Its just that in the "Scotland" thread about trees in back gardens posts 
from Orphelia containing hate like:

""He is a horrible man.  He bullies everyone he can."

"This man has not worked in all the years I have known him and had a 
large family."

"He lives with his special needs daughter in a 4 bedroomed house
which most people would not be alowed."

seems to have been waved through without a probelm, whereas any comment 
on this disgraceful attitude is barred.

Does the moderator involved with these decisions have a problem of his 
own with DSS types, perhaps he would like to declare his bias?


One rule for all eh, and I thought it was
"This post is abusive or hurtful to others"

perhaps the mod in question would like to explain why he didn't apply it?

Blah wrote:
> Its just that in the "Scotland" thread about trees in back gardens posts 
> from Orphelia containing hate like:
> 
> ""He is a horrible man.  He bullies everyone he can."
> 
> "This man has not worked in all the years I have known him and had a 
> large family."
> 
> "He lives with his special needs daughter in a 4 bedroomed house
> which most people would not be alowed."
> 
> seems to have been waved through without a probelm, whereas any comment 
> on this disgraceful attitude is barred.
> 
> Does the moderator involved with these decisions have a problem of his 
> own with DSS types, perhaps he would like to declare his bias?
> 
> 
> One rule for all eh, and I thought it was
> "This post is abusive or hurtful to others"
> 
> perhaps the mod in question would like to explain why he didn't apply it?

Oh, and since Orphelia is quite a prolific poster elsewhere on usenet, 
it is trivial to identify the neighbour who she also accused of selling 
advice on defrauding the dss.

C'mon Mods, try harder..

"Blah"  wrote in message 
news:7arn2bF20235kU1@mid.individual.net...
> Blah wrote:
>> Its just that in the "Scotland" thread about trees in back gardens posts 
>> from Orphelia containing hate like:
>>
>> ""He is a horrible man.  He bullies everyone he can."
>>
>> "This man has not worked in all the years I have known him and had a 
>> large family."
>>
>> "He lives with his special needs daughter in a 4 bedroomed house
>> which most people would not be alowed."
>>
>> seems to have been waved through without a probelm, whereas any comment 
>> on this disgraceful attitude is barred.
>>
>> Does the moderator involved with these decisions have a problem of his 
>> own with DSS types, perhaps he would like to declare his bias?
>>
>>
>> One rule for all eh, and I thought it was
>> "This post is abusive or hurtful to others"
>>
>> perhaps the mod in question would like to explain why he didn't apply it?
>
> Oh, and since Orphelia is quite a prolific poster elsewhere on usenet, it 
> is trivial to identify the neighbour who she also accused of selling 
> advice on defrauding the dss.
>
> C'mon Mods, try harder..

The rule about "abusive and hurtful to others" means to others *who may read 
the group* - that is, to other posters.  We have no reason (as far as I 
know) to believe that her neighbour reads the group.

On the other hand, your second point is a good one. She hasn't identified 
him in her posts to the moderated group, but you believe that she has 
identified him elsewhere. If that is so, it means we need to reconsider 
whether to let through posts that defame unidentified people when there is a 
risk that unknown to us, there might be posts elsewhere that identify the 
victim.   I hope that next time we will be more cautious.  I've adjusted the 
trigger words list. Anyone who appears to be pursuing a personal feud with 
anyone else (eg a neighbour, or a famous person, or someone whom they sued 
or who sued them) can be expected to be removed from the whitelist.

The Todal wrote:
> "Blah"  wrote in message 
> news:7arn2bF20235kU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Blah wrote:
>>> Its just that in the "Scotland" thread about trees in back gardens posts 
>>> from Orphelia containing hate like:
>>>
>>> ""He is a horrible man.  He bullies everyone he can."
>>>
>>> "This man has not worked in all the years I have known him and had a 
>>> large family."
>>>
>>> "He lives with his special needs daughter in a 4 bedroomed house
>>> which most people would not be alowed."
>>>
>>> seems to have been waved through without a probelm, whereas any comment 
>>> on this disgraceful attitude is barred.
>>>
>>> Does the moderator involved with these decisions have a problem of his 
>>> own with DSS types, perhaps he would like to declare his bias?
>>>
>>>
>>> One rule for all eh, and I thought it was
>>> "This post is abusive or hurtful to others"
>>>
>>> perhaps the mod in question would like to explain why he didn't apply it?
>> Oh, and since Orphelia is quite a prolific poster elsewhere on usenet, it 
>> is trivial to identify the neighbour who she also accused of selling 
>> advice on defrauding the dss.
>>
>> C'mon Mods, try harder..
> 
> The rule about "abusive and hurtful to others" means to others *who may read 
> the group* - that is, to other posters.  We have no reason (as far as I 
> know) to believe that her neighbour reads the group.

