A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.

I accept that

I just don't get why it was rejected.

http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
ulm.php

is the message in question.

===
Post Id:24456
Reject reason given -->
This post is abusive or hurtful to others
===

I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to 
others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being 
hurtful to themselves.

Surely if the post preceding mine was allowed an answer should be 
allowed?

If the post *before* mine shouldn't have been allowed and the mods 
wanted to close a stupid discussion shouldn't they simply say so?

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Villages - John Updike
Come Closer - Sara Gran

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>
>I accept that
>
>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>
>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>ulm.php
>
>is the message in question.
>
>===
>Post Id:24456
>Reject reason given -->
>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>===
>
>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to 
>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being 
>hurtful to themselves.

I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Mike.

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
 
uk.net.news.moderation Mike 

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Possibly, but to turtill?

>Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
>may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
>"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
>to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
>it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Ah.

Good thing turtill wasn't anywhere near "South Dock Marina near 
Greenwich" (the marina is actually quite a distance from Greenwich) or 
he might have noticed something there too :(

See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6575327.stm

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Villages - John Updike
Come Closer - Sara Gran

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0knb23dpvv4jq4e480690boujb62tr26ek@news.kempston.net...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
>  wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
> I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
> put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
> you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

There's also

"Note to mods: I have said a lot, do with it what you will, I can't
believe you let pt through without expecting firm responses :)"

A slightly baffling remark, which I would take to mean "I can't believe you 
allow Pete to post here, without also allowing firm responses" which implies 
that Pete (whoever he is) should be regarded as less equal than others. And 
"do with it what you will" I would take to mean "reject it if you like, and 
I won't whinge about it in uk.net.news.moderation" but obviously that was a 
folorn hope.

In message , at 01:24:22 on Sat, 21 Apr 
2007, Wm...  wibbled
>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
> 
>uk.net.news.moderation Mike 
>
>>>Post Id:24456
>>>Reject reason given -->
>>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>>===
>>>
>>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>>hurtful to themselves.
>>
>>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".
>
>Possibly, but to turtill?

George Orwell. Animal Farm.


I agree with Mike's assessment of the rejected post and I'm not a 
moderator either.


How would you consider it if, for example, I held the opinion that you 
routinely took posts out of context and put your own spin on them. I 
then post to ulm in a response to one of your posts asking when you're 
actually going to take posts in context and not put your own spin on the 
post.

Quite rightly I would expect such a hypothetical post to be rejected by 
the moderators. I wouldn't expect the moderators to differentiate by 
whom it was directed to, who sent it, what their opinion of the 
respective posters were, what they thought the opinions of the 
respective posters were etc., It would be rejected on the simple fact 
that it was against the rules.

Your position seems to be that, because someone holds an opinion about
a poster, then they should be should be allowed to treat the poster 
differently and not in accordance with the moderation rules. I think you 
have clearly showed this in the post of yours that I'm responding to as 
you're essentially asking if the rules apply to replies to a certain 
poster.

If you want the moderation rules changed for ulm so different people 
posting to ulm can be treated differently based on the opinion of the 
poster replying then RFD it in unna/unnc. I very much doubt that you'll 
get very far.


-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>
>I accept that
>
>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>
>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>ulm.php
>
>is the message in question.
>
>===
>Post Id:24456
>Reject reason given -->
>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>===
>
>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to 
>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being 
>hurtful to themselves.

I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Mike.

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
 
uk.net.news.moderation Mike 

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Possibly, but to turtill?

>Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
>may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
>"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
>to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
>it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Ah.

Good thing turtill wasn't anywhere near "South Dock Marina near 
Greenwich" (the marina is actually quite a distance from Greenwich) or 
he might have noticed something there too :(

See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6575327.stm

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Villages - John Updike
Come Closer - Sara Gran

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0knb23dpvv4jq4e480690boujb62tr26ek@news.kempston.net...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
>  wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
> I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
> put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
> you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

There's also

"Note to mods: I have said a lot, do with it what you will, I can't
believe you let pt through without expecting firm responses :)"

A slightly baffling remark, which I would take to mean "I can't believe you 
allow Pete to post here, without also allowing firm responses" which implies 
that Pete (whoever he is) should be regarded as less equal than others. And 
"do with it what you will" I would take to mean "reject it if you like, and 
I won't whinge about it in uk.net.news.moderation" but obviously that was a 
folorn hope.

In message , at 01:24:22 on Sat, 21 Apr 
2007, Wm...  wibbled
>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
> 
>uk.net.news.moderation Mike 
>
>>>Post Id:24456
>>>Reject reason given -->
>>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>>===
>>>
>>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>>hurtful to themselves.
>>
>>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".
>
>Possibly, but to turtill?

