A note to ulm mods.

Giving yourself the last word and then rejecting other posts isn't good 
behaviour unless the last word is about closing the thread.

When one of the last postings allowed includes the words fuck off I 
think a bit more thought should be made.

Have fun contemplating your navels.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Adult Book - Malcolm Knox
Locas, The Maggie and Hopey Stories - Jaime Hernandez

"Wm..."  wrote in message 
news:8+YuWAKArQCHFwSV@[127.0.0.1]...
>
> A note to ulm mods.
>
> Giving yourself the last word and then rejecting other posts isn't good 
> behaviour unless the last word is about closing the thread.
>
> When one of the last postings allowed includes the words fuck off I think 
> a bit more thought should be made.
>
> Have fun contemplating your navels.

If you look at the moderation policy and guidelines you will find that the 
words "fuck off" are permitted in the newsgroup so long as they are not 
directed at another poster. The group isn't a ladies' college.

However, a number of posts have been rejected over the last 24 hours that I 
think were wrongly rejected. And there used to be an administrator option to 
resurrect posts, but that has disappeared. I hope people will try posting 
again, perhaps rephrasing if they think it is necessary to emphasise that 
the post is on-topic.

I do think it is abusive to another poster to say that he isn't genuine, 
that you've seen inconsistencies in his story, that you think he is telling 
fibs etc.  I think you should take each post at face value even if you think 
the poster is probably an unreliable historian or mentally ill.

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:5mubucFepd8fU1@mid.individual.net...

>
> If you look at the moderation policy and guidelines you will find that the 
> words "fuck off" are permitted in the newsgroup so long as they are not 
> directed at another poster. The group isn't a ladies' college.
>
> However, a number of posts have been rejected over the last 24 hours that 
> I think were wrongly rejected. And there used to be an administrator 
> option to resurrect posts, but that has disappeared.

In fact, the posts that I felt had been wrongly rejected have now been 
resurrected and allowed through.

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:36:05 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

> However, a number of posts have been rejected over the last 24 hours that I 
> think were wrongly rejected. And there used to be an administrator option to 
> resurrect posts, but that has disappeared.

Glad to see you recovered the option.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:6ufkg3hd8fon28ftkrispto2d42ja442tu@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:36:05 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>> However, a number of posts have been rejected over the last 24 hours that 
>> I
>> think were wrongly rejected. And there used to be an administrator option 
>> to
>> resurrect posts, but that has disappeared.
>
> Glad to see you recovered the option.

Actually I emailed Mr Ashton and he was able to do the necessary.

Mon, 8 Oct 2007 15:22:13  
uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 

>
>"The Todal"  wrote in message
>news:5mubucFepd8fU1@mid.individual.net...
>

>> However, a number of posts have been rejected over the last 24 hours that
>> I think were wrongly rejected. And there used to be an administrator
>> option to resurrect posts, but that has disappeared.
>
>In fact, the posts that I felt had been wrongly rejected have now been
>resurrected and allowed through.

Thank you for thinking about it, much appreciated.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Adult Book - Malcolm Knox
Locas, The Maggie and Hopey Stories - Jaime Hernandez

Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:36:05  
uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 

>I do think it is abusive to another poster to say that he isn't genuine,
>that you've seen inconsistencies in his story, that you think he is telling
>fibs etc.

But if each of those is discernible from the posters own postings is it 
not fair to point them out to other people?

There have been any number of threads over time where people have been 
questioned about details and inconsistencies pointed out.

There have also been any number of threads where people have commented 
that a poster has already had an answer in an unmoderated group.

>  I think you should take each post at face value even if you think
>the poster is probably an unreliable historian or mentally ill.

Hmmmn.  Moving away from a particular thread isn't there a case to be 
made for a poster abusing the group and that information being 
disseminated in the group?

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Adult Book - Malcolm Knox
Locas, The Maggie and Hopey Stories - Jaime Hernandez

"Wm..."  wrote in message 
news:EhcQRFDSCtCHFwkC@[127.0.0.1]...
> Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:36:05  
> uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 
>
>>I do think it is abusive to another poster to say that he isn't genuine,
>>that you've seen inconsistencies in his story, that you think he is 
>>telling
>>fibs etc.
>
> But if each of those is discernible from the posters own postings is it 
> not fair to point them out to other people?

Not really. People might have various reasons for not telling the truth, eg
a) mental illness
b) wanting to ensure that any friends reading the post won't recognise them 
from the description of the facts
c) conversely, having disguised the problem in the past, now wanting to be 
more truthful in order to get more relevant advice.

>
> There have been any number of threads over time where people have been 
> questioned about details and inconsistencies pointed out.
>
> There have also been any number of threads where people have commented 
> that a poster has already had an answer in an unmoderated group.
>
>>  I think you should take each post at face value even if you think
>>the poster is probably an unreliable historian or mentally ill.
>
> Hmmmn.  Moving away from a particular thread isn't there a case to be made 
> for a poster abusing the group and that information being disseminated in 
> the group?

I understand your point. However it is a slippery slope.  The priority is to 
discourage flame wars where people upset each other and want the last word. 
I'm not convinced that it is a serious form of abuse to prey upon people's 
goodwill - at least, not unless appeals for money are made.

Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:16:41  
uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 

>
>"Wm..."  wrote in message
>news:EhcQRFDSCtCHFwkC@[127.0.0.1]...
>> Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:36:05 
>> uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 
>>
>>>I do think it is abusive to another poster to say that he isn't genuine,
>>>that you've seen inconsistencies in his story, that you think he is
>>>telling
>>>fibs etc.
>>
>> But if each of those is discernible from the posters own postings is it
>> not fair to point them out to other people?
>
>Not really. People might have various reasons for not telling the truth, eg
>a) mental illness
>b) wanting to ensure that any friends reading the post won't recognise them
>from the description of the facts
>c) conversely, having disguised the problem in the past, now wanting to be
>more truthful in order to get more relevant advice.

It is for reasons like that myself and others argued that anonymity 
should be allowed in ulm when it was originally proposed.  The person we 
might be talking about clearly wasn't anonymous to me as I had seen 
similar postings in other groups, in uk.rec.climbing, for example, it is 
quite rare for a "ground" person to need a hyperbaric tent.

>> There have been any number of threads over time where people have been
>> questioned about details and inconsistencies pointed out.
>>
>> There have also been any number of threads where people have commented
>> that a poster has already had an answer in an unmoderated group.
>>
>>>  I think you should take each post at face value even if you think
>>>the poster is probably an unreliable historian or mentally ill.
>>
>> Hmmmn.  Moving away from a particular thread isn't there a case to be made
>> for a poster abusing the group and that information being disseminated in
>> the group?
>
>I understand your point. However it is a slippery slope.  The priority is to
>discourage flame wars where people upset each other and want the last word.
>I'm not convinced that it is a serious form of abuse to prey upon people's
>goodwill - at least, not unless appeals for money are made.

Isn't asking "can I sue the NHS" an appeal for money?

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Adult Book - Malcolm Knox
Locas, The Maggie and Hopey Stories - Jaime Hernandez

"Wm..."  wrote in
news:6b+$$JQfPDDHFwpU@tarrcity.demon.co.uk: 



> Isn't asking "can I sue the NHS" an appeal for money?
> 

No.  HTH

-- 
Percy Picacity