Unfair rejection: "unconstructive"

[John Benn]

Another bloody rejection for daring to disagree with a moderator!

Unconstructive my arse! More like "I don't like you disagreeing with me".

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-135318833126117.txt

[Rob Morley]

Pointless repetition, failure to see the big picture. I'd reject that
post.

[Percy Picacity]

Yes, he missed or ignored the suggestion that the majority of people
using the roads (both at a given time and in terms of an individual's
daily activities) are pedestrians, and simply repeated his original
point. However, many people do that both on the Internet and in real
life and I would have waited for the third repetition before rejecting
it. YMMV though, and I don't think he has much to complain of.

--

Percy Picacity

[John Benn]

"Rob Morley" wrote in message news:20121118161546.31ff79aa@hyperion...

=============================

Thanks Rob.

If I have missed the bigger picture, it would have been better to have had
that politely explained to me in the NG. I was convinced that Andy had
misunderstood me and I was attempting to clarify (even if I did need to
repeat some things).

I'm sufficiently discouraged to not want to post anything else in that
thread. If the moderators want to stifle open and polite discussion, then
that's up to them.

[Bertie Wooster]

I think that you miss the point and are being rather mischievous by
doing so.

The urcm moderators have no desire to stifle all open and polite
discussion. Their aim is only to stifle the open and polite discussion
from certain individuals.

But you knew that.

[Andy Leighton]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:56:29 -0000, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Rob Morley" wrote in message news:20121118161546.31ff79aa@hyperion...
>
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 13:34:43 -0000
> "John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Another bloody rejection for daring to disagree with a moderator!
>>
>> Unconstructive my arse! More like "I don't like you disagreeing with
>> me".
>>
>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-135318833126117.txt
>>
> Pointless repetition, failure to see the big picture. I'd reject that
> post.
>=============================
>
> Thanks Rob.
>
> If I have missed the bigger picture, it would have been better to have had
> that politely explained to me in the NG. I was convinced that Andy had
> misunderstood me

You were convinced. Rob and Percy Picacity seemed to understand my point.
That when you include pedestrians, then drivers become a small majority of
users.

However I did not moderate any of your responses to me. It is something
I avoid (and not just you but anyone who replies to me with opinion and
not technical information), as I may be tempted to quickly approve an
article so that I can respond to it rather than deciding fairly on
whether it is repetitious, or rude for that matter, or not.

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[John Benn]

"Andy Leighton" wrote in message
news:slrnkai9n6...@azaal.plus.com...

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:56:29 -0000, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "Rob Morley" wrote in message news:20121118161546.31ff79aa@hyperion...
>
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 13:34:43 -0000
> "John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Another bloody rejection for daring to disagree with a moderator!
>>
>> Unconstructive my arse! More like "I don't like you disagreeing with
>> me".
>>
>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-135318833126117.txt
>>
> Pointless repetition, failure to see the big picture. I'd reject that
> post.
>=============================
>
> Thanks Rob.
>
> If I have missed the bigger picture, it would have been better to have had
> that politely explained to me in the NG. I was convinced that Andy had
> misunderstood me

You were convinced. Rob and Percy Picacity seemed to understand my point.
That when you include pedestrians, then drivers become a small majority of
users.

==================================

I am not prepared to discuss the topic here. This is not the right place
and in URCM, my presence is obviously unwelcome based on your unjustified
censorship of my perfectly reasonable post.

[Percy Picacity]

Since you raised the matter of the rejection here for discussion, this
seems an inconsistent position to take.

--

Percy Picacity

[John Benn]

"Anthony R. Gold" <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6vqia8p362gidfbod...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:50:54 -0000, "John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com>

> You snipped the part where Andy stated that he did not moderate your post
> and then you repeated your claim. You are calling him a liar with no
> factual
> basis. Is that your standard for a perfectly reasonable post?

When I said "your", I meant the moderation team. Apologies if it was taken
differently.

[Andy Leighton]

Well not if you just want a moan.

