Hopes dashed.

It seems that this post was too sensitive for Jackson's Junta.

Clearly the Junta has no intent of allowing "polite and interesting
discussion" without some sort of discrimination.

====================
I hope this post passes the urcm board.

Independent filmmakers WHO BY FIRE have created 3 short clips that
generate discussion around issues of Road Harmony.

http://vimeo.com/16772212
http://vimeo.com/16782986
http://vimeo.com/16784424

I hope that polite and interesting discussion will be permitted around
any issues raised from these films, irrespective of colour, gender,
religion, sexual orientation or mission of the poster.
====================
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~w...2885131983.txt

On 23/11/2010 22:43, Tom Crispin wrote:
It seems that this post was too sensitive for Jackson's Junta.

Clearly the Junta has no intent of allowing "polite and interesting
discussion" without some sort of discrimination.

But I bet if you posted it without the first and last sentences it would
be allowed. Heck, even if MattB posted it without the first and last
sentences I bet it would be allowed.

You're just ****-stirring again. Hey ho, if you want to make yourself
look like an obsessive arsehole, far be from me to stop you.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:36:51 +0000, Clive George
wrote:

On 23/11/2010 22:43, Tom Crispin wrote:
It seems that this post was too sensitive for Jackson's Junta.

Clearly the Junta has no intent of allowing "polite and interesting
discussion" without some sort of discrimination.

But I bet if you posted it without the first and last sentences it would
be allowed. Heck, even if MattB posted it without the first and last
sentences I bet it would be allowed.

But that is not the point. I want people to be allowed to respond to
my post without fear of discrimination. Clearly one or more members of
Jackson's Junta have no intention of allowing certain people to join
in a "polite and interesting" discussion - and that is why they
request the references deleted to pass the censor.

You're just ****-stirring again. Hey ho, if you want to make yourself
look like an obsessive arsehole, far be from me to stop you.

Hey - it gives me no pleasure to repeatedly highlight the hypocrisy of
Jackson's moderation methods.

Tom Crispin wrote:

It seems that this post was too sensitive for Jackson's Junta.

Which is what you expected, I guess.

Independent filmmakers WHO BY FIRE have created 3 short clips that
generate discussion around issues of Road Harmony.

http://vimeo.com/16772212
http://vimeo.com/16782986
http://vimeo.com/16784424

So what sort of discussion do you want?

IMHO posting clips without any personal narrative or viewpoint might
mean you're just trying to be clever, or seeing which way the concensus
flows before jumping on the bandwagon, or might simply be trolling to
see if they get allowed.

Why bother? It's a club, you know the rules, why try to push them? I
can't recall when I've had (if ever) a post disallowed on URCM ... but
then I post there about cycling and it's issues ... albeit infrequently
now ...

--
Paul - xxx

Tom Crispin wrote:

Independent filmmakers WHO BY FIRE have created 3 short clips that
generate discussion around issues of Road Harmony.

Having seen the three clips I can't really see much to discuss.
They're films with meanings too hidden for me to easily what they mean,
or indeed to care about them ...

--
Paul - xxx

Tom Crispin wrote:
It seems that this post was too sensitive for Jackson's Junta.

So you tried to bait a moderator and succeeded.

Well done.

BugBear

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
It seems that this post was too sensitive for Jackson's Junta.

Clearly the Junta has no intent of allowing "polite and interesting
discussion" without some sort of discrimination.

====================
I hope this post passes the urcm board.

Independent filmmakers WHO BY FIRE have created 3 short clips that
generate discussion around issues of Road Harmony.

http://vimeo.com/16772212
http://vimeo.com/16782986
http://vimeo.com/16784424

I hope that polite and interesting discussion will be permitted around
any issues raised from these films, irrespective of colour, gender,
religion, sexual orientation or mission of the poster.

I don't know why you even bother Tom. Posting to urcm is a complete waste
of time unless you're a club member.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Tom Crispin wrote:

It seems that this post was too sensitive for Jackson's Junta.

I object in the strongest possible terms to this epithet.

The problem with this term is the pronunciation. I would normally
pronounce 'junta' in the Spanish way, with the 'j' as a 'h'. But to
preserve the alliteration, i am thus forced to say Hackson's Hunta, which
frankly sounds rather silly. But the alternative is to let j's be j's, and
say it as it is written - but that perpetrates a travesty of the Spanish
tongue!

So, please have another crack. This is something i'm sure we can lick.

tom

--
You have now found yourself trapped in an incomprehensible maze.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 24/11/2010 06:59, Tom Crispin wrote:
Hey - it gives me no pleasure to repeatedly highlight the hypocrisy of
Jackson's moderation methods.

Perversely, Tom, you're actually achieving the feat of making them not
only seem but actually /be/ more consistent. Snarky metacomments tagged
onto the end of posts, get rejected. Consistently.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM7YmaAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/0uYH/0oublaK0q1tafLYs7KGK46j
VXve1G+AGBJqc0oAAuEt/ZC3QVqQMEOC+cqK6RKGnAuYvA+jL6m7yddG1iQUqDCO
y1s+wfI3TnUuSCDnlOZrJSwggtHsYjQmhuOZq0TitYEy4iiKYb iixQbMvKKbQd9T
ezlN9AhwefeGs1DpFLZg69bsiT0A7HufJ1XkQ2K/rvEION81XenHfGl86hkpGsmk
w4iO10DWKk1XlNFkmvStr5YZLZV6lUVZQ/bzFT6SEnwCoS5NM5jF5CARCJARyjtM
zM0n8oHrpp+Se3hgdqZ+FovpJ/XMkMgaDpgmxllvj1nSimDuB7puAxaeb83+suA=
=xfAX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:54:34 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 24/11/2010 06:59, Tom Crispin wrote:
Hey - it gives me no pleasure to repeatedly highlight the hypocrisy of
Jackson's moderation methods.

Perversely, Tom, you're actually achieving the feat of making them not
only seem but actually /be/ more consistent. Snarky metacomments tagged
onto the end of posts, get rejected. Consistently.

I suppose being consistently inconsistent could also be described as
being consistent.