The other place

On 02 Aug, Ian Jackson wrote:

As I would have thought would be clear by now I thought you were
referring to a different, and more serious, incident.

No, I didn't know there were so many different cases of moderators
anonymously posting personal abuse that you couldn't keep track of
them all.

I'm not sure what more you want us to do about a rude rejection
message you suffered 3 years ago. You've had an apology; and
nowadays we are much more careful to be polite in our rejection
messages.

I don't want you to do anything about it. I think it's unlikely I'll
come and play your games whatever you say now. I want Tom to stop
banging on about what you're doing in your own private playground.


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

In article ,
Ian Smith wrote:
On 02 Aug, Ian Jackson wrote:
As I would have thought would be clear by now I thought you were
referring to a different, and more serious, incident.

No, I didn't know there were so many different cases of moderators
anonymously posting personal abuse that you couldn't keep track of
them all.

You were using the phrase "anonymously posting personal abuse" to
refer to rude rejection messages. I thought you were referring to
posting personal abuse on the internet in general. We did have such
an incident, which is what I thought you were on about. This was all
years ago so I hope I can forgiven for not remembering everything in
detail.

We did have a problem with rejection messages that were ruder than
they should have been. I don't think we have such a problem now.

I'm not sure what more you want us to do about a rude rejection
message you suffered 3 years ago. You've had an apology; and
nowadays we are much more careful to be polite in our rejection
messages.

I don't want you to do anything about it. I think it's unlikely I'll
come and play your games whatever you say now. I want Tom to stop
banging on about what you're doing in your own private playground.

Posting messages attacking the urcm moderators is not going to make
Tom feel less justified and less like "banging on" as you put it.

--
Ian Jackson personal email:
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

"Judith" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:10:29 +0100, Bertie Wooster

wrote:

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:54:44 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 01/08/2012 13:11, Ian Jackson wrote:
In article ,
John Benn wrote:
I think that even if posts from some posters do get approved
eventually, the
approval is being delayed deliberately. There is no excuse for a post
to
remain in the queue for 14 hours, let alone the 22 hours that one of my
posts took to eventually clear.

No-one's posts are being delayed deliberately. I know that some other
moderated groups use it as a tactic but we don't.

I accept and believe that.

I have had ukrcm posts cleared very quickly (whereas I wasn't even sure
they'd be accepted).

Perhaps you are one of the favoured.


I'm not - I emailed the moderators and one of them replied:

"**** off - you sniveling ****"

He had been hand picked by Wacko.
========================================

That's pretty disgusting behaviour. Which of the moderators sent you that?

"John Benn" wrote in message ...


"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 12:32:47 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 05:43:11 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:40:47 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:03:10 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:48:53 +0100, Danny Colyer

wrote:

On 31/07/2012 19:26, Bertie Wooster wrote:
Would a discussion of what a cesspit urcm has become be welcome in
the
moderated group?

That would be a discussion on moderation policy, which belongs here,
not
in urcm. As such no, it would not be welcome in the moderated group.

If not, may I suggest it's rude to allow such a
discussion about the mother group in urcm?

Of course you may suggest it. I disagree. I believe the majority of
urcm regulars


I see a dozen people make more than half the posts - I bet most of them
are
moderators.

It is a private members club of Wacko's friends (+ me in various
guises)

I have posted a message to the moderated group giving my opinion of
their discussion. Progess of my post can be monitored he
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.urcm
Posting date: 2012-07-31 22:3x

=====Post to urcm=====
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:16:42 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

Holy Hells.

I was googling recently, and (via google groups) ended up in a
certain group some of used to use.

It hasn't changed a bit :-(

The same venom-laden exchanges, using the same phrases, between
the same people are still going on.

I'm astounded, if only by their sheer persistence.

I think it is wrong to be discussing the mother group here while
discussion of this group is not permitted within the group.
=====/Post to urcm=====

I wonder if the club members will close ranks, or if my opinion will
be allowed to be heard.

7 hours on and my post still languishes in the delay list:
http://tinyurl.com/c8mw7dj from:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/uc...k%404ax.com%3E

I'll try another post incase my first has been overlooked.

=====New post to urcm=====
I find "the other place" far nicer. People are free to express their
opinions, even if their opinions are minority opinions.

However, there are a few objectionable foul-mouthed individuals who
aren't worth listening to. I find it easy enough to ignore them if I
choose.
=====/New post to urcm=====

Status here
http://tinyurl.com/c8wwl8w from:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/uc...0%404ax.com%3E

14 and 7 hours on, and still my posts languish untouched in the
moderation queue, while other posts are seemingly approved without let
or hindrance.

Still, a chance to lay one question to rest once and for all, is it
the poster or post which is being judged.

I will make a post supporting Jackson's opinion that the mother group
is rubbish.

If the post is allowed, we will know that moderation is on content
(albeit biased towards the clique's view).

If the post is blocked we will know moderation is by poster, not post.

My post was binned.

Oddly, my first post was allowed after a delay in excess of 24 hours.

=====Supporting post=====

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:16:42 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

Holy Hells.

I was googling recently, and (via google groups) ended up in a
certain group some of used to use.

It hasn't changed a bit :-(

The same venom-laden exchanges, using the same phrases, between
the same people are still going on.

I'm astounded, if only by their sheer persistence.

I agree. It is sad the group hasn't moved on.

More than 24 hours? That's even longer than the 22 hours I had to wait.
The moderated group is run by a bunch of ******s.
=======================================

CORRECTION: I should have written: "uk.rec.cycling.moderated is run by a
******". I had forgotten that it's run by only a single person.

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 10:51:34 +0200, Tosspot
wrote:

On 02/08/12 10:32, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 02/08/2012 09:25, Bertie Wooster wrote:


My post was binned.

Oddly, my first post was allowed after a delay in excess of 24 hours.

My first post went straight through....

You stand accused of being a member of The Clique. How do you plead?

The plea seems obvious: insanity.

On 09/09/2012 09:51, Tosspot wrote:
On 02/08/12 10:32, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 02/08/2012 09:25, Bertie Wooster wrote:


My post was binned.

Oddly, my first post was allowed after a delay in excess of 24 hours.

My first post went straight through....

You stand accused of being a member of The Clique. How do you plead?


Uninterested.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

On 09/09/2012 10:21, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 10:51:34 +0200, Tosspot
wrote:

On 02/08/12 10:32, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 02/08/2012 09:25, Bertie Wooster wrote:


My post was binned.

Oddly, my first post was allowed after a delay in excess of 24 hours.

My first post went straight through....

You stand accused of being a member of The Clique. How do you plead?

The plea seems obvious: insanity.

Correct. One would have to be insane to wish to join a moderated
cycling group.

Oh, give me a home where the push bikes roam, where the cyclists and the
other children play; Where seldom is heard a discouraging word, And the
lights are on red all day.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

On Aug 1, 1:36*am, Ian Jackson
wrote:

We'll see what my colleagues think.

And then ignore what they think in favour of what you think, O Holy
Chief Moderator.