Hopes dashed.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

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/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-129052885131983.txt

[Clive George]

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.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

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.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

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

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

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

[bugbear]

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

[Mr. Benn[_4_]]

"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.

[Tom Anderson]

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.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----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-----

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

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.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On 24 Nov 2010 11:52:22 GMT, "Paul - xxx" >
wrote:

>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.

Does this help?

==========Quote==========
This year Bikefest has teamed up with local independent filmmakers WHO
BY FIRE to create 3 short clips that generate discussion around issues
of Road Harmony.

The clips are designed to have high impact with young people and draw
on vampire mythology to unpack and poke fun at some prevalent
perceptions of and attitudes toward bike riders on the roads.

Scripted and shot in collaboration with the bike riding community, the
clips set a new benchmark for dialogue between road users. Offering
high production values with a street sensibility, the clips playfully
suggest that fear may be the pothole we all need to get around on our
journey toward road harmony.

“There are dominant ways of talking about things. But we tried to make
three films that break away from traditional road safety discourse. I
don't think people, and especially young people, like being told what
to do. So instead we used parody to raise questions of bike safety and
road harmony and allow the audience to think and respond how they
want. And hopefully have a laugh.”
Alex G Watkins
==========/Quote==========
http://www.melbournebikefest.com.au/once-bitten/view/article/38

>They're films with meanings too hidden for me to easily what they mean,
>or indeed to care about them ...

That is exactly why they are supposed to provoke discussion.

I hoped that discussion would take place in urcm without prejudice.
Clearly others had different ideas.

[Clive George]

On 25/11/2010 02:47, Tom Crispin wrote:

> I hoped that discussion would take place in urcm without prejudice.

Please don't lie. If you'd hoped that you'd have posted the links
without the comments about moderation. Indeed, you've still got that
option, but have chosen not to use it.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:15:55 +0000, Clive George
> wrote:

>On 25/11/2010 02:47, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> I hoped that discussion would take place in urcm without prejudice.
>
>Please don't lie. If you'd hoped that you'd have posted the links
>without the comments about moderation. Indeed, you've still got that
>option, but have chosen not to use it.

Has I done that, and had certain contributors to urcm responded
appropriately, I have little doubt that they would have been blocked.

I know that I am permitted to post to urcm if I stick to a particular
posting style. But asking that all other posters are treated equally
is not permitted.

This is wrong.

[Clive George]

On 25/11/2010 03:22, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:15:55 +0000, Clive George
> > wrote:
>
>> On 25/11/2010 02:47, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> I hoped that discussion would take place in urcm without prejudice.
>>
>> Please don't lie. If you'd hoped that you'd have posted the links
>> without the comments about moderation. Indeed, you've still got that
>> option, but have chosen not to use it.
>
> Has I done that, and had certain contributors to urcm responded
> appropriately, I have little doubt that they would have been blocked.

Had they responded appropriately, no. Inappropriate responses may well
get blocked, but I don't think that your link would provoke those. Why
don't you give it a go, so we can see who's right?

> I know that I am permitted to post to urcm if I stick to a particular
> posting style. But asking that all other posters are treated equally
> is not permitted.
>
> This is wrong.

It's metadiscussion, and not constructive IMO. Take it to unnm - it's
wrong for here and urcm.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:52:25 +0000, Clive George
> wrote:

>On 25/11/2010 03:22, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:15:55 +0000, Clive George
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/11/2010 02:47, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>
>>>> I hoped that discussion would take place in urcm without prejudice.
>>>
>>> Please don't lie. If you'd hoped that you'd have posted the links
>>> without the comments about moderation. Indeed, you've still got that
>>> option, but have chosen not to use it.
>>
>> Has I done that, and had certain contributors to urcm responded
>> appropriately, I have little doubt that they would have been blocked.
>
>Had they responded appropriately, no. Inappropriate responses may well
>get blocked, but I don't think that your link would provoke those. Why
>don't you give it a go, so we can see who's right?
>
>> I know that I am permitted to post to urcm if I stick to a particular
>> posting style. But asking that all other posters are treated equally
>> is not permitted.
>>
>> This is wrong.
>
>It's metadiscussion, and not constructive IMO. Take it to unnm - it's
>wrong for here and urcm.

I'd like to see your opinion on the thread currently live in urcm,
being discussed in unnm, and this blocked post.