George Orwell. Animal Farm.


I agree with Mike's assessment of the rejected post and I'm not a 
moderator either.


How would you consider it if, for example, I held the opinion that you 
routinely took posts out of context and put your own spin on them. I 
then post to ulm in a response to one of your posts asking when you're 
actually going to take posts in context and not put your own spin on the 
post.

Quite rightly I would expect such a hypothetical post to be rejected by 
the moderators. I wouldn't expect the moderators to differentiate by 
whom it was directed to, who sent it, what their opinion of the 
respective posters were, what they thought the opinions of the 
respective posters were etc., It would be rejected on the simple fact 
that it was against the rules.

Your position seems to be that, because someone holds an opinion about
a poster, then they should be should be allowed to treat the poster 
differently and not in accordance with the moderation rules. I think you 
have clearly showed this in the post of yours that I'm responding to as 
you're essentially asking if the rules apply to replies to a certain 
poster.

If you want the moderation rules changed for ulm so different people 
posting to ulm can be treated differently based on the opinion of the 
poster replying then RFD it in unna/unnc. I very much doubt that you'll 
get very far.


-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>
>I accept that
>
>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>
>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>ulm.php
>
>is the message in question.
>
>===
>Post Id:24456
>Reject reason given -->
>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>===
>
>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to 
>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being 
>hurtful to themselves.

I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Mike.

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
 
uk.net.news.moderation Mike 

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Possibly, but to turtill?

>Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
>may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
>"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
>to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
>it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Ah.

Good thing turtill wasn't anywhere near "South Dock Marina near 
Greenwich" (the marina is actually quite a distance from Greenwich) or 
he might have noticed something there too :(

See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6575327.stm

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Villages - John Updike
Come Closer - Sara Gran

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0knb23dpvv4jq4e480690boujb62tr26ek@news.kempston.net...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
>  wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
> I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
> put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
> you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

There's also

"Note to mods: I have said a lot, do with it what you will, I can't
believe you let pt through without expecting firm responses :)"

A slightly baffling remark, which I would take to mean "I can't believe you 
allow Pete to post here, without also allowing firm responses" which implies 
that Pete (whoever he is) should be regarded as less equal than others. And 
"do with it what you will" I would take to mean "reject it if you like, and 
I won't whinge about it in uk.net.news.moderation" but obviously that was a 
folorn hope.

In message , at 01:24:22 on Sat, 21 Apr 
2007, Wm...  wibbled
>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
> 
>uk.net.news.moderation Mike 
>
>>>Post Id:24456
>>>Reject reason given -->
>>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>>===
>>>
>>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>>hurtful to themselves.
>>
>>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".
>
>Possibly, but to turtill?

George Orwell. Animal Farm.


I agree with Mike's assessment of the rejected post and I'm not a 
moderator either.


How would you consider it if, for example, I held the opinion that you 
routinely took posts out of context and put your own spin on them. I 
then post to ulm in a response to one of your posts asking when you're 
actually going to take posts in context and not put your own spin on the 
post.

Quite rightly I would expect such a hypothetical post to be rejected by 
the moderators. I wouldn't expect the moderators to differentiate by 
whom it was directed to, who sent it, what their opinion of the 
respective posters were, what they thought the opinions of the 
respective posters were etc., It would be rejected on the simple fact 
that it was against the rules.

Your position seems to be that, because someone holds an opinion about
a poster, then they should be should be allowed to treat the poster 
differently and not in accordance with the moderation rules. I think you 
have clearly showed this in the post of yours that I'm responding to as 
you're essentially asking if the rules apply to replies to a certain 
poster.

If you want the moderation rules changed for ulm so different people 
posting to ulm can be treated differently based on the opinion of the 
poster replying then RFD it in unna/unnc. I very much doubt that you'll 
get very far.


-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>
>I accept that
>
>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>
>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>ulm.php
>
>is the message in question.
>
>===
>Post Id:24456
>Reject reason given -->
>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>===
>
>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to 
>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being 
>hurtful to themselves.

I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Mike.

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
 
uk.net.news.moderation Mike 

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Possibly, but to turtill?

>Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
>may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
>"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
>to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
>it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Ah.

