messages to mere readers of the
newsgroup (though it obviously would not be allowed in the group).

Further, it is apparently perfectly fine to declare a thread
'tedious' even if there are still four or five people actively
participating in it.

It's a shame. I think I'm the longest active poster on this group,
which has now been killed by over-zealous power-crazed self-important
jumped-out twits

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith wrote:
I don't say this lightly, but I have reached the conclusion that the
moderators of u.r.c.m are a power-crazed bunch of *******.

If that's the way you feel, though from my angle (though of course
I'm a power crzed tosser so my opinion is probably worthless...)
I'd say they're (a) getting used to things, (b) trying to reach
some sort of concensus, (c) between a rock and a hard place and (d)
actually have quite a tricky balancing act to achieve.

It's a shame. I think I'm the longest active poster on this group,
which has now been killed by over-zealous power-crazed self-important
jumped-out twits

It's a shame you left it such a brief amount of time to settle
before dismissing it as a wreck. Your perogative, but it looks a
bit toys/pram to me.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:38:29 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

I don't say this lightly, but I have reached the conclusion that the
moderators of u.r.c.m are a power-crazed bunch of *******.

I would not go that far... But democratic accountability, even with
the risk of an undesired takeover, is the way forward.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On Wed, 28 Oct, Peter Clinch wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
I don't say this lightly, but I have reached the conclusion that the
moderators of u.r.c.m are a power-crazed bunch of *******.

If that's the way you feel, though from my angle (though of course
I'm a power crzed tosser so my opinion is probably worthless...)
I'd say they're (a) getting used to things, (b) trying to reach
some sort of concensus, (c) between a rock and a hard place and (d)
actually have quite a tricky balancing act to achieve.

Well, the moderators are quite happy to label me tedious and my
argument specious, so you can hardly object to me calling a spade a
spade. I _still_ can't work out what was specious about the
argument. I'm obviously far too stupid to be in your cozy clubroom.

Anyone that wasn't a power-crazed tosser would identify that they were
getting used to things, trying to reach a consensus and have a tricky
balancing act to achieve and therefore tread carefully initially.

They certainly wouldn't start telling people that their argument was
specious and that there was no interest in the thread when there had
been several people actively participating in the thread.

It's a shame. I think I'm the longest active poster on this group,
which has now been killed by over-zealous power-crazed self-important
jumped-out twits

It's a shame you left it such a brief amount of time to settle
before dismissing it as a wreck. Your perogative, but it looks a
bit toys/pram to me.

Ah, that old favourite.

Anyone points out that the system is so badly broken that it's not
worth the effort, they must be throwing toys out.

Here's something to ponder: if something is so badly broken that on
balance it has a net detriment to your life, do you really think the
sensible approach is to carry on playing with it in case it changes?


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith wrote:
[...]

Anyone points out that the system is so badly broken that it's not
worth the effort, they must be throwing toys out.

Ian, have you been watching uk.net.news.moderation? There are some
interesting points being made there about our new thought police.

--
Matt B

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:38:29 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian
Smith wrote this:-

I don't say this lightly, but I have reached the conclusion that the
moderators of u.r.c.m are a power-crazed bunch of *******.

Was there not recently criticism of someone for posting discussion
about the other place here? I wonder if the criticism will be made
again and people told to post discussion of moderation in the right
group? I suspect not.

I have had at least one of my posts to the other place exterminated
by the moderators. They may have sent a e-mail explaining why,
probably a short one, but I have not read it. If they start
exterminating lots of my posts, and I notice it, then I may start to
wonder what they are up to. Are they right and I am being obnoxious
or are they a power-crazed bunch of *******.

So far I think they are doing fine, given the short length of time
they have been going.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:08 +0000, Matt B
wrote:

thought police.

There seems to be a theme developing...
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
. ..

I don't say this lightly, but I have reached the conclusion that the
moderators of u.r.c.m are a power-crazed bunch of *******.

It seems that aggressive and inflammatory language is perfectly
acceptable when communicating messages to mere readers of the
newsgroup (though it obviously would not be allowed in the group).

Further, it is apparently perfectly fine to declare a thread
'tedious' even if there are still four or five people actively
participating in it.

It's a shame. I think I'm the longest active poster on this group,
which has now been killed by over-zealous power-crazed self-important
jumped-out twits

There's a place for this : uk.net.news.moderation.

If you want to make urcm work, post your complaint there, with some
evidence - eg messages which were rejected, together with the rejection
reasons.

Right now, your complaint looks to be a bit of a toys/pram moment. Persuade
me it isn't, but do so in uk.net.news.moderation.

Obviously there's nothing I can actually do, being nothing to do with the
mod committee, but I reckon if you persuade me, you'll probably persuade
them, and this will help the group become better - and this is surely a good
thing?

Ian Smith wrote:
I don't say this lightly, but I have reached the conclusion that the
moderators of u.r.c.m are a power-crazed bunch of *******.

That's more than a bit harsh. However, it was only a few hours ago that
I was being told that everything in the garden was rosy and there were
no complaints, so what has happened since?

On 2009-10-28, Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct, Peter Clinch wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
I don't say this lightly, but I have reached the conclusion that the
moderators of u.r.c.m are a power-crazed bunch of *******.

If that's the way you feel, though from my angle (though of course
I'm a power crzed tosser so my opinion is probably worthless...)
I'd say they're (a) getting used to things, (b) trying to reach
some sort of concensus, (c) between a rock and a hard place and (d)
actually have quite a tricky balancing act to achieve.

Well, the moderators are quite happy to label me tedious and my
argument specious, so you can hardly object to me calling a spade a
spade. I _still_ can't work out what was specious about the
argument. I'm obviously far too stupid to be in your cozy clubroom.

Well why not post your so-called "tedious" and "specious" argument here
where nobody can moderate it?