<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12905937928037.txt>

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> On 24 Nov 2010 11:52:22 GMT, "Paul - xxx" >
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Does this help?
>
> ==========Quote==========
> This year Bikefest has teamed up with local independent filmmakers WHO
> BY FIRE to create 3 short clips that generate discussion around issues
> of Road Harmony.
>
> The clips are designed to have high impact with young people and draw
> on vampire mythology to unpack and poke fun at some prevalent
> perceptions of and attitudes toward bike riders on the roads.

Ahhh, I ain't young no more, alas .. and why Vampires?

> Scripted and shot in collaboration with the bike riding community, the
> clips set a new benchmark for dialogue between road users. Offering
> high production values with a street sensibility, the clips playfully
> suggest that fear may be the pothole we all need to get around on our
> journey toward road harmony.

Sanctimonious bull, IMHO.

> “There are dominant ways of talking about things. But we tried to make
> three films that break away from traditional road safety discourse. I
> don't think people, and especially young people, like being told what
> to do. So instead we used parody to raise questions of bike safety and
> road harmony and allow the audience to think and respond how they
> want. And hopefully have a laugh.”

See, I find it hard to see whether these are pro-bike, pro-car, or pro
anything other than jumping on the current fashion of Vampires to sell
a few films and raise the filmmakers profile.

> Alex G Watkins
> ==========/Quote==========
> http://www.melbournebikefest.com.au/once-bitten/view/article/38
>
> > They're films with meanings too hidden for me to easily what they
> > mean, or indeed to care about them ...
>
> That is exactly why they are supposed to provoke discussion.
>
> I hoped that discussion would take place in urcm without prejudice.
> Clearly others had different ideas.

No you didn't, otherwise you'd not have pre-empted the discussion by
assuming you had to explain that you wanted the posting to go in
un-moderated. You appear to be pushing the limits of what's acceptable
'there' and then crying (wolf) that it's unfair, ib the post itself
before moderation!

You appear, to me, to be somewhat akin to a fool on a mission.

--
Paul - xxx

[JMS]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:03:55 +0000, Tom Crispin
> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:52:25 +0000, Clive George
> wrote:
>
>>On 25/11/2010 03:22, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:15:55 +0000, Clive George
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/11/2010 02:47, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I hoped that discussion would take place in urcm without prejudice.
>>>>
>>>> Please don't lie. If you'd hoped that you'd have posted the links
>>>> without the comments about moderation. Indeed, you've still got that
>>>> option, but have chosen not to use it.
>>>
>>> Has I done that, and had certain contributors to urcm responded
>>> appropriately, I have little doubt that they would have been blocked.
>>
>>Had they responded appropriately, no. Inappropriate responses may well
>>get blocked, but I don't think that your link would provoke those. Why
>>don't you give it a go, so we can see who's right?
>>
>>> I know that I am permitted to post to urcm if I stick to a particular
>>> posting style. But asking that all other posters are treated equally
>>> is not permitted.
>>>
>>> This is wrong.
>>
>>It's metadiscussion, and not constructive IMO. Take it to unnm - it's
>>wrong for here and urcm.
>
>I'd like to see your opinion on the thread currently live in urcm,
>being discussed in unnm, and this blocked post.
>
><http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12905937928037.txt>


Now, now - please do not put him on the spot.

He's still hoping to be on the short-list for the next round of
moderators.


(Does he come from Cambridge - or does he fail at the first post?)

[Clive George]

On 25/11/2010 07:03, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:52:25 +0000, Clive George
> > wrote:
>
>> On 25/11/2010 03:22, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:15:55 +0000, Clive George
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/11/2010 02:47, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I hoped that discussion would take place in urcm without prejudice.
>>>>
>>>> Please don't lie. If you'd hoped that you'd have posted the links
>>>> without the comments about moderation. Indeed, you've still got that
>>>> option, but have chosen not to use it.
>>>
>>> Has I done that, and had certain contributors to urcm responded
>>> appropriately, I have little doubt that they would have been blocked.
>>
>> Had they responded appropriately, no. Inappropriate responses may well
>> get blocked, but I don't think that your link would provoke those. Why
>> don't you give it a go, so we can see who's right?
>>
>>> I know that I am permitted to post to urcm if I stick to a particular
>>> posting style. But asking that all other posters are treated equally
>>> is not permitted.
>>>
>>> This is wrong.
>>
>> It's metadiscussion, and not constructive IMO. Take it to unnm - it's
>> wrong for here and urcm.
>
> I'd like to see your opinion on the thread currently live in urcm,
> being discussed in unnm, and this blocked post.
>
> <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12905937928037.txt>