Good thing turtill wasn't anywhere near "South Dock Marina near 
Greenwich" (the marina is actually quite a distance from Greenwich) or 
he might have noticed something there too :(

See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6575327.stm

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Villages - John Updike
Come Closer - Sara Gran

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0knb23dpvv4jq4e480690boujb62tr26ek@news.kempston.net...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
>  wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
> I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
> put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
> you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

There's also

"Note to mods: I have said a lot, do with it what you will, I can't
believe you let pt through without expecting firm responses :)"

A slightly baffling remark, which I would take to mean "I can't believe you 
allow Pete to post here, without also allowing firm responses" which implies 
that Pete (whoever he is) should be regarded as less equal than others. And 
"do with it what you will" I would take to mean "reject it if you like, and 
I won't whinge about it in uk.net.news.moderation" but obviously that was a 
folorn hope.

In message , at 01:24:22 on Sat, 21 Apr 
2007, Wm...  wibbled
>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
> 
>uk.net.news.moderation Mike 
>
>>>Post Id:24456
>>>Reject reason given -->
>>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>>===
>>>
>>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>>hurtful to themselves.
>>
>>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".
>
>Possibly, but to turtill?

George Orwell. Animal Farm.


I agree with Mike's assessment of the rejected post and I'm not a 
moderator either.


How would you consider it if, for example, I held the opinion that you 
routinely took posts out of context and put your own spin on them. I 
then post to ulm in a response to one of your posts asking when you're 
actually going to take posts in context and not put your own spin on the 
post.

Quite rightly I would expect such a hypothetical post to be rejected by 
the moderators. I wouldn't expect the moderators to differentiate by 
whom it was directed to, who sent it, what their opinion of the 
respective posters were, what they thought the opinions of the 
respective posters were etc., It would be rejected on the simple fact 
that it was against the rules.

Your position seems to be that, because someone holds an opinion about
a poster, then they should be should be allowed to treat the poster 
differently and not in accordance with the moderation rules. I think you 
have clearly showed this in the post of yours that I'm responding to as 
you're essentially asking if the rules apply to replies to a certain 
poster.

If you want the moderation rules changed for ulm so different people 
posting to ulm can be treated differently based on the opinion of the 
poster replying then RFD it in unna/unnc. I very much doubt that you'll 
get very far.


-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>
>I accept that
>
>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>
>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>ulm.php
>
>is the message in question.
>
>===
>Post Id:24456
>Reject reason given -->
>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>===
>
>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to 
>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being 
>hurtful to themselves.

I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Mike.

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
 
uk.net.news.moderation Mike 

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Possibly, but to turtill?

>Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
>may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
>"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
>to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
>it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Ah.

Good thing turtill wasn't anywhere near "South Dock Marina near 
Greenwich" (the marina is actually quite a distance from Greenwich) or 
he might have noticed something there too :(

See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6575327.stm

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Villages - John Updike
Come Closer - Sara Gran

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0knb23dpvv4jq4e480690boujb62tr26ek@news.kempston.net...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
>  wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
> I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
> put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
> you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

There's also

"Note to mods: I have said a lot, do with it what you will, I can't
believe you let pt through without expecting firm responses :)"

A slightly baffling remark, which I would take to mean "I can't believe you 
allow Pete to post here, without also allowing firm responses" which implies 
that Pete (whoever he is) should be regarded as less equal than others. And 
"do with it what you will" I would take to mean "reject it if you like, and 
I won't whinge about it in uk.net.news.moderation" but obviously that was a 
folorn hope.

In message , at 01:24:22 on Sat, 21 Apr 
2007, Wm...  wibbled
>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
> 
>uk.net.news.moderation Mike 
>
>>>Post Id:24456
>>>Reject reason given -->
>>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>>===
>>>
>>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>>hurtful to themselves.
>>
>>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".
>
>Possibly, but to turtill?

George Orwell. Animal Farm.


I agree with Mike's assessment of the rejected post and I'm not a 
moderator either.


How would you consider it if, for example, I held the opinion that you 
routinely took posts out of context and put your own spin on them. I 
then post to ulm in a response to one of your posts asking when you're 
actually going to take posts in context and not put your own spin on the 
post.

Quite rightly I would expect such a hypothetical post to be rejected by 
the moderators. I wouldn't expect the moderators to differentiate by 
whom it was directed to, who sent it, what their opinion of the 
respective posters were, what they thought the opinions of the 
respective posters were etc., It would be rejected on the simple fact 
that it was against the rules.

Your position seems to be that, because someone holds an opinion about
a poster, then they should be should be allowed to treat the poster 
differently and not in accordance with the moderation rules. I think you 
have clearly showed this in the post of yours that I'm responding to as 
you're essentially asking if the rules apply to replies to a certain 
poster.

