🚀 go-pugleaf

On 20 Feb 2025 at 18:53:14 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
> that is a response to a post by that moderator?

In my opinion, yes. (If it had been an otherwise an appropriate rejection it
would have been appropriate to do so, perhaps.)

--

Roger Hayter

On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
> that is a response to a post by that moderator?

Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).

Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it
matters not to whom the post in question was intended as a reply.

Do you have a specific instance in mind, or are you asking merely in
general?

Regards

S.P.

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:53:14 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
> that is a response to a post by that moderator?

It's acceptable in the same way that the existence of .moderated groups
isn't.

--

Brian Morrison                       "No, his mind is not for rent
                                      To any god or government
                                      Always hopeful, but discontent
                                      He knows changes aren't permanent
                                      But change is"

On 20 Feb 2025 at 19:45:41 GMT, "Brian Morrison" <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:53:14 +0000
> Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>
> It's acceptable in the same way that the existence of .moderated groups
> isn't.

Surely not allowing moderated groups would be an unacceptable form of
censorship?

--

Roger Hayter

On 19:23  20 Feb 2025, Simon Parker said:
> On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>
> Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).
>
> Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it
> matters not to whom the post in question was intended as a reply.
>
> Do you have a specific instance in mind, or are you asking merely in
> general?
>
> Regards
>
> S.P.


These look like they may be the posts Martin has in mind:


https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-
174007243224461.txt

https://shorturl.at/RyQMi


https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-
173999229124373.txt

https://shorturl.at/dHV37

On 20 Feb 2025 21:29:02 GMT
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

> On 20 Feb 2025 at 19:45:41 GMT, "Brian Morrison" <news@fenrir.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:53:14 +0000
> > Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a
> >> post that is a response to a post by that moderator?
> >
> > It's acceptable in the same way that the existence of .moderated
> > groups isn't.
>
> Surely not allowing moderated groups would be an unacceptable form of
> censorship?
>

Not really, you'd be able to post whatever you wanted in the
unmoderated groups and with a proper newsreader and filtering according
to personal taste it would work far better.

It's just that some lazy people like others deciding what they want to
filter for them. I refuse to have anything to do with this approach.

--

Brian Morrison                       "No, his mind is not for rent
                                      To any god or government
                                      Always hopeful, but discontent
                                      He knows changes aren't permanent
                                      But change is"

On 2025-02-20, Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2025 21:29:02 GMT
> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>
>> On 20 Feb 2025 at 19:45:41 GMT, "Brian Morrison" <news@fenrir.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:53:14 +0000
>> > Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a
>> >> post that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>> >
>> > It's acceptable in the same way that the existence of .moderated
>> > groups isn't.
>>
>> Surely not allowing moderated groups would be an unacceptable form of
>> censorship?
>
> Not really, you'd be able to post whatever you wanted in the
> unmoderated groups and with a proper newsreader and filtering according
> to personal taste it would work far better.

The existence of moderated groups doesn't prevent you posting whatever
you want in unmoderated groups.

> It's just that some lazy people like others deciding what they want to
> filter for them. I refuse to have anything to do with this approach.

And yet here you are.

On 2025-02-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
> that is a response to a post by that moderator?

Of course it is.

On 21 Feb 2025 at 00:51:43 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:

> On 2025-02-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>
> Of course it is.

Of course if he'd asked whether those specific rejections were justified, some
of us might well have expressed some doubt.


--

Roger Hayter

On 2025-02-21, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2025 at 00:51:43 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2025-02-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>
>> Of course it is.
>
> Of course if he'd asked whether those specific rejections were
> justified, some of us might well have expressed some doubt.

That would have been an entirely different question!

On 21 Feb 2025 at 09:09:35 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:

> On 2025-02-21, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2025 at 00:51:43 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-02-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>>
>>> Of course it is.
>>
>> Of course if he'd asked whether those specific rejections were
>> justified, some of us might well have expressed some doubt.
>
> That would have been an entirely different question!

Of course;  that is why I agreed with you on the question asked.

--

Roger Hayter

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 22:20:48 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 19:23  20 Feb 2025, Simon Parker said:
>> On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>
>> Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).
>>
>> Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it
>> matters not to whom the post in question was intended as a reply.
>>
>> Do you have a specific instance in mind, or are you asking merely in
>> general?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> S.P.
>
>
>These look like they may be the posts Martin has in mind:
>
>
>https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-
>174007243224461.txt
>
>https://shorturl.at/RyQMi
>
>
>https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-
>173999229124373.txt
>
>https://shorturl.at/dHV37

First a comment on the dangers of broken URLs. My newsreader (Agent 8)
splits those two links across two lines. Clicking on the first line in
both of them leads to pornographic spam that was rightly rejected;
clicking on the short URLs works fine. (Please, pretty please, can we
avoid yet another discussion about URLS; I only mention this in case
somebody inadvertently goes to those posts and wonders what the heck
Pamela is referring to!)

Turning to the main issue, my question is not prompted by just those
two examples but in relation to those two specific posts, I think
rejection of the second one (which was actually submitted first) was
debatable but I don't see any justification for rejection of the
second one - a revised version after the first rejection.

I have to emphasise that I have no way of knowing whether those posts
were rejected by the moderator with whom I was arguing but they are
not the only instances of posts being rejected by in a vociferous
argument between us where the reasons given for rejection could
equally have been applied to the moderator's vown posts.

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:51:43 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

>On 2025-02-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>
>Of course it is.

How then do you avoid the possibility of a moderator involved in a
vociferous argument rejecting a post just because it goes against his
own arguments?

On 21 Feb 2025 09:03:02 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

>On 21 Feb 2025 at 00:51:43 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
>wrote:
>
>> On 2025-02-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>> 
>> Of course it is.
>
>Of course if he'd asked whether those specific rejections were justified, some
>of us might well have expressed some doubt.


OK, let's take one of the examples referred to by Pamela.

Again I have to emphasise that I have no way of knowing whether this
post was indeed rejected by the moderator with whom I was arguing
which means it will be quite easy for another moderator to provide egg
for my face by self-identifying as the person who rejected it.

