|
|
|
uk.net.news.moderation.moderated?
Mon, 5 Oct 2009 10:35:28 +0100
I strongly suggest we set this up soonest.
R.
:)
...
|
uk.legal.moderators
Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:38:31 +0100
Is there a list of the current moderators somewhere on a web page
please?
...
|
Moderator Impartiality: uk.legal.moderated
Sun, 4 Oct 2009 19:20:21 +0000 (UTC)
Can I ask the moderators of uk.legal.moderated to try to remain even-handed
and impartial when reviewing postings.
In the recent thread about the legal implications of not wearing a cycle
helmet, there have been a number of postings containg material not related
to the legal issues but which have been solely ...
|
Re: Not that I care, but...
Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:49:22 +0100
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 13:26:06 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<guy.chapman@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 13:15:25 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm actually rather puzzled to see 79558 quoted in that way by Guy. It
>>doesn't appear on the reject pile and the note at the bott ...
|
Re: Not that I care, but...
Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:02:04 +0100
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:48:53 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
wrote:
>There isn't a menu item to reach that - you have to manually fiddle with
>theURL and quote a post ID. If you look at the very bottom of the page you
>see"man-accept..." which tells you it was accepted not rejected.
I think this i ...
|
Re: Not that I care, but...
Sun, 4 Oct 2009 15:44:11 +0100
Sun, 4 Oct 2009 15:12:46 <7qahc5hni8ibciqkh0727jhu3hioihcisv@4ax.com>
uk.net.news.moderation Anthony R. Gold <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk>
>Not off topic but just outside the formal scope of the judgment. The
>rejected for being abusive or hurtful to others was the judgment and the
>additional remark about snidene ...
|
Re: Not that I care, but...
Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:12:46 +0100
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:56:12 +0100, smr <stevie.rice@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:16:03 +0100, smr <stevie.rice@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:49:40 +0100, "Wm..."
>>>> <tcnw71@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>> ...
|
Re: Not that I care, but...
Sun, 04 Oct 2009 13:04:38 +0100
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 12:14:23 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<guy.chapman@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip>
>The issue here is that I am a relative newcomer to ulm and if mods are
>going to reject posts on a subject where I have considerable detailed
>knowledge
No, no, no - where *you* *think* that you have a ...
|
uk.legal.moderated - Cycle Helmets
Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:18:44 +0100
I have no problem with the thread being controlled by the moderators -
however, I think there has been some quite significant
inconsistencies.
There was an earlier warning reminding us of the moderation policy.
Alex then made a post which purely added to the "helmet debate" rather
than the "legal debate" ...
|
Not that I care, but...
Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:06:49 +0100
<http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=79502&returnto=3displayulm.php>
So: why "insufficient law related material"? I made a point of
referring to precedents and actual cases.
I know the whole thread was a deliberate troll and the mods have said
they don't want to refight the helmet wars. But wha ...
|
|
|