If you want the moderation rules changed for ulm so different people 
posting to ulm can be treated differently based on the opinion of the 
poster replying then RFD it in unna/unnc. I very much doubt that you'll 
get very far.


-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>
>I accept that
>
>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>
>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>ulm.php
>
>is the message in question.
>
>===
>Post Id:24456
>Reject reason given -->
>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>===
>
>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to 
>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being 
>hurtful to themselves.

I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Mike.

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
 
uk.net.news.moderation Mike 

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Possibly, but to turtill?

>Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
>may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
>"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
>to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
>it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Ah.

Good thing turtill wasn't anywhere near "South Dock Marina near 
Greenwich" (the marina is actually quite a distance from Greenwich) or 
he might have noticed something there too :(

See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6575327.stm

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Villages - John Updike
Come Closer - Sara Gran

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0knb23dpvv4jq4e480690boujb62tr26ek@news.kempston.net...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
>  wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
> I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
> put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
> you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

There's also

"Note to mods: I have said a lot, do with it what you will, I can't
believe you let pt through without expecting firm responses :)"

A slightly baffling remark, which I would take to mean "I can't believe you 
allow Pete to post here, without also allowing firm responses" which implies 
that Pete (whoever he is) should be regarded as less equal than others. And 
"do with it what you will" I would take to mean "reject it if you like, and 
I won't whinge about it in uk.net.news.moderation" but obviously that was a 
folorn hope.

In message , at 01:24:22 on Sat, 21 Apr 
2007, Wm...  wibbled
>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
> 
>uk.net.news.moderation Mike 
>
>>>Post Id:24456
>>>Reject reason given -->
>>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>>===
>>>
>>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>>hurtful to themselves.
>>
>>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".
>
>Possibly, but to turtill?

George Orwell. Animal Farm.


I agree with Mike's assessment of the rejected post and I'm not a 
moderator either.


How would you consider it if, for example, I held the opinion that you 
routinely took posts out of context and put your own spin on them. I 
then post to ulm in a response to one of your posts asking when you're 
actually going to take posts in context and not put your own spin on the 
post.

Quite rightly I would expect such a hypothetical post to be rejected by 
the moderators. I wouldn't expect the moderators to differentiate by 
whom it was directed to, who sent it, what their opinion of the 
respective posters were, what they thought the opinions of the 
respective posters were etc., It would be rejected on the simple fact 
that it was against the rules.

Your position seems to be that, because someone holds an opinion about
a poster, then they should be should be allowed to treat the poster 
differently and not in accordance with the moderation rules. I think you 
have clearly showed this in the post of yours that I'm responding to as 
you're essentially asking if the rules apply to replies to a certain 
poster.

If you want the moderation rules changed for ulm so different people 
posting to ulm can be treated differently based on the opinion of the 
poster replying then RFD it in unna/unnc. I very much doubt that you'll 
get very far.


-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>
>I accept that
>
>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>
>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>ulm.php
>
>is the message in question.
>
>===
>Post Id:24456
>Reject reason given -->
>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>===
>
>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to 
>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being 
>hurtful to themselves.

I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Mike.

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
 
uk.net.news.moderation Mike 

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Possibly, but to turtill?

>Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
>may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
>"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
>to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
>it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Ah.

Good thing turtill wasn't anywhere near "South Dock Marina near 
Greenwich" (the marina is actually quite a distance from Greenwich) or 
he might have noticed something there too :(

See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6575327.stm

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Villages - John Updike
Come Closer - Sara Gran

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0knb23dpvv4jq4e480690boujb62tr26ek@news.kempston.net...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
>  wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
> I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
> put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
> you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

There's also

"Note to mods: I have said a lot, do with it what you will, I can't
believe you let pt through without expecting firm responses :)"

A slightly baffling remark, which I would take to mean "I can't believe you 
allow Pete to post here, without also allowing firm responses" which implies 
that Pete (whoever he is) should be regarded as less equal than others. And 
"do with it what you will" I would take to mean "reject it if you like, and 
I won't whinge about it in uk.net.news.moderation" but obviously that was a 
folorn hope.

In message , at 01:24:22 on Sat, 21 Apr 
2007, Wm...  wibbled
>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
> 
>uk.net.news.moderation Mike 
>
>>>Post Id:24456
>>>Reject reason given -->
>>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>>===
>>>
>>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>>hurtful to themselves.
>>
>>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".
>
>Possibly, but to turtill?

George Orwell. Animal Farm.


I agree with Mike's assessment of the rejected post and I'm not a 
moderator either.