======================================

> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:09:50 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On 20/02/2025 10:57, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:44:00 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 20/02/2025 09:29, Martin Harran wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:26:22 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I know what her views are. I think I know what your views are. What
> >>>>> fascinates me is the way you believe that you have a reliable insight
> >>>>> into what women think and believe, based on what seems to be a rather
> >>>>> selective personal poll of women that you know.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you explain why you think that applies to Roger's arguments but
> >>>> not to your arguments?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I could explain, if I could be bothered to repeat myself for the
> >>> benefit of those who haven't followed the discussion properly.
> >> 
> >> With over 300 posts on this thread, I don't claim to have read every
> >> one and have no appetite for ploughing through them. If I ask you
> >> nicely, would you mind pointing me to where you explained it?
> >
> >No. See if you can occupy your time more usefully. You're beginning to 
> >resemble a sealion now.
> >
> >
> 
> You have given me nothing to persuade me that you are better qualified
> to speak on behalf of women than Roger, or any other poster for that
> matter. My default conclusion is that you haven't because you can't
> but I'm fully open to having my mind changed.
> 
=================================

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:23:18 +0000, Simon Parker
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>
>Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).
>
>Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it

That is the bit that I am concerned about.

I have moderated elsewhere in the past. Anytime I was involved in a
testy argument with another contributor, I would have been very
hesitant about rejecting any argument they presented in direct
response to a post by myself; if I thought something might warrant
rejection, in the interest of justice not just being done but being
seen to be done, I would have left it to another moderator to make the
decision.

>matters not to whom the post in question was intended as a reply.
>
>Do you have a specific instance in mind, or are you asking merely in
>general?

I have given an example in a reply to Roger..

>
>Regards
>
>S.P.

On 21 Feb 2025 at 09:38:24 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:51:43 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
>
>> On 2025-02-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>
>> Of course it is.
>
> How then do you avoid the possibility of a moderator involved in a
> vociferous argument rejecting a post just because it goes against his
> own arguments?

Clearly we just have to trust the moderators to try to be objective. This is
probably easier for some people than others. Perhaps a moderator who is not
sure whether it is right to reject a post could leave it to the other
moderators, but we just have to leave it to the moderation team to do their
best on this. We can't tell the moderators how to do their job.

It is open to us to to raise a discussion on a particular post, and that may
or may not help the moderation team to refine their decision making.





--

Roger Hayter

On 2025-02-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2025 09:03:02 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>>On 21 Feb 2025 at 00:51:43 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
>>wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>>
>>> Of course it is.
>>
>>Of course if he'd asked whether those specific rejections were
>>justified, some of us might well have expressed some doubt.
>
> OK, let's take one of the examples referred to by Pamela.
>
> Again I have to emphasise that I have no way of knowing whether this
> post was indeed rejected by the moderator with whom I was arguing
> which means it will be quite easy for another moderator to provide egg
> for my face by self-identifying as the person who rejected it.
...
>> >No. See if you can occupy your time more usefully. You're beginning to
>> >resemble a sealion now.
>>
>> You have given me nothing to persuade me that you are better qualified
>> to speak on behalf of women than Roger, or any other poster for that
>> matter. My default conclusion is that you haven't because you can't
>> but I'm fully open to having my mind changed.

I don't think the rejection was unreasonable. You can't badger people
by repeatedly insisting that they must answer a question they have
already answered or declined to answer.

On 2025-02-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:23:18 +0000, Simon Parker
><simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>
>>Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).
>>
>>Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it
>
> That is the bit that I am concerned about.
>
> I have moderated elsewhere in the past. Anytime I was involved in a
> testy argument with another contributor, I would have been very
> hesitant about rejecting any argument they presented in direct
> response to a post by myself; if I thought something might warrant
> rejection, in the interest of justice not just being done but being
> seen to be done, I would have left it to another moderator to make the
> decision.

You would have a better point if the two posts that were rejected
actually contained any argument.

On 21 Feb 2025 at 11:03:18 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:

> On 2025-02-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2025 09:03:02 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>>> On 21 Feb 2025 at 00:51:43 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is.
>>>
>>> Of course if he'd asked whether those specific rejections were
>>> justified, some of us might well have expressed some doubt.
>>
>> OK, let's take one of the examples referred to by Pamela.
>>
>> Again I have to emphasise that I have no way of knowing whether this
>> post was indeed rejected by the moderator with whom I was arguing
>> which means it will be quite easy for another moderator to provide egg
>> for my face by self-identifying as the person who rejected it.
> ...
>>>> No. See if you can occupy your time more usefully. You're beginning to
>>>> resemble a sealion now.
>>>
>>> You have given me nothing to persuade me that you are better qualified
>>> to speak on behalf of women than Roger, or any other poster for that
>>> matter. My default conclusion is that you haven't because you can't
>>> but I'm fully open to having my mind changed.
>
> I don't think the rejection was unreasonable. You can't badger people
> by repeatedly insisting that they must answer a question they have
> already answered or declined to answer.

Not if you don't want to sound like Norman, anyway.

--

Roger Hayter

On 21 Feb 2025 at 11:04:48 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:

> On 2025-02-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:23:18 +0000, Simon Parker
>> <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>>
>>> Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).
>>>
>>> Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it
>>
>> That is the bit that I am concerned about.
>>
>> I have moderated elsewhere in the past. Anytime I was involved in a
>> testy argument with another contributor, I would have been very
>> hesitant about rejecting any argument they presented in direct
>> response to a post by myself; if I thought something might warrant
>> rejection, in the interest of justice not just being done but being
>> seen to be done, I would have left it to another moderator to make the
>> decision.
>
> You would have a better point if the two posts that were rejected
> actually contained any argument.

The claim you and the Todal between you were making, to speak for all women
except a tiny group of physically robust transphobic thugs, has so little face
plausibility (in opposition to my own claim only to a significant body of
female opinion) that personally I am happy to let it stand or fall on its
inherent credibility.


--

Roger Hayter

On 21/02/2025 09:03 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2025 at 00:51:43 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2025-02-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>
>> Of course it is.
>
> Of course if he'd asked whether those specific rejections were justified, some
> of us might well have expressed some doubt.

Indeed.

I had a post rejected a few days ago (first since December, apparently).
The reason given was "insufficient new material".

The exchange, which I had truncated for brevity and relevance before I
posted, went:

QUOTE:
 > The Todal wrote:

 >> Roger Hayter wrote:
 >>> "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
 >
 > [ ... ]
 >
[Todal:]
 >>>> I doubt if most people care whether the clinician dealing with
 >>>> their problem is male, female, transgender or non-binary. It
 >>>> shouldn't be an issue at all. Except maybe for a tiny minority
 >>>> who say it matters to them.
 >
[RH:]
 >>> I think you would be really surprised as to how big that "tiny
 >>> minority" is.
 >>
[Todal:]
 >> You're absolutely right. I would be really surprised. Are there any
 >> statistics?
 >
[JN:]
 > Surely there are at the very least the statistics that enabled you to
 > describe that proportion of women as a "tiny minority"?
 >
 > Where did you find those?
ENDQUOTE

I was querying the origins (or existence) of whatever information had
allowed The Todal to offer the opinion that it was a "tiny minority" to
whom [something about gender] mattered.