So, posting 'I think the nigger next door is a lazy fucker who has never 
worked a day in his life, typical of his race, can't even work a 
computer so won't be reading this' would pass your rule?

What a fucked up set of rules you work by!

> 
> On the other hand, your second point is a good one. She hasn't identified 
> him in her posts to the moderated group, but you believe that she has 
> identified him elsewhere. If that is so, it means we need to reconsider 
> whether to let through posts that defame unidentified people when there is a 
> risk that unknown to us, there might be posts elsewhere that identify the 
> victim.   I hope that next time we will be more cautious.  I've adjusted the 
> trigger words list. Anyone who appears to be pursuing a personal feud with 
> anyone else (eg a neighbour, or a famous person, or someone whom they sued 
> or who sued them) can be expected to be removed from the whitelist.
> 
> 
> 
Apology accepted..

"Blah"  wrote in message 
news:7arunbF1vpbe0U2@mid.individual.net...
> The Todal wrote:
>> "Blah"  wrote in message 
>> news:7arn2bF20235kU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Blah wrote:
>>>> Its just that in the "Scotland" thread about trees in back gardens 
>>>> posts from Orphelia containing hate like:
>>>>
>>>> ""He is a horrible man.  He bullies everyone he can."
>>>>
>>>> "This man has not worked in all the years I have known him and had a 
>>>> large family."
>>>>
>>>> "He lives with his special needs daughter in a 4 bedroomed house
>>>> which most people would not be alowed."
>>>>
>>>> seems to have been waved through without a probelm, whereas any comment 
>>>> on this disgraceful attitude is barred.
>>>>
>>>> Does the moderator involved with these decisions have a problem of his 
>>>> own with DSS types, perhaps he would like to declare his bias?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One rule for all eh, and I thought it was
>>>> "This post is abusive or hurtful to others"
>>>>
>>>> perhaps the mod in question would like to explain why he didn't apply 
>>>> it?
>>> Oh, and since Orphelia is quite a prolific poster elsewhere on usenet, 
>>> it is trivial to identify the neighbour who she also accused of selling 
>>> advice on defrauding the dss.
>>>
>>> C'mon Mods, try harder..
>>
>> The rule about "abusive and hurtful to others" means to others *who may 
>> read the group* - that is, to other posters.  We have no reason (as far 
>> as I know) to believe that her neighbour reads the group.
>
> So, posting 'I think the nigger next door is a lazy fucker who has never 
> worked a day in his life, typical of his race, can't even work a computer 
> so won't be reading this' would pass your rule?

Which rule would it breach, do you think?  If you think we should add a new 
rule, tell me what wording you would suggest.  I'm open to suggestions. 
Maybe "any post which is considered to be racist or sexist or to encourage 
discrimination against any minority group, will be rejected".

Existing charter/policy at:
http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm

The Todal wrote:
> "Blah"  wrote in message 
> news:7arunbF1vpbe0U2@mid.individual.net...
>> The Todal wrote:
>>> "Blah"  wrote in message 
>>> news:7arn2bF20235kU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Blah wrote:
>>>>> Its just that in the "Scotland" thread about trees in back gardens 
>>>>> posts from Orphelia containing hate like:
>>>>>
>>>>> ""He is a horrible man.  He bullies everyone he can."
>>>>>
>>>>> "This man has not worked in all the years I have known him and had a 
>>>>> large family."
>>>>>
>>>>> "He lives with his special needs daughter in a 4 bedroomed house
>>>>> which most people would not be alowed."
>>>>>
>>>>> seems to have been waved through without a probelm, whereas any comment 
>>>>> on this disgraceful attitude is barred.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the moderator involved with these decisions have a problem of his 
>>>>> own with DSS types, perhaps he would like to declare his bias?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One rule for all eh, and I thought it was
>>>>> "This post is abusive or hurtful to others"
>>>>>
>>>>> perhaps the mod in question would like to explain why he didn't apply 
>>>>> it?
>>>> Oh, and since Orphelia is quite a prolific poster elsewhere on usenet, 
>>>> it is trivial to identify the neighbour who she also accused of selling 
>>>> advice on defrauding the dss.
>>>>
>>>> C'mon Mods, try harder..
>>> The rule about "abusive and hurtful to others" means to others *who may 
>>> read the group* - that is, to other posters.  We have no reason (as far 
>>> as I know) to believe that her neighbour reads the group.
>> So, posting 'I think the nigger next door is a lazy fucker who has never 
>> worked a day in his life, typical of his race, can't even work a computer 
>> so won't be reading this' would pass your rule?
> 
> Which rule would it breach, do you think? 

