Vide http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=81394

What was the reason for rejection?  None seems to have been given.

-- 
< Paul >

"Paul C. Dickie"  wrote in 
news:4deLL59wvs7KFwsd@bozzie.unospace.net:

> Vide http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=81394
> 
> What was the reason for rejection?  None seems to have been given.
>
 
Using my special powers of deduction I read:


"No wonder that many of us regard the IWF and its apologists and
predecessors as equivalent to the Lord Something Censor's Office, or
Mary Whitehouse's movement: namely, a pile of ignorant, self-important
shite."


Then I note the post was in reply to a strong supporter of/apologist 
for the IWF.


And I conclude that the rejection reason could so easily be inferred 
that it did not warrant the waste of bandwidth.


-- 
Percy Picacity

In message , Percy Picacity 
<key@under.the.invalid> writes
>"Paul C. Dickie"  wrote in
>news:4deLL59wvs7KFwsd@bozzie.unospace.net:
>> Vide http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=81394
>> What was the reason for rejection?  None seems to have been given.
>
>Using my special powers of deduction I read:
>
>"No wonder that many of us regard the IWF and its apologists and
>predecessors as equivalent to the Lord Something Censor's Office, or
>Mary Whitehouse's movement: namely, a pile of ignorant, self-important
>shite."
>
>Then I note the post was in reply to a strong supporter of/apologist
>for the IWF.
>
>And I conclude that the rejection reason could so easily be inferred
>that it did not warrant the waste of bandwidth.

But http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=81352 and 
http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=81353 did?

-- 
< Paul >

Paul C. Dickie wrote:
> Vide http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=81394
>
> What was the reason for rejection?  None seems to have been given.

A common mistake is to select the free text rejection option but then forget 
to put text in before hitting the switch  -  I'd surmise that's what's 
happened here.  As Percy says, it was clearly inappropriate for the group in 
any event.

Cheers

"Steve Walker"  wrote in message 
news:7l8ml5F3c5bdaU1@mid.individual.net...
> Paul C. Dickie wrote:
>> Vide http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=81394
>>
>> What was the reason for rejection?  None seems to have been given.
>
> A common mistake is to select the free text rejection option but then 
> forget to put text in before hitting the switch  -  I'd surmise that's 
> what's happened here.  As Percy says, it was clearly inappropriate for the 
> group in any event.

Although I agree with the contents of the post in question, it was written 
in very aggressive terms that were very disparaging about the previous 
poster. It simply needed to be toned down a bit.

The Todal wrote:
> "Steve Walker"  wrote in message 
> news:7l8ml5F3c5bdaU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Paul C. Dickie wrote:
>>> Vide http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=81394
>>>
>>> What was the reason for rejection?  None seems to have been given.
>> A common mistake is to select the free text rejection option but then 
>> forget to put text in before hitting the switch  -  I'd surmise that's 
>> what's happened here.  As Percy says, it was clearly inappropriate for the 
>> group in any event.
> 
> Although I agree with the contents of the post in question, it was written 
> in very aggressive terms that were very disparaging about the previous 
> poster. It simply needed to be toned down a bit. 

I think a relatively heated response to a comment which appears to say
that only a select group of people are even qualified to discuss the
topic (I do get, but don't agree with, the earlier poster's point -
pretty much that criminal indecency is not just anything what makes you
go eww) is very understandable but I do accept that it, particularly the
last line, needs rephrased very slightly.

"Paul C. Dickie"  wrote in
news:UTYgocAoat7KFwZZ@bozzie.unospace.net: 

> In message , Percy
> Picacity 
><key@under.the.invalid> writes
>>"Paul C. Dickie"  wrote in
>>news:4deLL59wvs7KFwsd@bozzie.unospace.net:
>>> Vide http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=81394
>>> What was the reason for rejection?  None seems to have been
>>> given. 
>>
>>Using my special powers of deduction I read:
>>
>>"No wonder that many of us regard the IWF and its apologists and
>>predecessors as equivalent to the Lord Something Censor's Office,
>>or Mary Whitehouse's movement: namely, a pile of ignorant,
>>self-important shite."
>>
>>Then I note the post was in reply to a strong supporter
>>of/apologist for the IWF.
>>
>>And I conclude that the rejection reason could so easily be
>>inferred that it did not warrant the waste of bandwidth.
> 
> But http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=81352
> and http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=81353
> did? 
> 

OK, point taken!  If I was the moderator I'd go for "insufficient 
new material", but clearly someone is being careless.

-- 
Percy Picacity

In message , Steve Walker 
 writes
>Paul C. Dickie wrote:
>> Vide http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=81394
>>
>> What was the reason for rejection?  None seems to have been given.
>
>A common mistake is to select the free text rejection option but then forget
>to put text in before hitting the switch  -  I'd surmise that's what's
>happened here.  As Percy says, it was clearly inappropriate for the group in
>any event.

There were clearly two reasons why it was inappropriate:

1)  A contributor to that thread was referred to by name

2)  An organisation was referred to by the name of its (mercifully dead) 
founder and was further declared to be "shite".

As the latter would appear to be common abuse rather than a defamatory 
statement, I wondered which was the reason why the posting was rejected.

-- 
< Paul >