This had moved on to The Todal later wondering whether there were any
available statistics on the issue.

If there were or are no statistics, the conclusion that only a "tiny
minority" were bothered is untenable.

That was the point of my post quoted above.

The new material I was presenting was a reminder that "tiny minority"
not only had not been justified by reference to a source, but had been
undermined by its own author in a later post.

On 21/02/2025 09:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

> Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
>> Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>
>> Of course it is.
>
> How then do you avoid the possibility of a moderator involved in a
> vociferous argument rejecting a post just because it goes against his
> own arguments?

Heavens forfend!

Surely that NEVER happens!

;-)

On 21/02/2025 11:03 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:

> On 2025-02-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2025 09:03:02 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>>> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>
>>>> Of course it is.
>
>>> Of course if he'd asked whether those specific rejections were
>>> justified, some of us might well have expressed some doubt.
>
>> OK, let's take one of the examples referred to by Pamela.
>
>> Again I have to emphasise that I have no way of knowing whether this
>> post was indeed rejected by the moderator with whom I was arguing
>> which means it will be quite easy for another moderator to provide egg
>> for my face by self-identifying as the person who rejected it.
> ...

>>>> No. See if you can occupy your time more usefully. You're beginning to
>>>> resemble a sealion now.
>
>>> You have given me nothing to persuade me that you are better qualified
>>> to speak on behalf of women than Roger, or any other poster for that
>>> matter. My default conclusion is that you haven't because you can't
>>> but I'm fully open to having my mind changed.
>
> I don't think the rejection was unreasonable. You can't badger people
> by repeatedly insisting that they must answer a question they have
> already answered or declined to answer.

But you can invite the jury to draw their own conclusions.

On 21 Feb 2025 at 11:24:35 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

> On 21/02/2025 09:03 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2025 at 00:51:43 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-02-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>>
>>> Of course it is.
>>
>> Of course if he'd asked whether those specific rejections were justified, some
>> of us might well have expressed some doubt.
>
> Indeed.
>
> I had a post rejected a few days ago (first since December, apparently).
> The reason given was "insufficient new material".
>
> The exchange, which I had truncated for brevity and relevance before I
> posted, went:
>
> QUOTE:
>> The Todal wrote:
>
>>> Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>> "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
> [Todal:]
>>>>> I doubt if most people care whether the clinician dealing with
>>>>> their problem is male, female, transgender or non-binary. It
>>>>> shouldn't be an issue at all. Except maybe for a tiny minority
>>>>> who say it matters to them.
>>
> [RH:]
>>>> I think you would be really surprised as to how big that "tiny
>>>> minority" is.
>>>
> [Todal:]
>>> You're absolutely right. I would be really surprised. Are there any
>>> statistics?
>>
> [JN:]
>> Surely there are at the very least the statistics that enabled you to
>> describe that proportion of women as a "tiny minority"?
>>
>> Where did you find those?
> ENDQUOTE
>
> I was querying the origins (or existence) of whatever information had
> allowed The Todal to offer the opinion that it was a "tiny minority" to
> whom [something about gender] mattered.
>
> This had moved on to The Todal later wondering whether there were any
> available statistics on the issue.
>
> If there were or are no statistics, the conclusion that only a "tiny
> minority" were bothered is untenable.
>
> That was the point of my post quoted above.
>
> The new material I was presenting was a reminder that "tiny minority"
> not only had not been justified by reference to a source, but had been
> undermined by its own author in a later post.

To be fair to the moderators, the crass untenability of The Todal's position
had been pointed out a number of times by several of us!

Not that I am saying that I necessarily agree with that particular rejection.

--

Roger Hayter

On 2025-02-21, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2025 at 11:04:48 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2025-02-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:23:18 +0000, Simon Parker
>>> <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).
>>>>
>>>> Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it
>>>
>>> That is the bit that I am concerned about.
>>>
>>> I have moderated elsewhere in the past. Anytime I was involved in a
>>> testy argument with another contributor, I would have been very
>>> hesitant about rejecting any argument they presented in direct
>>> response to a post by myself; if I thought something might warrant
>>> rejection, in the interest of justice not just being done but being
>>> seen to be done, I would have left it to another moderator to make the
>>> decision.
>>
>> You would have a better point if the two posts that were rejected
>> actually contained any argument.
>
> The claim you and the Todal between you were making, to speak for all
> women except a tiny group of physically robust transphobic thugs, has
> so little face plausibility (in opposition to my own claim only to a
> significant body of female opinion) that personally I am happy to let
> it stand or fall on its inherent credibility.

I certainly haven't claimed anything even remotely like that,
and I don't think Todal has either.

On 21/02/2025 09:58, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:23:18 +0000, Simon Parker
> <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>
>> Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).
>>
>> Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it
>
> That is the bit that I am concerned about.
>
> I have moderated elsewhere in the past. Anytime I was involved in a
> testy argument with another contributor, I would have been very
> hesitant about rejecting any argument they presented in direct
> response to a post by myself; if I thought something might warrant
> rejection, in the interest of justice not just being done but being
> seen to be done, I would have left it to another moderator to make the
> decision.

As I've stated here in the past, I have done similar regarding ULM but
it is not mandatory.

I trust my judgment in rejecting the post, but sometimes it can be good
to have a second opinion.

That said, I've been in the inverse position to that you present where
my post was rejected because the sub-thread had become repetitive and
rather than rejecting a post from a certain prolific and self-proclaimed
erudite poster, any and all of which rejections inevitably lead to a
lengthy thread here in UNNM, my posts have been rejected in the name of
"balance".

This has happened numerous times and, usually, the moderator concerned
will fire me a quick message to let me know why they've rejected my
post.  I've even been in the strange position of having second thoughts
about the usefulness of a post I've made and have even rejected some of
my own posts.

As the saying goes, some days you're the statue, some days you're the
pigeon.

I ask everyone to remember that we are a relatively small team and we
all work hard to try and keep the discussions flowing at a reasonable
pace.  Ham-stringing moderators with additional rules about which posts
they can and cannot reject is not going to improve things, IMO, and may
well lead to increased delays.