Well its obv fairly nasty to niggers and people who like niggers, so I 
would suggest that "abusive and hurtful to others" *should* catch it.
Much as
"This man has not worked in all the years I have known him and had a 
large family."
"He lives with his special needs daughter in a 4 bedroomed house
  which most people would not be alowed.

*is* abusive and hurtful to *anyone* unfortunate enough to be in a 
similar position - by allowing such drivel to be posted *and* not 
allowing a retort, the moderators are condoning an attitude that the 
well spoken have a better chance in law.

That thread was allowed to decay into a 'how can I get the bastard'.
"Might be a good idea to report him to the investigation team"
"good idea, hadn't thought of that"

Why was that allowed? And WHO allowed it?



  If you think we should add a new
> rule, tell me what wording you would suggest.  I'm open to suggestions. 
> Maybe "any post which is considered to be racist or sexist or to encourage 
> discrimination against any minority group, will be rejected".

Works for me.

> 
> Existing charter/policy at:
> http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm 
> 
>

Blah  wrote in
news:7as4v7F20o2dtU1@mid.individual.net: 

> The Todal wrote:
>> "Blah"  wrote in message 
>> news:7arunbF1vpbe0U2@mid.individual.net...
>>> The Todal wrote:
>>>> "Blah"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:7arn2bF20235kU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Blah wrote:
>>>>>> Its just that in the "Scotland" thread about trees in back
>>>>>> gardens posts from Orphelia containing hate like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ""He is a horrible man.  He bullies everyone he can."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "This man has not worked in all the years I have known him
>>>>>> and had a large family."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "He lives with his special needs daughter in a 4 bedroomed
>>>>>> house which most people would not be alowed."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> seems to have been waved through without a probelm, whereas
>>>>>> any comment on this disgraceful attitude is barred.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the moderator involved with these decisions have a
>>>>>> problem of his own with DSS types, perhaps he would like to
>>>>>> declare his bias? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One rule for all eh, and I thought it was
>>>>>> "This post is abusive or hurtful to others"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> perhaps the mod in question would like to explain why he
>>>>>> didn't apply it?
>>>>> Oh, and since Orphelia is quite a prolific poster elsewhere on
>>>>> usenet, it is trivial to identify the neighbour who she also
>>>>> accused of selling advice on defrauding the dss.
>>>>>
>>>>> C'mon Mods, try harder..
>>>> The rule about "abusive and hurtful to others" means to others
>>>> *who may read the group* - that is, to other posters.  We have
>>>> no reason (as far as I know) to believe that her neighbour
>>>> reads the group. 
>>> So, posting 'I think the nigger next door is a lazy fucker who
>>> has never worked a day in his life, typical of his race, can't
>>> even work a computer so won't be reading this' would pass your
>>> rule? 
>> 
>> Which rule would it breach, do you think? 
> 
> Well its obv fairly nasty to niggers and people who like niggers,
> so I would suggest that "abusive and hurtful to others" *should*
> catch it. Much as
> "This man has not worked in all the years I have known him and had
> a large family."
> "He lives with his special needs daughter in a 4 bedroomed house
>   which most people would not be alowed.
> 
> *is* abusive and hurtful to *anyone* unfortunate enough to be in a
> similar position - by allowing such drivel to be posted *and* not 
> allowing a retort, the moderators are condoning an attitude that
> the well spoken have a better chance in law.
> 
> That thread was allowed to decay into a 'how can I get the
> bastard'. "Might be a good idea to report him to the investigation
> team" "good idea, hadn't thought of that"
> 
> Why was that allowed? And WHO allowed it?
> 
> 
> 



I do see your point.  The effort of will required not to comment 
adversely on the photos of huge Cypresses within inches of the 
neighbour's small garden was considerable.