Reading through I thought the rejected submission was marginal. On a
different day it might have gone through without a hitch.

[Danny Colyer]

I had previously passed 2 posts from John Benn where he blatantly missed
this particular point. In both cases I considered rejecting for point
missing.

I think I'd count this one as the third repetition. I'd have rejected it.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

[Judith]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:21:02 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:

Another clear example of you either not having the necessary equipment, or just
being unwilling to understand. Let me explain:

"That when you include pedestrians, then drivers become a small majority of

users." - is the point Mr Been was making. He was quite correctly saying that
*here* was not the place to discuss *that* topic: URCM was.

OK now?

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

Excuse me folks.
I am posting this to see if it is or not.
I will soon know if it appears immediately.....{;o;}

Jeff...

[John Benn]

"Danny Colyer" <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote in message
news:Cp6dnfPRz9gzHDfN...@brightview.co.uk...

> On 18/11/2012 16:43, Percy Picacity wrote:
>> On 2012-11-18 16:15:46 +0000, Rob Morley said:
>>
>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 13:34:43 -0000
>>> "John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another bloody rejection for daring to disagree with a moderator!
>>>>
>>>> Unconstructive my arse! More like "I don't like you disagreeing with
>>>> me".
>>>>
>>>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-135318833126117.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Pointless repetition, failure to see the big picture. I'd reject that
>>> post.
>>
>> Yes, he missed or ignored the suggestion that the majority of people
>> using the roads (both at a given time and in terms of an individual's
>> daily activities) are pedestrians, and simply repeated his original
>> point. However, many people do that both on the Internet and in real
>> life and I would have waited for the third repetition before rejecting
>> it. YMMV though, and I don't think he has much to complain of.
>
> I had previously passed 2 posts from John Benn where he blatantly missed
> this particular point. In both cases I considered rejecting for point
> missing.
>
> I think I'd count this one as the third repetition. I'd have rejected it.

Is it now an offence to misunderstand someone in URCM?

[John Benn]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:drhma8p4qktqsjiqo...@4ax.com...

Exactly. I was prevented from discussing the topic in URCM and I was not
prepared to continue here.

[Sara]

In article <ah11ei...@mid.individual.net>,
"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"

It is not a moderated group. It is a group for discussing moderation in
other groups.

--
Sara

cats cats cats cats cats

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Sara" wrote in message
news:saramerriman-9556...@news.eternal-september.org...

Yes, I see, I was directed here by Mark Goodge the moderator of UKRC.

Jeff...

[John Benn]

"Mrbeerful" <danniel...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1n0na85823t7lhj81...@4ax.com...

> If the moderation in URCM really is undertaken with regard to who you
> are rather than what you write, then the answer to your question is
> likely to be that it depends upon whether you are a favoured poster
> there or merely a barely tolerated one.

I suspect that I am barely-tolerated because my opinions don't match those
of the in crowd and consequently I am scrutinised much more closely.. It's
very frustrating.

[Danny Colyer]

On 20/11/2012 09:40, John Benn wrote:
> "Danny Colyer" <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:Cp6dnfPRz9gzHDfN...@brightview.co.uk...

>> I had previously passed 2 posts from John Benn where he blatantly missed
>> this particular point. In both cases I considered rejecting for point
>> missing.
>>
>> I think I'd count this one as the third repetition. I'd have rejected it.
>
> Is it now an offence to misunderstand someone in URCM?

Repeated wilful misunderstanding of a point is both inflammatory and
makes for endless circular arguments. It does not make for a pleasant
group. It is therefore something that we keep an eye out for in moderation.

The point, in this case, is that you don't have to be driving a car to
count as a road user. Anyone who uses the public highway in any
capacity counts as a road user.

I confess that it has been an education to see how you and JNugent have
repeatedly managed to miss (and even to deny) this point - it seems so
obvious that I am amazed that it has been necessary to explicitly state it.