We appear to be in a period of high moderator availability at the
moment.  This is but a coincidence and there are periods when we all
fall busy at the same time, unfortunately.  Mandating that a moderator
cannot reject a post which is a reply to one of their posts, or which is
in a thread to which they are contributing, or whatever rules some seek
to put in place is likely to cause more problems than it solves and
should that come to pass, I predict we'll be seeing posts here about
'Censorship' and 'Moderators deliberately delaying my posts' etc.

I am confident we are all doing our best and, knowing the other
moderators as I do, I trust each and every one of them to moderate on
content only and to the best of their ability.


>> matters not to whom the post in question was intended as a reply.
>>
>> Do you have a specific instance in mind, or are you asking merely in
>> general?
>
> I have given an example in a reply to Roger.

Then I'll have a look at that in the relevant post.

Regards

S.P.

On 21/02/2025 09:46, Martin Harran wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2025 09:03:02 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 21 Feb 2025 at 00:51:43 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
>> wrote:

>>> Of course it is.
>>
>> Of course if he'd asked whether those specific rejections were justified, some
>> of us might well have expressed some doubt.
> 
> 
> OK, let's take one of the examples referred to by Pamela.
> 
> Again I have to emphasise that I have no way of knowing whether this
> post was indeed rejected by the moderator with whom I was arguing
> which means it will be quite easy for another moderator to provide egg
> for my face by self-identifying as the person who rejected it.

As a general rule, we try to avoid playing "Identify the Moderator", 
even via process of elimination.  I do not see this as an instance where 
we need to deviate from that rule.

> ======================================
> 
>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:09:50 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/02/2025 10:57, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:44:00 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 20/02/2025 09:29, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:26:22 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know what her views are. I think I know what your views are. What
>>>>>>> fascinates me is the way you believe that you have a reliable insight
>>>>>>> into what women think and believe, based on what seems to be a rather
>>>>>>> selective personal poll of women that you know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you explain why you think that applies to Roger's arguments but
>>>>>> not to your arguments?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I could explain, if I could be bothered to repeat myself for the
>>>>> benefit of those who haven't followed the discussion properly.
>>>>
>>>> With over 300 posts on this thread, I don't claim to have read every
>>>> one and have no appetite for ploughing through them. If I ask you
>>>> nicely, would you mind pointing me to where you explained it?
>>>
>>> No. See if you can occupy your time more usefully. You're beginning to
>>> resemble a sealion now.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You have given me nothing to persuade me that you are better qualified
>> to speak on behalf of women than Roger, or any other poster for that
>> matter. My default conclusion is that you haven't because you can't
>> but I'm fully open to having my mind changed.
>>
> =================================

The sub-thread, if not the entire thread, has become extremely 
repetitive, in my opinion.  The time is rife for rejecting posts on the 
grounds of "Not New" as people have reached the point where they're 
repeating points made previously and demanding answers to questions that 
have either been answered or ignored.

This isn't a court of law.  No-one is compelled to answer every question 
put to them.  But repeatedly asking the same question in numerous posts 
runs the risk that the point will be reached where posts are rejected as 
"Not New".

I think it was correct to reject the post in question.  It contains no 
new argumentation, no new questions and is merely repeating what has 
gone before and does nothing to advance the discussion.

I have low hopes for the annual TV Licensing thread and the Green Belt 
vs Climate Change Emergency thread, both of which I expect to start 
rehashing arguments which have played out here several times before.

I further expect that when posts start getting rejected in those 
threads, people will be here crying foul.

In short, I think it was correct to reject the posts but will 
acknowledge that other posts could have been rejected on the same grounds.

Regards

S.P.

On 21/02/2025 11:28, JNugent wrote:
> On 21/02/2025 11:03 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:

>> I don't think the rejection was unreasonable. You can't badger people
>> by repeatedly insisting that they must answer a question they have
>> already answered or declined to answer.
>
> But you can invite the jury to draw their own conclusions.

I have some bad news for you:

There is no jury.

There is no verdict on threads in ULM.

There is no annual awards ceremony where a trophy is presented for the
"Most Comprehensively Argued Point".

No trophy for "Most Erudite Poster".

No trophy for "Wittiest Poster".

And no wooden spoon for posters either.

Usenet is a quiet little forgotten corner of the Internet.  ULM is but a
speck of dust in that quiet corner.

Regards

S.P.

On 21/02/2025 11:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2025 at 11:03:18 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
> wrote:

>> I don't think the rejection was unreasonable. You can't badger people
>> by repeatedly insisting that they must answer a question they have
>> already answered or declined to answer.
>
> Not if you don't want to sound like Norman, anyway.

As I've had reason to say before, I don't think you've ever been known
to answer any question that has been asked, to support any point you
occasionally assert, or to further any discussion in any useful way.

You tend to eschew the normal processes of dialogue.

On 21 Feb 2025 at 14:15:48 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> On 21/02/2025 11:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2025 at 11:03:18 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
>> wrote:
>
>>> I don't think the rejection was unreasonable. You can't badger people
>>> by repeatedly insisting that they must answer a question they have
>>> already answered or declined to answer.
>>
>> Not if you don't want to sound like Norman, anyway.
>
> As I've had reason to say before, I don't think you've ever been known
> to answer any question that has been asked, to support any point you
> occasionally assert, or to further any discussion in any useful way.
>
> You tend to eschew the normal processes of dialogue.

(Was that a sealion?)

--

Roger Hayter

On 2025-02-21, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2025 at 14:15:48 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 21/02/2025 11:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> On 21 Feb 2025 at 11:03:18 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I don't think the rejection was unreasonable. You can't badger people
>>>> by repeatedly insisting that they must answer a question they have
>>>> already answered or declined to answer.
>>>
>>> Not if you don't want to sound like Norman, anyway.
>>
>> As I've had reason to say before, I don't think you've ever been known
>> to answer any question that has been asked, to support any point you
>> occasionally assert, or to further any discussion in any useful way.
>>
>> You tend to eschew the normal processes of dialogue.
>
> (Was that a sealion?)

I'm not sure but it was absolute nonsense.

On 21/02/2025 12:50, Simon Parker wrote:

> As a general rule, we try to avoid playing "Identify the Moderator",
> even via process of elimination.  I do not see this as an instance where
> we need to deviate from that rule.

Why is it a general rule?  What have you got to hide?  If you want to
look as though you're not just a cosy cabal, it's the obvious thing to do.


> In short, I think it was correct to reject the posts but will
> acknowledge that other posts could have been rejected on the same grounds.