How would you consider it if, for example, I held the opinion that you 
routinely took posts out of context and put your own spin on them. I 
then post to ulm in a response to one of your posts asking when you're 
actually going to take posts in context and not put your own spin on the 
post.

Quite rightly I would expect such a hypothetical post to be rejected by 
the moderators. I wouldn't expect the moderators to differentiate by 
whom it was directed to, who sent it, what their opinion of the 
respective posters were, what they thought the opinions of the 
respective posters were etc., It would be rejected on the simple fact 
that it was against the rules.

Your position seems to be that, because someone holds an opinion about
a poster, then they should be should be allowed to treat the poster 
differently and not in accordance with the moderation rules. I think you 
have clearly showed this in the post of yours that I'm responding to as 
you're essentially asking if the rules apply to replies to a certain 
poster.

If you want the moderation rules changed for ulm so different people 
posting to ulm can be treated differently based on the opinion of the 
poster replying then RFD it in unna/unnc. I very much doubt that you'll 
get very far.


-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>
>I accept that
>
>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>
>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>ulm.php
>
>is the message in question.
>
>===
>Post Id:24456
>Reject reason given -->
>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>===
>
>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to 
>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being 
>hurtful to themselves.

I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Mike.

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
 
uk.net.news.moderation Mike 

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Possibly, but to turtill?

>Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
>may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
>"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
>to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
>it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Ah.

Good thing turtill wasn't anywhere near "South Dock Marina near 
Greenwich" (the marina is actually quite a distance from Greenwich) or 
he might have noticed something there too :(

See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6575327.stm

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Villages - John Updike
Come Closer - Sara Gran

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0knb23dpvv4jq4e480690boujb62tr26ek@news.kempston.net...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
>  wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
> I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
> put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
> you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

There's also

"Note to mods: I have said a lot, do with it what you will, I can't
believe you let pt through without expecting firm responses :)"

A slightly baffling remark, which I would take to mean "I can't believe you 
allow Pete to post here, without also allowing firm responses" which implies 
that Pete (whoever he is) should be regarded as less equal than others. And 
"do with it what you will" I would take to mean "reject it if you like, and 
I won't whinge about it in uk.net.news.moderation" but obviously that was a 
folorn hope.

In message , at 01:24:22 on Sat, 21 Apr 
2007, Wm...  wibbled
>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
> 
>uk.net.news.moderation Mike 
>
>>>Post Id:24456
>>>Reject reason given -->
>>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>>===
>>>
>>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>>hurtful to themselves.
>>
>>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".
>
>Possibly, but to turtill?

George Orwell. Animal Farm.


I agree with Mike's assessment of the rejected post and I'm not a 
moderator either.


How would you consider it if, for example, I held the opinion that you 
routinely took posts out of context and put your own spin on them. I 
then post to ulm in a response to one of your posts asking when you're 
actually going to take posts in context and not put your own spin on the 
post.

Quite rightly I would expect such a hypothetical post to be rejected by 
the moderators. I wouldn't expect the moderators to differentiate by 
whom it was directed to, who sent it, what their opinion of the 
respective posters were, what they thought the opinions of the 
respective posters were etc., It would be rejected on the simple fact 
that it was against the rules.

Your position seems to be that, because someone holds an opinion about
a poster, then they should be should be allowed to treat the poster 
differently and not in accordance with the moderation rules. I think you 
have clearly showed this in the post of yours that I'm responding to as 
you're essentially asking if the rules apply to replies to a certain 
poster.

If you want the moderation rules changed for ulm so different people 
posting to ulm can be treated differently based on the opinion of the 
poster replying then RFD it in unna/unnc. I very much doubt that you'll 
get very far.


-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>
>I accept that
>
>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>
>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>ulm.php
>
>is the message in question.
>
>===
>Post Id:24456
>Reject reason given -->
>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>===
>
>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to 
>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being 
>hurtful to themselves.

I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Mike.

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
 
uk.net.news.moderation Mike 

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Possibly, but to turtill?

>Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
>may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
>"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
>to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
>it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Ah.

Good thing turtill wasn't anywhere near "South Dock Marina near 
Greenwich" (the marina is actually quite a distance from Greenwich) or 
he might have noticed something there too :(

See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6575327.stm

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Villages - John Updike
Come Closer - Sara Gran

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0knb23dpvv4jq4e480690boujb62tr26ek@news.kempston.net...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
>  wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
> I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
> put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
> you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

There's also

"Note to mods: I have said a lot, do with it what you will, I can't
believe you let pt through without expecting firm responses :)"

A slightly baffling remark, which I would take to mean "I can't believe you 
allow Pete to post here, without also allowing firm responses" which implies 
that Pete (whoever he is) should be regarded as less equal than others. And 
"do with it what you will" I would take to mean "reject it if you like, and 
I won't whinge about it in uk.net.news.moderation" but obviously that was a 
folorn hope.