Doesn't appear to be metadiscussion, so isn't relevant to what we're
talking about here.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:15:40 +0000, Clive George
> wrote:

>On 25/11/2010 07:03, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:52:25 +0000, Clive George
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/11/2010 03:22, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:15:55 +0000, Clive George
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25/11/2010 02:47, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I hoped that discussion would take place in urcm without prejudice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please don't lie. If you'd hoped that you'd have posted the links
>>>>> without the comments about moderation. Indeed, you've still got that
>>>>> option, but have chosen not to use it.
>>>>
>>>> Has I done that, and had certain contributors to urcm responded
>>>> appropriately, I have little doubt that they would have been blocked.
>>>
>>> Had they responded appropriately, no. Inappropriate responses may well
>>> get blocked, but I don't think that your link would provoke those. Why
>>> don't you give it a go, so we can see who's right?
>>>
>>>> I know that I am permitted to post to urcm if I stick to a particular
>>>> posting style. But asking that all other posters are treated equally
>>>> is not permitted.
>>>>
>>>> This is wrong.
>>>
>>> It's metadiscussion, and not constructive IMO. Take it to unnm - it's
>>> wrong for here and urcm.
>>
>> I'd like to see your opinion on the thread currently live in urcm,
>> being discussed in unnm, and this blocked post.
>>
>> <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12905937928037.txt>
>
>Doesn't appear to be metadiscussion, so isn't relevant to what we're
>talking about here.

I take that as confirmation that you believe that the post was blocked
out of malice.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On 25 Nov 2010 08:32:16 GMT, "Paul - xxx" >
wrote:

>Sanctimonious bull, IMHO.

That is not polite - I wouldn't be concerned if you were blocked.
However, it is the videos that should provoke polite and interesting
discussion.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> On 25 Nov 2010 08:32:16 GMT, "Paul - xxx" >
> wrote:
>
> > Sanctimonious bull, IMHO.
>
> That is not polite

It's an honestly held belief that the pillocks who made up that
sanctimonious twaddle is talking bull****.

> I wouldn't be concerned if you were blocked.

And how could I be blocked? Why should I care, and why should you be
concerned?

You haven't posted the videos and asked for comment on a moderated
group. You presented a fait accompli where they _had_ to moderate your
post because you were calling their bluff.

> However, it is the videos that should provoke polite and interesting
> discussion.

Except you didn't just post the videos asking for "polite and
interesting discussion" .. see above ...


--
Paul - xxx

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:54:30 +0000, Tosspot >
wrote:

>On 25/11/10 18:32, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:15:40 +0000, Clive George
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/11/2010 07:03, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:52:25 +0000, Clive George
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25/11/2010 03:22, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:15:55 +0000, Clive George
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25/11/2010 02:47, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hoped that discussion would take place in urcm without prejudice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please don't lie. If you'd hoped that you'd have posted the links
>>>>>>> without the comments about moderation. Indeed, you've still got that
>>>>>>> option, but have chosen not to use it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has I done that, and had certain contributors to urcm responded
>>>>>> appropriately, I have little doubt that they would have been blocked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Had they responded appropriately, no. Inappropriate responses may well
>>>>> get blocked, but I don't think that your link would provoke those. Why
>>>>> don't you give it a go, so we can see who's right?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that I am permitted to post to urcm if I stick to a particular
>>>>>> posting style. But asking that all other posters are treated equally
>>>>>> is not permitted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's metadiscussion, and not constructive IMO. Take it to unnm - it's
>>>>> wrong for here and urcm.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to see your opinion on the thread currently live in urcm,
>>>> being discussed in unnm, and this blocked post.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12905937928037.txt>
>>>
>>> Doesn't appear to be metadiscussion, so isn't relevant to what we're
>>> talking about here.
>>
>> I take that as confirmation that you believe that the post was blocked
>> out of malice.
>
>> I hope this post passes the urcm board.
>
>> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>
>Would appear to be a jab at moderation policy.

In which way?

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On 25 Nov 2010 20:05:13 GMT, "Paul - xxx" >
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> On 25 Nov 2010 08:32:16 GMT, "Paul - xxx" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Sanctimonious bull, IMHO.
>>
>> That is not polite
>
>It's an honestly held belief that the pillocks who made up that
>sanctimonious twaddle is talking bull****.
>
>> I wouldn't be concerned if you were blocked.
>
>And how could I be blocked? Why should I care, and why should you be
>concerned?
>
>You haven't posted the videos and asked for comment on a moderated
>group. You presented a fait accompli where they _had_ to moderate your
>post because you were calling their bluff.
>
>> However, it is the videos that should provoke polite and interesting
>> discussion.
>
>Except you didn't just post the videos asking for "polite and
>interesting discussion" .. see above ...