So, what are you going to do about those in the interests of fairness to
all?

If any of those posts were from contributors on the whitelist, as seems
very likely, why do you not remove them until they learn to behave?

On 21 Feb 2025 at 14:29:22 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> On 21/02/2025 12:50, Simon Parker wrote:
>
>> As a general rule, we try to avoid playing "Identify the Moderator",
>> even via process of elimination.  I do not see this as an instance where
>> we need to deviate from that rule.
>
> Why is it a general rule?  What have you got to hide?  If you want to
> look as though you're not just a cosy cabal, it's the obvious thing to do.

And what, pray, is *wrong* with a cosy cabal?


>
>
>> In short, I think it was correct to reject the posts but will
>> acknowledge that other posts could have been rejected on the same grounds.
>
> So, what are you going to do about those in the interests of fairness to
> all?
>
> If any of those posts were from contributors on the whitelist, as seems
> very likely, why do you not remove them until they learn to behave?

It is common ground that posts rejected as "not new" to terminate a repetitive
thread are not necessarily each in themselves objectionable posts - so how
would posting them justify removal from a whitelist? It would make more sense
to tag the thread to make all posts subject to moderation - but even that
might be unnecessary if the repetitive posts naturally peter out after a few
rejections.

We do not really seem to have a problem requiring any of your drastic
solutions.

--

Roger Hayter

On 21/02/2025 14:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2025-02-21, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2025 at 14:15:48 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>> On 21/02/2025 11:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>> On 21 Feb 2025 at 11:03:18 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I don't think the rejection was unreasonable. You can't badger people
>>>>> by repeatedly insisting that they must answer a question they have
>>>>> already answered or declined to answer.
>>>>
>>>> Not if you don't want to sound like Norman, anyway.
>>>
>>> As I've had reason to say before, I don't think you've ever been known
>>> to answer any question that has been asked, to support any point you
>>> occasionally assert, or to further any discussion in any useful way.
>>>
>>> You tend to eschew the normal processes of dialogue.
>>
>> (Was that a sealion?)
>
> I'm not sure but it was absolute nonsense.

Ah, the old proof by assertion.

On 21/02/2025 14:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2025 at 14:29:22 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> On 21/02/2025 12:50, Simon Parker wrote:
>>
>>> As a general rule, we try to avoid playing "Identify the Moderator",
>>> even via process of elimination.  I do not see this as an instance where
>>> we need to deviate from that rule.
>>
>> Why is it a general rule?  What have you got to hide?  If you want to
>> look as though you're not just a cosy cabal, it's the obvious thing to do.
>
> And what, pray, is *wrong* with a cosy cabal?

It's what is wrong with any cabal, the definition of which you clearly
haven't bothered to look up because you of course in your arrogance just
know what one is.

"A cabal is a group of people who are united in some close design,
usually to promote their private views or interests in an ideology, a
state, or another community, often by intrigue and usually without the
knowledge of those who are outside their group."

It's nothing to be proud of.

>>> In short, I think it was correct to reject the posts but will
>>> acknowledge that other posts could have been rejected on the same grounds.
>>
>> So, what are you going to do about those in the interests of fairness to
>> all?
>>
>> If any of those posts were from contributors on the whitelist, as seems
>> very likely, why do you not remove them until they learn to behave?
>
> It is common ground that posts rejected as "not new" to terminate a repetitive
> thread are not necessarily each in themselves objectionable posts

If they're not objectionable they shouldn't be rejected because there
are no grounds under the moderation policy for doing so.

It is the fact that they are not new that makes them objectionable.  And
that applies to all posts that are 'not new', not just ones from those
not on the whitelist who are very unfairly the only ones targeted.

> - so how
> would posting them justify removal from a whitelist?

They're posting objectionable 'not new' material.  They clearly cannot
be trusted to abide by the rules on their own, so need to be removed.

> It would make more sense
> to tag the thread to make all posts subject to moderation - but even that
> might be unnecessary if the repetitive posts naturally peter out after a few
> rejections.
>
> We do not really seem to have a problem requiring any of your drastic
> solutions.

Imperviousness seems to be a characteristic of yours as it does of some
at least of the moderators.  There are none so blind as will not see.

And it's hardly drastic, or cry me a river time, to remove someone from
a whitelist.

On 21 Feb 2025 at 15:14:42 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> On 21/02/2025 14:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2025 at 14:29:22 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/02/2025 12:50, Simon Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> As a general rule, we try to avoid playing "Identify the Moderator",
>>>> even via process of elimination.  I do not see this as an instance where
>>>> we need to deviate from that rule.
>>>
>>> Why is it a general rule?  What have you got to hide?  If you want to
>>> look as though you're not just a cosy cabal, it's the obvious thing to do.
>>
>> And what, pray, is *wrong* with a cosy cabal?
>
> It's what is wrong with any cabal, the definition of which you clearly
> haven't bothered to look up because you of course in your arrogance just
> know what one is.
>
> "A cabal is a group of people who are united in some close design,
> usually to promote their private views or interests in an ideology, a
> state, or another community, often by intrigue and usually without the
> knowledge of those who are outside their group."
>
> It's nothing to be proud of.
>
snip

I think you need to load the "sense of humour" module.

--

Roger Hayter

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:49:01 +0000, Simon Parker
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 21/02/2025 09:58, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:23:18 +0000, Simon Parker
>> <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>>
>>> Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).
>>>
>>> Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it
>>
>> That is the bit that I am concerned about.
>>
>> I have moderated elsewhere in the past. Anytime I was involved in a
>> testy argument with another contributor, I would have been very
>> hesitant about rejecting any argument they presented in direct
>> response to a post by myself; if I thought something might warrant
>> rejection, in the interest of justice not just being done but being
>> seen to be done, I would have left it to another moderator to make the
>> decision.
>
>As I've stated here in the past, I have done similar regarding ULM but
>it is not mandatory.
>
>I trust my judgment in rejecting the post, but sometimes it can be good
>to have a second opinion.
>
>That said, I've been in the inverse position to that you present where
>my post was rejected because the sub-thread had become repetitive and
>rather than rejecting a post from a certain prolific and self-proclaimed
>erudite poster, any and all of which rejections inevitably lead to a
>lengthy thread here in UNNM, my posts have been rejected in the name of
>"balance".
>
>This has happened numerous times and, usually, the moderator concerned
>will fire me a quick message to let me know why they've rejected my
>post.  I've even been in the strange position of having second thoughts
>about the usefulness of a post I've made and have even rejected some of
>my own posts.
>
>As the saying goes, some days you're the statue, some days you're the
>pigeon.