In message , at 01:24:22 on Sat, 21 Apr 
2007, Wm...  wibbled
>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
> 
>uk.net.news.moderation Mike 
>
>>>Post Id:24456
>>>Reject reason given -->
>>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>>===
>>>
>>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>>hurtful to themselves.
>>
>>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".
>
>Possibly, but to turtill?

George Orwell. Animal Farm.


I agree with Mike's assessment of the rejected post and I'm not a 
moderator either.


How would you consider it if, for example, I held the opinion that you 
routinely took posts out of context and put your own spin on them. I 
then post to ulm in a response to one of your posts asking when you're 
actually going to take posts in context and not put your own spin on the 
post.

Quite rightly I would expect such a hypothetical post to be rejected by 
the moderators. I wouldn't expect the moderators to differentiate by 
whom it was directed to, who sent it, what their opinion of the 
respective posters were, what they thought the opinions of the 
respective posters were etc., It would be rejected on the simple fact 
that it was against the rules.

Your position seems to be that, because someone holds an opinion about
a poster, then they should be should be allowed to treat the poster 
differently and not in accordance with the moderation rules. I think you 
have clearly showed this in the post of yours that I'm responding to as 
you're essentially asking if the rules apply to replies to a certain 
poster.

If you want the moderation rules changed for ulm so different people 
posting to ulm can be treated differently based on the opinion of the 
poster replying then RFD it in unna/unnc. I very much doubt that you'll 
get very far.


-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
 
uk.net.news.moderation Mike 

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Possibly, but to turtill?

>Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
>may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
>"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
>to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
>it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Ah.

Good thing turtill wasn't anywhere near "South Dock Marina near 
Greenwich" (the marina is actually quite a distance from Greenwich) or 
he might have noticed something there too :(

See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6575327.stm

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Villages - John Updike
Come Closer - Sara Gran

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0knb23dpvv4jq4e480690boujb62tr26ek@news.kempston.net...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
>  wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
> I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
> put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
> you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

There's also

"Note to mods: I have said a lot, do with it what you will, I can't
believe you let pt through without expecting firm responses :)"

A slightly baffling remark, which I would take to mean "I can't believe you 
allow Pete to post here, without also allowing firm responses" which implies 
that Pete (whoever he is) should be regarded as less equal than others. And 
"do with it what you will" I would take to mean "reject it if you like, and 
I won't whinge about it in uk.net.news.moderation" but obviously that was a 
folorn hope.

In message , at 01:24:22 on Sat, 21 Apr 
2007, Wm...  wibbled
>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
> 
>uk.net.news.moderation Mike 
>
>>>Post Id:24456
>>>Reject reason given -->
>>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>>===
>>>
>>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>>hurtful to themselves.
>>
>>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".
>
>Possibly, but to turtill?

George Orwell. Animal Farm.


I agree with Mike's assessment of the rejected post and I'm not a 
moderator either.


How would you consider it if, for example, I held the opinion that you 
routinely took posts out of context and put your own spin on them. I 
then post to ulm in a response to one of your posts asking when you're 
actually going to take posts in context and not put your own spin on the 
post.

Quite rightly I would expect such a hypothetical post to be rejected by 
the moderators. I wouldn't expect the moderators to differentiate by 
whom it was directed to, who sent it, what their opinion of the 
respective posters were, what they thought the opinions of the 
respective posters were etc., It would be rejected on the simple fact 
that it was against the rules.

Your position seems to be that, because someone holds an opinion about
a poster, then they should be should be allowed to treat the poster 
differently and not in accordance with the moderation rules. I think you 
have clearly showed this in the post of yours that I'm responding to as 
you're essentially asking if the rules apply to replies to a certain 
poster.

If you want the moderation rules changed for ulm so different people 
posting to ulm can be treated differently based on the opinion of the 
poster replying then RFD it in unna/unnc. I very much doubt that you'll 
get very far.


-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
 
uk.net.news.moderation Mike 

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

Possibly, but to turtill?

>Incidentally, to clear up one source of confusion, I think (athough I
>may be wrong of course) that the implication being made is that the
>"funeral body wagon" was used by the murderer to transport the bodies
>to the place where they were found.  Hence the claimed significance of
>it being seen before the bodies were discovered.

Ah.