OK - I'll call your bluff, and repost the videos calling for polite
and interesting remarks.

==========To be posted in urcm==========

I wonder if anyone has polite and interesting remarks to make about
these videos from independent filmmakers WHO BY FIRE, made to generate
discussion around issues of Road Harmony.

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

==========/To be posted to urcm==========

We will soon see if my post is allowed, and if it is, if all polite
and interesting replies are allowed.

[SW[_3_]]

On 24/11/2010 13:10, Mr. Benn wrote:
>
> I don't know why you even bother Tom. Posting to urcm is a complete
> waste of time unless you're a club member.

Agreed - you can post what you like here. Although Chief Moderator Benn
may have a quiet word if he doesn't like the tone of your replies to
people he approves of.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> On 25 Nov 2010 20:05:13 GMT, "Paul - xxx" >
> wrote:
>
> > Tom Crispin wrote:
> >
> >> On 25 Nov 2010 08:32:16 GMT, "Paul - xxx"
> > >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Sanctimonious bull, IMHO.
> >>
> >> That is not polite
> >
> > It's an honestly held belief that the pillocks who made up that
> > sanctimonious twaddle is talking bull****.
> >
> >> I wouldn't be concerned if you were blocked.
> >
> > And how could I be blocked? Why should I care, and why should you
> > be concerned?
> >
> > You haven't posted the videos and asked for comment on a moderated
> > group. You presented a fait accompli where they had to moderate
> > your post because you were calling their bluff.
> >
> >> However, it is the videos that should provoke polite and
> interesting >> discussion.
> >
> > Except you didn't just post the videos asking for "polite and
> > interesting discussion" .. see above ...
>
> OK - I'll call your bluff, and repost the videos calling for polite
> and interesting remarks.
>
> ==========To be posted in urcm==========
>
> I wonder if anyone has polite and interesting remarks to make about
> these videos from independent filmmakers WHO BY FIRE, made to generate
> discussion around issues of Road Harmony.
>
> http://vimeo.com/16772212
> http://vimeo.com/16782986
> http://vimeo.com/16784424
>
> ==========/To be posted to urcm==========
>
> We will soon see if my post is allowed, and if it is, if all polite
> and interesting replies are allowed.

Heh, horse has bolted, I doubt it'd be allowed now. Mind, I doubt it's
create much discussion (about the videos) anyway.

--
Paul - xxx

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

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

On 25/11/2010 02:37, Tom Crispin wrote:
> 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.

It could be but in this case they were consistently 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/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM7u9TAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/WF0H/jXiVRMGWzNIgs7VlASek5xP
CywVM03j4byhMoRNQNeEh5LOwvDFjPnyoG+5NWu9FqBunDBRJx O3r1s0w51K8xOr
DM2wDirqOK+VHswpKAVd24PfVcLaDM8relMAex2BV7judJl0SX O82DNEMbh+vJDv
9BbILvoXA9aQosddDrdVwPMicPzIKZoXPQHdeq4orZy9EUrqdA b/z81MuFRsr74/
Sa+WOcwaaAK7OMnhNAvKvrdn9IAeFtwOIBCXgF2ElIRBB0R5nB i9LbDkyptlVqvD
hc18qlMtto73JBMP6OLLSUth3xnelJdJKKJeLiNEDCzJugSmHd nk03lDrPWayPE=
=YNg8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Clive George]

On 25/11/2010 18:32, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:15:40 +0000, Clive George
> > wrote:
>
>> On 25/11/2010 07:03, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:52:25 +0000, Clive George
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/11/2010 03:22, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:15:55 +0000, Clive George
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/11/2010 02:47, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hoped that discussion would take place in urcm without prejudice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please don't lie. If you'd hoped that you'd have posted the links
>>>>>> without the comments about moderation. Indeed, you've still got that
>>>>>> option, but have chosen not to use it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has I done that, and had certain contributors to urcm responded
>>>>> appropriately, I have little doubt that they would have been blocked.
>>>>
>>>> Had they responded appropriately, no. Inappropriate responses may well
>>>> get blocked, but I don't think that your link would provoke those. Why
>>>> don't you give it a go, so we can see who's right?
>>>>
>>>>> I know that I am permitted to post to urcm if I stick to a particular
>>>>> posting style. But asking that all other posters are treated equally
>>>>> is not permitted.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> It's metadiscussion, and not constructive IMO. Take it to unnm - it's
>>>> wrong for here and urcm.
>>>
>>> I'd like to see your opinion on the thread currently live in urcm,
>>> being discussed in unnm, and this blocked post.
>>>
>>> <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12905937928037.txt>
>>
>> Doesn't appear to be metadiscussion, so isn't relevant to what we're
>> talking about here.
>
> I take that as confirmation that you believe that the post was blocked
> out of malice.