I don't have an issue with any of that, indeed it reflects much of my
opwn experience and approach when I was moderatimg elsewhere.

>
>I ask everyone to remember that we are a relatively small team and we
>all work hard to try and keep the discussions flowing at a reasonable
>pace.  Ham-stringing moderators with additional rules about which posts
>they can and cannot reject is not going to improve things, IMO, and may
>well lead to increased delays.

I fully understand the workload that is involved in moderation and
greatly appreciate the effort people all of you put into it, including
the moderator with whom I have this particular issue - I have publicly
supported moderators here on a number of occasions when the usual
suspects have launched their usual attacks against moderation.  I
don't think what I am suggesting adds any new work, it simply moves a
task to a different person and would apply to a very small number of
posts. I don't even think it needs to be a *rule* as such, just good
practice by moderators - if in doubt, leave it to somebody else.

>
>We appear to be in a period of high moderator availability at the
>moment.  This is but a coincidence and there are periods when we all
>fall busy at the same time, unfortunately.  Mandating that a moderator
>cannot reject a post which is a reply to one of their posts, or which is
>in a thread to which they are contributing, or whatever rules some seek
>to put in place is likely to cause more problems than it solves and
>should that come to pass, I predict we'll be seeing posts here about
>'Censorship' and 'Moderators deliberately delaying my posts' etc.
>
>I am confident we are all doing our best and, knowing the other
>moderators as I do, I trust each and every one of them to moderate on
>content only and to the best of their ability.

Of course you all do and I think you get it right *most* of the time
which is all that anyone can reasonably ask for but there is always
room for improvement

>
>
>>> matters not to whom the post in question was intended as a reply.
>>>
>>> Do you have a specific instance in mind, or are you asking merely in
>>> general?
>>
>> I have given an example in a reply to Roger.
>
>Then I'll have a look at that in the relevant post.
>
>Regards
>
>S.P.

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:04:48 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

>On 2025-02-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:23:18 +0000, Simon Parker
>><simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>>
>>>Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).
>>>
>>>Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it
>>
>> That is the bit that I am concerned about.
>>
>> I have moderated elsewhere in the past. Anytime I was involved in a
>> testy argument with another contributor, I would have been very
>> hesitant about rejecting any argument they presented in direct
>> response to a post by myself; if I thought something might warrant
>> rejection, in the interest of justice not just being done but being
>> seen to be done, I would have left it to another moderator to make the
>> decision.
>
>You would have a better point if the two posts that were rejected
>actually contained any argument.

Would you care to explain how there is a valid argument in this …

"I know what her views are. I think I know what your views are. What
fascinates me is the way you believe that you have a reliable insight
into what women think and believe, based on what seems to be a rather
selective personal poll of women that you know."
…

but no valid argument in my questioning of the poster's own claims
that *he* has a reliable insight into what women think?

On 2025-02-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:04:48 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
>>On 2025-02-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:23:18 +0000, Simon Parker
>>><simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).
>>>>
>>>>Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it
>>>
>>> That is the bit that I am concerned about.
>>>
>>> I have moderated elsewhere in the past. Anytime I was involved in a
>>> testy argument with another contributor, I would have been very
>>> hesitant about rejecting any argument they presented in direct
>>> response to a post by myself; if I thought something might warrant
>>> rejection, in the interest of justice not just being done but being
>>> seen to be done, I would have left it to another moderator to make the
>>> decision.
>>
>>You would have a better point if the two posts that were rejected
>>actually contained any argument.
>
> Would you care to explain how there is a valid argument in this …
>
> "I know what her views are. I think I know what your views are. What
> fascinates me is the way you believe that you have a reliable insight
> into what women think and believe, based on what seems to be a rather
> selective personal poll of women that you know."
> …
>
> but no valid argument in my questioning of the poster's own claims
> that *he* has a reliable insight into what women think?

Where did he claim that? And what does it have to do with whether
your posts should have been rejected or not?

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:49:08 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

> On 2025-02-20, Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> > On 20 Feb 2025 21:29:02 GMT
> > Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20 Feb 2025 at 19:45:41 GMT, "Brian Morrison"
> >> <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> >>
>  [...]
>  [...]
>  [...]
> >>
> >> Surely not allowing moderated groups would be an unacceptable form
> >> of censorship?
> >
> > Not really, you'd be able to post whatever you wanted in the
> > unmoderated groups and with a proper newsreader and filtering
> > according to personal taste it would work far better.
>
> The existence of moderated groups doesn't prevent you posting whatever
> you want in unmoderated groups.
>
> > It's just that some lazy people like others deciding what they want
> > to filter for them. I refuse to have anything to do with this
> > approach.
>
> And yet here you are.

Yes, telling everyone that you lot are a wunch of bankers.

This is not a moderated group, if it were I would not be here.

--

Brian Morrison                       "No, his mind is not for rent
                                      To any god or government
                                      Always hopeful, but discontent
                                      He knows changes aren't permanent
                                      But change is"

On 21 Feb 2025 at 20:19:42 GMT, "Brian Morrison" <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:49:08 -0000 (UTC)
> Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
>
>> On 2025-02-20, Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 20 Feb 2025 21:29:02 GMT
>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20 Feb 2025 at 19:45:41 GMT, "Brian Morrison"
>>>> <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>  [...]
>>  [...]
>>  [...]
>>>>
>>>> Surely not allowing moderated groups would be an unacceptable form
>>>> of censorship?
>>>
>>> Not really, you'd be able to post whatever you wanted in the
>>> unmoderated groups and with a proper newsreader and filtering
>>> according to personal taste it would work far better.
>>
>> The existence of moderated groups doesn't prevent you posting whatever
>> you want in unmoderated groups.
>>
>>> It's just that some lazy people like others deciding what they want
>>> to filter for them. I refuse to have anything to do with this
>>> approach.
>>
>> And yet here you are.
>
> Yes, telling everyone that you lot are a wunch of bankers.
>
> This is not a moderated group, if it were I would not be here.

I suppose it's nice to have a hobby.


--

Roger Hayter

On 21 Feb 2025 20:26:26 GMT
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

> > Yes, telling everyone that you lot are a wunch of bankers.
> >
> > This is not a moderated group, if it were I would not be here.
>
> I suppose it's nice to have a hobby.

I have several, this is very much a minority sport.