Good thing turtill wasn't anywhere near "South Dock Marina near 
Greenwich" (the marina is actually quite a distance from Greenwich) or 
he might have noticed something there too :(

See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6575327.stm

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Villages - John Updike
Come Closer - Sara Gran

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0knb23dpvv4jq4e480690boujb62tr26ek@news.kempston.net...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
>  wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
> I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
> put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
> you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

There's also

"Note to mods: I have said a lot, do with it what you will, I can't
believe you let pt through without expecting firm responses :)"

A slightly baffling remark, which I would take to mean "I can't believe you 
allow Pete to post here, without also allowing firm responses" which implies 
that Pete (whoever he is) should be regarded as less equal than others. And 
"do with it what you will" I would take to mean "reject it if you like, and 
I won't whinge about it in uk.net.news.moderation" but obviously that was a 
folorn hope.

In message , at 01:24:22 on Sat, 21 Apr 
2007, Wm...  wibbled
>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
> 
>uk.net.news.moderation Mike 
>
>>>Post Id:24456
>>>Reject reason given -->
>>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>>===
>>>
>>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>>hurtful to themselves.
>>
>>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".
>
>Possibly, but to turtill?

George Orwell. Animal Farm.


I agree with Mike's assessment of the rejected post and I'm not a 
moderator either.


How would you consider it if, for example, I held the opinion that you 
routinely took posts out of context and put your own spin on them. I 
then post to ulm in a response to one of your posts asking when you're 
actually going to take posts in context and not put your own spin on the 
post.

Quite rightly I would expect such a hypothetical post to be rejected by 
the moderators. I wouldn't expect the moderators to differentiate by 
whom it was directed to, who sent it, what their opinion of the 
respective posters were, what they thought the opinions of the 
respective posters were etc., It would be rejected on the simple fact 
that it was against the rules.

Your position seems to be that, because someone holds an opinion about
a poster, then they should be should be allowed to treat the poster 
differently and not in accordance with the moderation rules. I think you 
have clearly showed this in the post of yours that I'm responding to as 
you're essentially asking if the rules apply to replies to a certain 
poster.

If you want the moderation rules changed for ulm so different people 
posting to ulm can be treated differently based on the opinion of the 
poster replying then RFD it in unna/unnc. I very much doubt that you'll 
get very far.


-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0knb23dpvv4jq4e480690boujb62tr26ek@news.kempston.net...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
>  wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
> I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
> put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
> you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

There's also

"Note to mods: I have said a lot, do with it what you will, I can't
believe you let pt through without expecting firm responses :)"

A slightly baffling remark, which I would take to mean "I can't believe you 
allow Pete to post here, without also allowing firm responses" which implies 
that Pete (whoever he is) should be regarded as less equal than others. And 
"do with it what you will" I would take to mean "reject it if you like, and 
I won't whinge about it in uk.net.news.moderation" but obviously that was a 
folorn hope.

In message , at 01:24:22 on Sat, 21 Apr 
2007, Wm...  wibbled
>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
> 
>uk.net.news.moderation Mike 
>
>>>Post Id:24456
>>>Reject reason given -->
>>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>>===
>>>
>>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>>hurtful to themselves.
>>
>>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".
>
>Possibly, but to turtill?

George Orwell. Animal Farm.


I agree with Mike's assessment of the rejected post and I'm not a 
moderator either.


How would you consider it if, for example, I held the opinion that you 
routinely took posts out of context and put your own spin on them. I 
then post to ulm in a response to one of your posts asking when you're 
actually going to take posts in context and not put your own spin on the 
post.

Quite rightly I would expect such a hypothetical post to be rejected by 
the moderators. I wouldn't expect the moderators to differentiate by 
whom it was directed to, who sent it, what their opinion of the 
respective posters were, what they thought the opinions of the 
respective posters were etc., It would be rejected on the simple fact 
that it was against the rules.

Your position seems to be that, because someone holds an opinion about
a poster, then they should be should be allowed to treat the poster 
differently and not in accordance with the moderation rules. I think you 
have clearly showed this in the post of yours that I'm responding to as 
you're essentially asking if the rules apply to replies to a certain 
poster.

If you want the moderation rules changed for ulm so different people 
posting to ulm can be treated differently based on the opinion of the 
poster replying then RFD it in unna/unnc. I very much doubt that you'll 
get very far.