You're welcome to take whatever nonsensical conclusions you want, but
that's not what I said.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 23:20:51 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 25/11/2010 02:37, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> 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.
>
>It could be but in this case they were consistently consistent. Snarky
>metacomments tagged onto the end of posts, get rejected. Consistently.

Unless the metacomments come from one of the moderators. Consistently.
That is consistently inconsistent.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:28:10 +0000, Clive George
> wrote:

>On 25/11/2010 18:32, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:15:40 +0000, Clive George
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/11/2010 07:03, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:52:25 +0000, Clive George
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25/11/2010 03:22, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:15:55 +0000, Clive George
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25/11/2010 02:47, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hoped that discussion would take place in urcm without prejudice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please don't lie. If you'd hoped that you'd have posted the links
>>>>>>> without the comments about moderation. Indeed, you've still got that
>>>>>>> option, but have chosen not to use it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has I done that, and had certain contributors to urcm responded
>>>>>> appropriately, I have little doubt that they would have been blocked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Had they responded appropriately, no. Inappropriate responses may well
>>>>> get blocked, but I don't think that your link would provoke those. Why
>>>>> don't you give it a go, so we can see who's right?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that I am permitted to post to urcm if I stick to a particular
>>>>>> posting style. But asking that all other posters are treated equally
>>>>>> is not permitted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's metadiscussion, and not constructive IMO. Take it to unnm - it's
>>>>> wrong for here and urcm.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to see your opinion on the thread currently live in urcm,
>>>> being discussed in unnm, and this blocked post.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12905937928037.txt>
>>>
>>> Doesn't appear to be metadiscussion, so isn't relevant to what we're
>>> talking about here.
>>
>> I take that as confirmation that you believe that the post was blocked
>> out of malice.
>
>You're welcome to take whatever nonsensical conclusions you want, but
>that's not what I said.

Then offer you opinion on the reasons behind this blocked post.
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12905937928037.txt>

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On 25 Nov 2010 21:52:15 GMT, "Paul - xxx" >
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> On 25 Nov 2010 20:05:13 GMT, "Paul - xxx" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Tom Crispin wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 25 Nov 2010 08:32:16 GMT, "Paul - xxx"
>> > >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Sanctimonious bull, IMHO.
>> >>
>> >> That is not polite
>> >
>> > It's an honestly held belief that the pillocks who made up that
>> > sanctimonious twaddle is talking bull****.
>> >
>> >> I wouldn't be concerned if you were blocked.
>> >
>> > And how could I be blocked? Why should I care, and why should you
>> > be concerned?
>> >
>> > You haven't posted the videos and asked for comment on a moderated
>> > group. You presented a fait accompli where they had to moderate
>> > your post because you were calling their bluff.
>> >
>> >> However, it is the videos that should provoke polite and
>> interesting >> discussion.
>> >
>> > Except you didn't just post the videos asking for "polite and
>> > interesting discussion" .. see above ...
>>
>> OK - I'll call your bluff, and repost the videos calling for polite
>> and interesting remarks.
>>
>> ==========To be posted in urcm==========
>>
>> I wonder if anyone has polite and interesting remarks to make about
>> these videos from independent filmmakers WHO BY FIRE, made to generate
>> discussion around issues of Road Harmony.
>>
>> http://vimeo.com/16772212
>> http://vimeo.com/16782986
>> http://vimeo.com/16784424
>>
>> ==========/To be posted to urcm==========
>>
>> We will soon see if my post is allowed, and if it is, if all polite
>> and interesting replies are allowed.
>
>Heh, horse has bolted, I doubt it'd be allowed now. Mind, I doubt it's
>create much discussion (about the videos) anyway.

Posted at 20:30 Thursday; still not approved 06:40 Friday. There is
still hope: it hasn't been rejected either.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:


It's on now ..

--
Paul - xxx