[Nick]

On 20/11/2012 20:05, Danny Colyer wrote:
> On 20/11/2012 09:40, John Benn wrote:
>> "Danny Colyer" <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote in message
>> news:Cp6dnfPRz9gzHDfN...@brightview.co.uk...
>>> I had previously passed 2 posts from John Benn where he blatantly missed
>>> this particular point. In both cases I considered rejecting for point
>>> missing.
>>>
>>> I think I'd count this one as the third repetition. I'd have
>>> rejected it.
>>
>> Is it now an offence to misunderstand someone in URCM?
>
> Repeated wilful misunderstanding of a point is both inflammatory and
> makes for endless circular arguments. It does not make for a pleasant
> group. It is therefore something that we keep an eye out for in
> moderation.
>

Mr Benn's usage seems to be perfectly reasonable as pointed out by Adam Lea.

> The point, in this case, is that you don't have to be driving a car to
> count as a road user. Anyone who uses the public highway in any
> capacity counts as a road user.
>

His original post included pedestrians as road users. English is
imprecise. Mr Benn's usage was perfectly consistent and reasonable. If
anything his usage gave the more natural English assumption of usage
weighted by the amount each user actually uses a facility or if you like
usage based on number of users actually using a facility at any given time.

> I confess that it has been an education to see how you and JNugent have
> repeatedly managed to miss (and even to deny) this point - it seems so
> obvious that I am amazed that it has been necessary to explicitly state it.
>

JNugent (and possibly Mr Benn) may like to claim ambiguous and imprecise
terms have a specific meaning but only an idiot or a propagandist would
enter in to argument with them trying to assign a different specific
meaning rather than seek to clarify what was actually meant.

It is like having an argument as to whether grey is a light colour close
to white or that is a dark colour close to black.

But as is the urcm way it is Mr Benn who is seen as the problem rather
than a member of the urcm clique. If you really had wanted to avoid a
circular argument why not reject Andy Leighton's post?

[John Benn]

"Nick" <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50abff46$0$25485$c3e8da3$26f9...@news.astraweb.com...

I also considered bicycles as vehicles. They fit the dictionary definition.

[John Benn]

"Danny Colyer" <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote in message

news:cIydnfX2Qo_TfzbN...@brightview.co.uk...

> On 20/11/2012 09:40, John Benn wrote:
>> "Danny Colyer" <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote in message
>> news:Cp6dnfPRz9gzHDfN...@brightview.co.uk...
>>> I had previously passed 2 posts from John Benn where he blatantly missed
>>> this particular point. In both cases I considered rejecting for point
>>> missing.
>>>
>>> I think I'd count this one as the third repetition. I'd have rejected
>>> it.
>>
>> Is it now an offence to misunderstand someone in URCM?
>
> Repeated wilful misunderstanding of a point is both inflammatory and makes
> for endless circular arguments. It does not make for a pleasant group.
> It is therefore something that we keep an eye out for in moderation.
>
> The point, in this case, is that you don't have to be driving a car to
> count as a road user. Anyone who uses the public highway in any capacity
> counts as a road user.
>
> I confess that it has been an education to see how you and JNugent have
> repeatedly managed to miss (and even to deny) this point - it seems so
> obvious that I am amazed that it has been necessary to explicitly state
> it.

It is called disagreement. Something the moderators can't handle in a
discussion.

[M Wicks]

On Nov 20, 10:04 am, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"

<jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Sara"  wrote in message
>
> news:saramerriman-9556...@news.eternal-september.org...

> In article <ah11eiF6im...@mid.individual.net>,

> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>
> <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> Excuse me folks.
> >> I am posting this to see if it is or not.
> >> I will soon know if it appears immediately.....{;o;}
>
> >> Jeff...
> > It is not a moderated group. It is a group for discussing moderation in
> > other groups.
>
> Yes, I see, I was directed here by Mark Goodge the moderator of UKRC.

You've posted your bigotry on this newsgroup before, so I'm surprised
you don't know the drill.