-- 
Percy Picacity

Percy Picacity wrote:

> I do see your point.  The effort of will required not to comment
> adversely on the photos of huge Cypresses within inches of the
> neighbour's small garden was considerable.

Blah did post a pithy message to that effect, at 17.45 on the 27th, which 
provided a blunt but courteous counter to the OP's claim of victimisation :

"Perhaps if YOU trimmed YOUR trees more regularly and stopped them
intruding into the peace and quiet of HIS garden, you wouldn't have the
problem?

Unfortunately some of Blah's later posts were unhelpfully nasty, so they 
didn't clear moderation.

Steve Walker wrote:
> Percy Picacity wrote:
> 
>> I do see your point.  The effort of will required not to comment
>> adversely on the photos of huge Cypresses within inches of the
>> neighbour's small garden was considerable.
> 
> Blah did post a pithy message to that effect, at 17.45 on the 27th, which 
> provided a blunt but courteous counter to the OP's claim of victimisation :
> 
> "Perhaps if YOU trimmed YOUR trees more regularly and stopped them
> intruding into the peace and quiet of HIS garden, you wouldn't have the
> problem?
> 
> Unfortunately some of Blah's later posts were unhelpfully nasty, so they 
> didn't clear moderation. 
> 
> 
Only as retort to her nastiness, which WAS approved.
She was an evil peice of work that would have been flamed quite rightly 
if she had posted on the unmoderated group - as it was she twisted 
everyone around her little finger, got away with slagging a neighbour 
and even allowed a smug last word "the discussion is over" or some such.
The original Mrs. Bucket?

She must have been hell to live next door to, luckily she is moving and 
leaving the neighbour in piece

Blah  wrote:

>  she is moving and leaving the neighbour in piece

You know, or you are guessing that she's planning to dismember the
neighbour before she moves?

Steve Firth wrote:
> Blah  wrote:
> 
>>  she is moving and leaving the neighbour in piece
> 
> You know, or you are guessing that she's planning to dismember the
> neighbour before she moves?

Lol, retribution for the trees..

Blah wrote:
> Steve Walker wrote:
>> Percy Picacity wrote:
>>
>>> I do see your point.  The effort of will required not to comment
>>> adversely on the photos of huge Cypresses within inches of the
>>> neighbour's small garden was considerable.
>>
>> Blah did post a pithy message to that effect, at 17.45 on the 27th,
>> which provided a blunt but courteous counter to the OP's claim of
>> victimisation : "Perhaps if YOU trimmed YOUR trees more regularly and 
>> stopped them
>> intruding into the peace and quiet of HIS garden, you wouldn't have the
>> problem?
>>
>> Unfortunately some of Blah's later posts were unhelpfully nasty, so they
>> didn't clear moderation.
>>
>>
> Only as retort to her nastiness, which WAS approved.
> She was an evil peice of work that would have been flamed quite rightly
> if she had posted on the unmoderated group

Her comments were not directed at another poster, and the subject wasn't 
identifiable*.   That's a crucial difference Blah.

Take for example the huge "child abuser requires help" thread, where Jade 
makes numerous accusations towards doctors, police and social workers, and 
towards her own family at times.     Other threads discuss bitter marital 
disputes, arguments about business relationships etc.    It's inevitable 
that these posters will mainly give their side of the story, and the rules 
of the group permit this as long as the other parties are not specifically 
identified.     For example, we wouldn't allow a self-appointed sheriff to 
"give Jade her some of her own medicine" by remarking what a pathetic and 
irresponsible scumbag parent she was (in their opinion).    You made a good 
point very well with "Perhaps if YOU trimmed YOUR trees...." but that's 
where the line is drawn.

(* I noted your comments about further information being available by 
researching the internet.  You will perhaps appreciate that the volunteer 
mods do not have time to research the background to every post, nor 
necessarily the skills to interpret what's found.   We operate largely 
within the boundary of the uklm discussion, unless we happen to be aware of 
wider issues via media coverage etc).