"smicker" wrote in message
...
http://www.moderation.org.uk/

Who ever is going to continue posting here with such harsh moderation.
Just click on the link above and look for yourself:-(
smicker

That your post has been accepted does tend to contradict your argument
somewhat.

You recently said that you have adopted the policy of repeatedly submitting
identical posts to the group in an effort to circumvent the moderation
process. I note that you have now been advised this may be considered to be
an abuse of the group. I would agree with that as I can only imagine that
such action on your part can only designed to deliberately waste the
moderator's time.You have also previously said you voted against the
formation of this group. Personally I have no problem with the fact that you
now wish to take advantage of the group & I feel sure that at various times
many of us will feel that the moderation criteria is too harsh or too lax.
Nevertheless, it is only as a result of the moderators giving freely of
their time that we are fortunate enough to have this moderated group at all.
We will all have posts rejected from time to time but it appears that you in
particular find this difficult to accept & I find that you are now beginning
to give the appearance of campaigning against the group from within. As you
are copying your posts to ukl & therefore freely expressing your opinions
without being subject to moderation & the aims & ethos of this group,
perhaps you should consider whether this group is really suitable for you.

I am not so ignorant as to automatically assume this post will be accepted,
but I am pleased to recognise this is one of the differences between us.

Joe Lee

Joe Lee wrote:

Nevertheless, it is only as a result of the moderators giving freely
of their time that we are fortunate enough to have this moderated
group at all. We will all have posts rejected from time to time but
it appears that you in particular find this difficult to accept & I
find that you are now beginning to give the appearance of campaigning
against the group from within. As you are copying your posts to ukl &
therefore freely expressing your opinions without being subject to
moderation & the aims & ethos of this group, perhaps you should
consider whether this group is really suitable for you.

Very well put, and quite right too.

"smicker" wrote.
This ng is the most responsible on Usenet that I am aware of but as
the novelty wears off standards are slipping. I have no problem with
moderation when The Todal or Marshall are moderating.
smicker

How do you know who is moderating any particular post or at any particular
time?

"smicker" wrote (snipped)

How do you know who is moderating any particular post or at any
particular
time?

That is very simple and straight forward. I just look at the rejection
list and if it is long again then I know that neither The Todal nor
Marshall are moderating.

If that is what you want to think, then you are welcome. None of us knows
which other mod is on line at any time, and there is no indication of who
did what, unless somebody chooses to email the others about it. The fact
that the two mods you mention might be moderating can not stop someone else
rejecting posts.

Overall the rejection rate is extremely low.

Overall the rejection rate is extremely low.

Except for me that is.
smicker

If you continually resubmit rejected posts in a declared attempt to get
round the moderation then you can hardly be surprised that you have had a
number of rejections - it's the identical post being bounced yet again.
Hardly makes you persecuted, does it?

In message , smicker
writes
When post build up because of a shortage of moderators then folks could
make a point that is already covered by a few posts in the backlog that
haven't yet reached the moderator. That way the mod sees a number of
posts that are identical in content and decides to cut some of them out
as being repetitive when in fact the posters were not being repetitive
at the time they posted and when the other posts appear with their post
missing it is bound to cause some discontent in the ranks of the non
white listed posters.

I've had this happen - maybe my ego isn't as large as yours but I just
accept this happening as one of the unfortunate effects of moderation -
reading email before news it's not nice to read the rejection before
seeing the other's post but it's no big deal (mostly

--
dave @ stejonda
Bring culture back to NTL.
http://www.performance-channel.com/

"smicker" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:05:08 +0100, "Bystander"
wrote:


Overall the rejection rate is extremely low.

Except for me that is.
smicker

If you continually resubmit rejected posts in a declared attempt to get
round the moderation then you can hardly be surprised that you have had a
number of rejections - it's the identical post being bounced yet again.
Hardly makes you persecuted, does it?

Who mentioned persecuted? Where does that come into the debate? I
suppose you will want to introduce conspiracy next. The reason I
re-submit rejected posts is because they then get posted. Yes all of
them actually and if I remember correctly it was The Todal who
suggested this was the way to behave. Arguing about what is a problem
for me is not the way to sort this out though.

I don't remember recommending that you resubmit the identical post after a
rejection, though if you can find that I said that, I might have been in a
cynical mood that day. If a post has been rejected as off-topic, it would be
sensible to tweak it a bit to show the moderator that it is on-topic before
you resubmit it. It will of course be apparent that views about what is or
is not on-topic are likely to vary between moderators.

"smicker" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:20:07 +0100, smicker
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:40:08 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:


"smicker" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:05:08 +0100, "Bystander"
wrote:


Overall the rejection rate is extremely low.

Except for me that is.
smicker

If you continually resubmit rejected posts in a declared attempt to
get
round the moderation then you can hardly be surprised that you have
had a
number of rejections - it's the identical post being bounced yet
again.
Hardly makes you persecuted, does it?

Who mentioned persecuted? Where does that come into the debate? I
suppose you will want to introduce conspiracy next. The reason I
re-submit rejected posts is because they then get posted. Yes all of
them actually and if I remember correctly it was The Todal who
suggested this was the way to behave. Arguing about what is a problem
for me is not the way to sort this out though.

I don't remember recommending that you resubmit the identical post after
a
rejection, though if you can find that I said that, I might have been in
a
cynical mood that day. If a post has been rejected as off-topic, it
would be
sensible to tweak it a bit to show the moderator that it is on-topic
before
you resubmit it. It will of course be apparent that views about what is
or
is not on-topic are likely to vary between moderators.

Well I did say if I remembered correctly. Obviously I didn't remember
correctly. I take your point though thanks.

It appears I did remember correctly after all

The post of mine that you go on to quote is concerned with a different
issue - not rejected posts, but those which are stuck in the queue due to
software problems.

"smicker" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:30:12 +0100, "Bystander"
wrote:


"smicker" wrote (snipped)

How do you know who is moderating any particular post or at any
particular
time?

That is very simple and straight forward. I just look at the rejection
list and if it is long again then I know that neither The Todal nor
Marshall are moderating.

If that is what you want to think, then you are welcome. None of us knows
which other mod is on line at any time, and there is no indication of who
did what, unless somebody chooses to email the others about it. The fact
that the two mods you mention might be moderating can not stop someone
else
rejecting posts.

Overall the rejection rate is extremely low.

Except for me that is.

Certainly seems to be the case today. Mostly "duplicates" though I can't
seem to find the originals. I expect it must be my newsreader.