--

Brian Morrison                       "No, his mind is not for rent
                                      To any god or government
                                      Always hopeful, but discontent
                                      He knows changes aren't permanent
                                      But change is"

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:09:16 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

>On 2025-02-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:04:48 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
>>>On 2025-02-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:23:18 +0000, Simon Parker
>>>><simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>>>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).
>>>>>
>>>>>Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it
>>>>
>>>> That is the bit that I am concerned about.
>>>>
>>>> I have moderated elsewhere in the past. Anytime I was involved in a
>>>> testy argument with another contributor, I would have been very
>>>> hesitant about rejecting any argument they presented in direct
>>>> response to a post by myself; if I thought something might warrant
>>>> rejection, in the interest of justice not just being done but being
>>>> seen to be done, I would have left it to another moderator to make the
>>>> decision.
>>>
>>>You would have a better point if the two posts that were rejected
>>>actually contained any argument.
>>
>> Would you care to explain how there is a valid argument in this …
>>
>> "I know what her views are. I think I know what your views are. What
>> fascinates me is the way you believe that you have a reliable insight
>> into what women think and believe, based on what seems to be a rather
>> selective personal poll of women that you know."
>> …
>>
>> but no valid argument in my questioning of the poster's own claims
>> that *he* has a reliable insight into what women think?
>
>Where did he claim that? And what does it have to do with whether
>your posts should have been rejected or not?

It's to do with your statement "You would have a better point if the
two posts that were rejected actually contained any argument."

On 09:36  21 Feb 2025, Martin Harran said:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 22:20:48 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 19:23  20 Feb 2025, Simon Parker said:
>>> On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a
>>>> post that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>>
>>> Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).
>>>
>>> Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it
>>> matters not to whom the post in question was intended as a reply.
>>>
>>> Do you have a specific instance in mind, or are you asking merely in
>>> general?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> S.P.
>>
>>
>>These look like they may be the posts Martin has in mind:
>>
>>
>>https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-
>>174007243224461.txt
>>
>>https://shorturl.at/RyQMi
>>
>>
>>https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-
>>173999229124373.txt
>>
>>https://shorturl.at/dHV37
>
> First a comment on the dangers of broken URLs. My newsreader (Agent 8)
> splits those two links across two lines. Clicking on the first line in
> both of them leads to pornographic spam that was rightly rejected;
> clicking on the short URLs works fine. (Please, pretty please, can we
> avoid yet another discussion about URLS; I only mention this in case
> somebody inadvertently goes to those posts and wonders what the heck
> Pamela is referring to!)
>
> Turning to the main issue, my question is not prompted by just those
> two examples but in relation to those two specific posts, I think
> rejection of the second one (which was actually submitted first) was
> debatable but I don't see any justification for rejection of the
> second one - a revised version after the first rejection.
>
> I have to emphasise that I have no way of knowing whether those posts
> were rejected by the moderator with whom I was arguing but they are
> not the only instances of posts being rejected by in a vociferous
> argument between us where the reasons given for rejection could
> equally have been applied to the moderator's vown posts.

One use of a URL shortener is for readers who see a broken URL but find
it too tedious to cut & paste it together again. Try my short links to
see how it works.

I omit delimiters (which not all newsreaders recognise) because they
make the selection harder for those who want to manually cut & paste.

I am somewhat surprised I have to point any of this out.

On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 10:04:34 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 09:36  21 Feb 2025, Martin Harran said:
>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 22:20:48 GMT, Pamela
>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 19:23  20 Feb 2025, Simon Parker said:
>>>> On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a
>>>>> post that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).
>>>>
>>>> Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it
>>>> matters not to whom the post in question was intended as a reply.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a specific instance in mind, or are you asking merely in
>>>> general?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> S.P.
>>>
>>>
>>>These look like they may be the posts Martin has in mind:
>>>
>>>
>>>https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-
>>>174007243224461.txt
>>>
>>>https://shorturl.at/RyQMi
>>>
>>>
>>>https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-
>>>173999229124373.txt
>>>
>>>https://shorturl.at/dHV37
>>
>> First a comment on the dangers of broken URLs. My newsreader (Agent 8)
>> splits those two links across two lines. Clicking on the first line in
>> both of them leads to pornographic spam that was rightly rejected;
>> clicking on the short URLs works fine. (Please, pretty please, can we
>> avoid yet another discussion about URLS; I only mention this in case
>> somebody inadvertently goes to those posts and wonders what the heck
>> Pamela is referring to!)
>>
>> Turning to the main issue, my question is not prompted by just those
>> two examples but in relation to those two specific posts, I think
>> rejection of the second one (which was actually submitted first) was
>> debatable but I don't see any justification for rejection of the
>> second one - a revised version after the first rejection.
>>
>> I have to emphasise that I have no way of knowing whether those posts
>> were rejected by the moderator with whom I was arguing but they are
>> not the only instances of posts being rejected by in a vociferous
>> argument between us where the reasons given for rejection could
>> equally have been applied to the moderator's vown posts.
>
>One use of a URL shortener is for readers who see a broken URL but find
>it too tedious to cut & paste it together again. Try my short links to
>see how it works.
>
>I omit delimiters (which not all newsreaders recognise) because they
>make the selection harder for those who want to manually cut & paste.
>
>I am somewhat surprised I have to point any of this out.

I wasn't criticising your use of shorteners, I use them extensively
myself. The only reason I pointed them out here was that instead of
failing, the first part of the link leads to rejection for
pornographic spam; I accidentally clicked on one and was initially
somewhat taken aback at the result!

