Message from discussion A URCM Query
Received: by 10.224.219.144 with SMTP id hu16mr4863012qab.1.1351468937017;
Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.91.168 with SMTP id cf8mr5264396vdb.6.1351468936993; Sun,
28 Oct 2012 17:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: p11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=126.96.36.199; posting-account=y24izwoAAACH4Qt6y-4Y6sTFkFcACtKO
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/16.0,gzip(gfe)
Subject: Re: A URCM Query
From: M Wicks <mwicks1...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:02:17 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Oct 28, 9:39=A0pm, Bertie Wooster <b...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:38:06 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks
> <mwicks1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 28, 7:35=A0pm, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:21:42 -0000, Steve Walker <spamt...@beeb.net> w=
> >> > "Matthew Vernon" <matt...@debian.org> wrote in message
> >> >news:email@example.com...
> >> >> nomen-nes...@outlook.com writes:
> >> >>> Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing po=
> >> >>> it
> >> >>> applies to the general posting public.
> >> >> I note that the ulm moderators do not do this.
> >> > We don't have a policy. =A0 Whitelisting is not a privilege conferre=
> >> > favoured posters, it's an administrative automation for our convenie=
> >> Not speaking for the moderators or URCM as a group, but that is how I'=
> >> understood all the various facilities the moderation software gives us=
> >> I am pretty sure that every moderated group shares that philosophy.
> >> White-listing (and other stuff like keyword-watching) are tools to hel=
> >> the moderators, and that is all they are.
> >> There isn't a hierarchy of group users with the white-listed posters
> >> being at the summit.
> >Can you name a single whitelisted URCM poster who thinks that cycle
> >helmets are a good idea?
> >Can you name a single whitelisted URCM poster who regularly comments
> >here in a less-than-positive way on URCM's running? Can you explain
> >why Rob Morley was removed from the whitelist at around the same time
> >that he started expressing concerns about the current moderation panel
> >and offering to take over himself (with others)? He certainly seems to
> >think it's a bit fishy.
> >As with everything to do with URCM in one way or another, the
> >whitelist is, in the end, about who Ian Jackson likes (and of course
> >he dislikes a LOT of people). I can't imagine that many here are
> >genuinely unaware of that. I guess that the likes of (the whitelisted)
> >Clive George and Phil Lee applaud it, even if they aren't quite brave
> >enough to say so in so many words.
> Is Phil Lee really on the pass-list?
No, sorry, I meant that only Clive George was, but I phrased it
Amazing that Clive George stays on the whitelist (oops...now my PC
credentials are shot) really, when you consider just how much he
criticises the running of URCM.
> I find it extraordinary if he is.
It would certainly be wrong, but with URCM it wouldn't surprise me. It
wouldn't even particularly surprise me if they asked him to be a