Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: NM on 29 Mar 2010 09:39 On 29 Mar, 11:40, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > On Mar 28, 6:47 pm, JMS <jmsmith2...(a)live.co.uk > wrote: > > > > > The following post is not from me. > > Note the senders' address is given as JMS <judith.m.sm...(a)live.co.uk > > which is not my address - but it is an obvious attempt to appear to be > > from me. > > > ===================================================================== > > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:02:44 +0000 (UTC), JMS > > > <judith.m.sm...(a)live.co.uk > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > >Looks like Jackson's censored psycholist group is going to get its > > >come-uppance (Snigger). It beggars belief that the abuse of uk usenet has > > >been allowed to go on for this long. He is despicable. > > > >No doubt there will shortly be a vote in uk.net.news.management to determine > > >what will happen to the group. > > > >I would expect that a group in which even the Chief Moderator gets to post > > >abuse about motorists (sorry, "cagers") is of legitimate interest. > > > >Here are a few gems from Jackson and his moderators about the continued > > >abuse of anybody outside of the clique. They speak volumes about his > > >competence as a leader - Wacko at his best. > > > >"Tom, I am spending more time readin UNNM than URCM because you are > > >complaining anything and everything, and I am just fed up with you." - a > > >rejection message based on somebody's postings in another group, from a > > >moderator that Jackson is refusing to identify > > > >"It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and every > > >moderation decision is unexplained and final. " - Simon Brooke, on > > >moderation > > > >"Had he had a rather different attitude over the last several months then it > > >almost certainly wouldn't have happened." - Peter Clinch, trying to justify > > >moderator bullying > > > >"I don't have it in me to make an apology to Tom" - Ian Jackson > > > >"I think it would be far more appropriate for Tom to apologise to the mods" - Anchor Lee > > > >"They'll do what they like, and you have to lump it. " - Ian Smith > > > >"I don't think that he should be dropped" - Danny Colyer, on the bullying > > >moderator > > > -- > > > "wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being > > involved in an accident." > > > That august body The CTC > > > (They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA)- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I have had several postings to URCM rejected by the moderators. You > are OK as long as you don't suggest that wearing cycle helmets might > be a good idea, or that cyclists should obey the laws and rules of the > road. > > Derek C Why would anyone want to post there? Is it a mutual backslapping society?
From: Derek C on 29 Mar 2010 10:39
On Mar 29, 2:39 pm, NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote: > On 29 Mar, 11:40, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 28, 6:47 pm, JMS <jmsmith2...(a)live.co.uk > wrote: > > > > The following post is not from me. > > > Note the senders' address is given as JMS <judith.m.sm...(a)live.co.uk > > > which is not my address - but it is an obvious attempt to appear to be > > > from me. > > > > ===================================================================== > > > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:02:44 +0000 (UTC), JMS > > > > <judith.m.sm...(a)live.co.uk > wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > >Looks like Jackson's censored psycholist group is going to get its > > > >come-uppance (Snigger). It beggars belief that the abuse of uk usenet has > > > >been allowed to go on for this long. He is despicable. > > > > >No doubt there will shortly be a vote in uk.net.news.management to determine > > > >what will happen to the group. > > > > >I would expect that a group in which even the Chief Moderator gets to post > > > >abuse about motorists (sorry, "cagers") is of legitimate interest.. > > > > >Here are a few gems from Jackson and his moderators about the continued > > > >abuse of anybody outside of the clique. They speak volumes about his > > > >competence as a leader - Wacko at his best. > > > > >"Tom, I am spending more time readin UNNM than URCM because you are > > > >complaining anything and everything, and I am just fed up with you." - a > > > >rejection message based on somebody's postings in another group, from a > > > >moderator that Jackson is refusing to identify > > > > >"It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and every > > > >moderation decision is unexplained and final. " - Simon Brooke, on > > > >moderation > > > > >"Had he had a rather different attitude over the last several months then it > > > >almost certainly wouldn't have happened." - Peter Clinch, trying to justify > > > >moderator bullying > > > > >"I don't have it in me to make an apology to Tom" - Ian Jackson > > > > >"I think it would be far more appropriate for Tom to apologise to the mods" - Anchor Lee > > > > >"They'll do what they like, and you have to lump it. " - Ian Smith > > > > >"I don't think that he should be dropped" - Danny Colyer, on the bullying > > > >moderator > > > > -- > > > > "wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being > > > involved in an accident." > > > > That august body The CTC > > > > (They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA)- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I have had several postings to URCM rejected by the moderators. You > > are OK as long as you don't suggest that wearing cycle helmets might > > be a good idea, or that cyclists should obey the laws and rules of the > > road. > > > Derek C > > Why would anyone want to post there? Is it a mutual backslapping > society?- Hide quoted text - > I don't think that 'backslapping' is quite the word I would choose to describe them! Derek C |