On 22 Feb 2025 at 11:18:42 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 10:04:34 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09:36  21 Feb 2025, Martin Harran said:
>>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 22:20:48 GMT, Pamela
>>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 19:23  20 Feb 2025, Simon Parker said:
>>>>> On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a
>>>>>> post that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).
>>>>>
>>>>> Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it
>>>>> matters not to whom the post in question was intended as a reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have a specific instance in mind, or are you asking merely in
>>>>> general?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> S.P.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These look like they may be the posts Martin has in mind:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-
>>>> 174007243224461.txt
>>>>
>>>> https://shorturl.at/RyQMi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-
>>>> 173999229124373.txt
>>>>
>>>> https://shorturl.at/dHV37
>>>
>>> First a comment on the dangers of broken URLs. My newsreader (Agent 8)
>>> splits those two links across two lines. Clicking on the first line in
>>> both of them leads to pornographic spam that was rightly rejected;
>>> clicking on the short URLs works fine. (Please, pretty please, can we
>>> avoid yet another discussion about URLS; I only mention this in case
>>> somebody inadvertently goes to those posts and wonders what the heck
>>> Pamela is referring to!)
>>>
>>> Turning to the main issue, my question is not prompted by just those
>>> two examples but in relation to those two specific posts, I think
>>> rejection of the second one (which was actually submitted first) was
>>> debatable but I don't see any justification for rejection of the
>>> second one - a revised version after the first rejection.
>>>
>>> I have to emphasise that I have no way of knowing whether those posts
>>> were rejected by the moderator with whom I was arguing but they are
>>> not the only instances of posts being rejected by in a vociferous
>>> argument between us where the reasons given for rejection could
>>> equally have been applied to the moderator's vown posts.
>>
>> One use of a URL shortener is for readers who see a broken URL but find
>> it too tedious to cut & paste it together again. Try my short links to
>> see how it works.
>>
>> I omit delimiters (which not all newsreaders recognise) because they
>> make the selection harder for those who want to manually cut & paste.
>>
>> I am somewhat surprised I have to point any of this out.
>
> I wasn't criticising your use of shorteners, I use them extensively
> myself. The only reason I pointed them out here was that instead of
> failing, the first part of the link leads to rejection for
> pornographic spam; I accidentally clicked on one and was initially
> somewhat taken aback at the result!

Yes I noticed that. I made a deliberate decision not to spend time working out
why.

--

Roger Hayter

On 2/22/25 11:24, Roger Hayter wrote:

>> I wasn't criticising your use of shorteners, I use them extensively
>> myself. The only reason I pointed them out here was that instead of
>> failing, the first part of the link leads to rejection for
>> pornographic spam; I accidentally clicked on one and was initially
>> somewhat taken aback at the result!
>
> Yes I noticed that. I made a deliberate decision not to spend time working out
> why.
>

I get a very boring 404, as I would expect.

---
Not Found
The requested URL was not found on this server.

Apache/2.4.62 (Debian) OpenSSL/1.1.1w mod_perl/2.0.11 Perl/v5.32.1
Server at www.chiark.greenend.org.uk Port 443
---

It is quite interesting why you get pornography. Maybe Chiark was
infected, but is now fixed, or your PC?

On 2025-02-22, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:09:16 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
>
>>On 2025-02-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:04:48 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
>>>>On 2025-02-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:23:18 +0000, Simon Parker
>>>>><simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 20/02/2025 18:53, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>> Is it reasonable or even acceptable for a moderator to reject a post
>>>>>>> that is a response to a post by that moderator?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, (it is reasonable) and yes, (it is acceptable).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Providing there are legitimate grounds for rejecting the post, it
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the bit that I am concerned about.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have moderated elsewhere in the past. Anytime I was involved in a
>>>>> testy argument with another contributor, I would have been very
>>>>> hesitant about rejecting any argument they presented in direct
>>>>> response to a post by myself; if I thought something might warrant
>>>>> rejection, in the interest of justice not just being done but being
>>>>> seen to be done, I would have left it to another moderator to make the
>>>>> decision.
>>>>
>>>>You would have a better point if the two posts that were rejected
>>>>actually contained any argument.
>>>
>>> Would you care to explain how there is a valid argument in this …
>>>
>>> "I know what her views are. I think I know what your views are. What
>>> fascinates me is the way you believe that you have a reliable insight
>>> into what women think and believe, based on what seems to be a rather
>>> selective personal poll of women that you know."
>>> …
>>>
>>> but no valid argument in my questioning of the poster's own claims
>>> that *he* has a reliable insight into what women think?
>>
>>Where did he claim that? And what does it have to do with whether
>>your posts should have been rejected or not?
>
> It's to do with your statement "You would have a better point if the
> two posts that were rejected actually contained any argument."

In what way does it have anything to do with that? I commented on your
posts and in response you have brought up a completely different post.

On 2/22/25 11:32, Pancho wrote:
> On 2/22/25 11:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
>
>>> I wasn't criticising your use of shorteners, I use them extensively
>>> myself. The only reason I pointed them out here was that instead of
>>> failing, the first part of the link leads to rejection for
>>> pornographic spam; I accidentally clicked on one and was initially
>>> somewhat taken aback at the result!
>>
>> Yes I noticed that. I made a deliberate decision not to spend time
>> working out
>> why.
>>
>
> I get a very boring 404, as I would expect.
>
> ---
> Not Found
> The requested URL was not found on this server.
>
> Apache/2.4.62 (Debian) OpenSSL/1.1.1w mod_perl/2.0.11 Perl/v5.32.1
> Server at www.chiark.greenend.org.uk Port 443
> ---
>
> It is quite interesting why you get pornography. Maybe Chiark was
> infected, but is now fixed, or your PC?

OK, not to worry, I understand. I added a hyphen, and then it led to
another rejected message. A virtually inconsequential bug in the Chiark
mod software previously rejected messages lookup code.

I'd seen that before, but when I realised it wasn't the right message,
I'd just registered it was spam and had lost interest.

On 2025-02-22, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/22/25 11:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> I wasn't criticising your use of shorteners, I use them extensively
>>> myself. The only reason I pointed them out here was that instead of
>>> failing, the first part of the link leads to rejection for
>>> pornographic spam; I accidentally clicked on one and was initially
>>> somewhat taken aback at the result!
>>
>> Yes I noticed that. I made a deliberate decision not to spend time
>> working out why.
>
> I get a very boring 404, as I would expect.
>
> ---
> Not Found
> The requested URL was not found on this server.
>
> Apache/2.4.62 (Debian) OpenSSL/1.1.1w mod_perl/2.0.11 Perl/v5.32.1
> Server at www.chiark.greenend.org.uk Port 443
> ---
>
> It is quite interesting why you get pornography. Maybe Chiark was
> infected, but is now fixed, or your PC?

It is quite interesting why you *don't* get pornography. You really
ought to, if you fetch the truncated URL. Maybe you stripped the '-'
off the end?

As to why the server has stored that message under that filename,
I am fortunately not brain-damaged enough to fully comprehend the
utter brokenness of Perl sufficiently to be able to come to a
conclusion. The code says:

    $f{CopyRef}= $f{MessageNum} || $f{MessageID};
    $f{CopyRef} =~ s/\W/ sprintf '-%02x', ord($&) /ge;
    open I, ">$dir/public/nr-$f{CopyRef}.txt" or die $!;

so if $f{CopyRef} contained a nul byte then this would happen,
but the line before the 'open' should prevent that happening.