-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0knb23dpvv4jq4e480690boujb62tr26ek@news.kempston.net...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
>  wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
> I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
> put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
> you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

There's also

"Note to mods: I have said a lot, do with it what you will, I can't
believe you let pt through without expecting firm responses :)"

A slightly baffling remark, which I would take to mean "I can't believe you 
allow Pete to post here, without also allowing firm responses" which implies 
that Pete (whoever he is) should be regarded as less equal than others. And 
"do with it what you will" I would take to mean "reject it if you like, and 
I won't whinge about it in uk.net.news.moderation" but obviously that was a 
folorn hope.

In message , at 01:24:22 on Sat, 21 Apr 
2007, Wm...  wibbled
>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
> 
>uk.net.news.moderation Mike 
>
>>>Post Id:24456
>>>Reject reason given -->
>>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>>===
>>>
>>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>>hurtful to themselves.
>>
>>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".
>
>Possibly, but to turtill?

George Orwell. Animal Farm.


I agree with Mike's assessment of the rejected post and I'm not a 
moderator either.


How would you consider it if, for example, I held the opinion that you 
routinely took posts out of context and put your own spin on them. I 
then post to ulm in a response to one of your posts asking when you're 
actually going to take posts in context and not put your own spin on the 
post.

Quite rightly I would expect such a hypothetical post to be rejected by 
the moderators. I wouldn't expect the moderators to differentiate by 
whom it was directed to, who sent it, what their opinion of the 
respective posters were, what they thought the opinions of the 
respective posters were etc., It would be rejected on the simple fact 
that it was against the rules.

Your position seems to be that, because someone holds an opinion about
a poster, then they should be should be allowed to treat the poster 
differently and not in accordance with the moderation rules. I think you 
have clearly showed this in the post of yours that I'm responding to as 
you're essentially asking if the rules apply to replies to a certain 
poster.

If you want the moderation rules changed for ulm so different people 
posting to ulm can be treated differently based on the opinion of the 
poster replying then RFD it in unna/unnc. I very much doubt that you'll 
get very far.


-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0knb23dpvv4jq4e480690boujb62tr26ek@news.kempston.net...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:47:38 +0100, "Wm..."
>  wrote:
>
>>A posting I made to uk.legal.moderated was rejected.
>>
>>I accept that
>>
>>I just don't get why it was rejected.
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=24456&returnto=3display
>>ulm.php
>>
>>is the message in question.
>>
>>===
>>Post Id:24456
>>Reject reason given -->
>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>===
>>
>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>hurtful to themselves.
>
> I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
> put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
> you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".

There's also

"Note to mods: I have said a lot, do with it what you will, I can't
believe you let pt through without expecting firm responses :)"

A slightly baffling remark, which I would take to mean "I can't believe you 
allow Pete to post here, without also allowing firm responses" which implies 
that Pete (whoever he is) should be regarded as less equal than others. And 
"do with it what you will" I would take to mean "reject it if you like, and 
I won't whinge about it in uk.net.news.moderation" but obviously that was a 
folorn hope.

In message , at 01:24:22 on Sat, 21 Apr 
2007, Wm...  wibbled
>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:07:45 
> 
>uk.net.news.moderation Mike 
>
>>>Post Id:24456
>>>Reject reason given -->
>>>This post is abusive or hurtful to others
>>>===
>>>
>>>I don't see a bad word problem and can't work out what the "hurtful to
>>>others" issue could be except that I was pointing out someone being
>>>hurtful to themselves.
>>
>>I'm not a moderator but I'd guess that the phrases "you seem unable to
>>put events in order", "your language is often disordered" and "Why are
>>you moaning now?" may be considered "hurtful to others".
>
>Possibly, but to turtill?

George Orwell. Animal Farm.


I agree with Mike's assessment of the rejected post and I'm not a 
moderator either.


How would you consider it if, for example, I held the opinion that you 
routinely took posts out of context and put your own spin on them. I 
then post to ulm in a response to one of your posts asking when you're 
actually going to take posts in context and not put your own spin on the 
post.

Quite rightly I would expect such a hypothetical post to be rejected by 
the moderators. I wouldn't expect the moderators to differentiate by 
whom it was directed to, who sent it, what their opinion of the 
respective posters were, what they thought the opinions of the 
respective posters were etc., It would be rejected on the simple fact 
that it was against the rules.

Your position seems to be that, because someone holds an opinion about
a poster, then they should be should be allowed to treat the poster 
differently and not in accordance with the moderation rules. I think you 
have clearly showed this in the post of yours that I'm responding to as 
you're essentially asking if the rules apply to replies to a certain 
poster.

If you want the moderation rules changed for ulm so different people 
posting to ulm can be treated differently based on the opinion of the 
poster replying then RFD it in unna/unnc. I very much doubt that you'll 
get very far.


-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>