another uk.legal.moderated rejection
Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:17:07 +0100
Post Id:79938
Reject reason given -->
This post has insufficient new material. Similar issues have already
been raised.
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:30:18 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
wrote:
>
>"Judith M Smith" <judithmsmith@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ji3sc51ud87eddtu9141894bmqve0brn59@4ax.c ...
|
CRB checks for moderators
Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:21:16 +0100
Do the moderators have CRB checks? Considering that they are mostly
dealing with apparent Children and Vulnerable Adults, it would seem that
they are necessary.
R. ...
|
uklm moderator lack of impartiality
Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:50:33 +0100
Just been having a trawl through the rejected posts. I had come to expect
reject comments to be concise and impartial. That no longer appears to be
the case, as at least one moderator is making flippant comments as part of
the rejection.
It would seem standards are slipping.
--
The Wanderer
Most orga ...
|
Re: uk.legal.moderated - Cycle Helmets
Thu, 8 Oct 2009 01:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
On 8 Oct, 08:43, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chap...@spamcop.net>
wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:11:59 -0700 (PDT), Toom Tabard
>
> <t...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Which makes for a rather frustrating debate, don't you think? You
> >> refuse to engage in private discussion, and per your previous pos ...
|
Re: uk.legal.moderated - Cycle Helmets
Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
On 7 Oct, 21:00, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chap...@spamcop.net>
wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 02:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Toom Tabard
>
> <t...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <blah>
>
You could quote what I say and address the issues.
> Look, here's a quote form your post to that group which illustrates
...
|
ulm post 79717
Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:08:12 +0100
http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=79717&returnto=3displayulm.php
"This post has insufficient new material. Similar issues have already
been raised."
Where has the confusion between odds ratios and protective effect been
raised? I don't see it anywhere in the discussion, but it's actually
qu ...
|
Re: uk.legal.moderated - Cycle Helmets
Wed, 7 Oct 2009 02:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
On 6 Oct, 18:08, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chap...@spamcop.net>
wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 08:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Toom Tabard
>
> <t...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >I can't see in this thread where I've demanded you accept anything.
>
> Then you it would appear that are as lacking in self-criticism as ...
|
Another Rejection
Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:09:24 +0100
Reject reason given -->
This post contains no new information - the cited expert may be found
on google.
<snip>
>
>Brian Walker is the MD of Head Protection Evaluations, the leading cycle
>helemt tester in the UK. His opinion is here:
><http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1081.html>.
"the leading cycle helme ...
|
Re: uk.legal.moderated - Cycle Helmets
Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:08:26 +0100
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 08:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Toom Tabard
<toom@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I can't see in this thread where I've demanded you accept anything.
Then you it would appear that are as lacking in self-criticism as you
are lacking in critical judgment on the evidence base.
You could always try ci ...
|
Humourless git!
Tue, 6 Oct 2009 07:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
In the tiresome "Cycle helmets" thread on ulm, I sought to mock those
misusing statistics:
Rejected posts
Post Id:79674
Reject reason given -->
This is off topic for uk.legal.moderated or has insufficient law-
related material - see http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm
On Oct 6, 11:50=A0am, Judith M S ...
|
