Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
URCM what on earth ...
52 views
Skip to first unread message
Judith
Mar 11, 2013, 4:58:53 AM3/11/13
to
... have Martin Bernard and Stacey done to deserve enforced moderation delays
of 38 hours and 20 hours each.
Is this perhaps what "probation" means: an enforced moderation wait?
Nomen Nescio
Mar 12, 2013, 6:28:19 PM3/12/13
to
Should this have really passed moderation?
From: Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
Subject: Re: "Racing" Cyclist killed
Message-ID: <vn6pj81gjgjtvae5k...@4ax.com>
(Peloton: a rabble of psycholists who think they are above the law. )
The Todal
Mar 13, 2013, 12:28:16 PM3/13/13
to
to tease someone or other.
If it was a serious question you'll have to quote the post in question
because otherwise I have no idea what it was.
If the only part you are asking about is the phrase "Peloton: a rabble
of psycholists who think they are above the law." then (assuming it was
in one of Judith's posts) I can't see how that infringes any moderation
rule in ULM. I don't give a flying fuck whether that offends the
delicate sensitivities of any cyclists who might read the group.
Percy Picacity
Mar 13, 2013, 1:53:51 PM3/13/13
to
cyclists who do post to the group? If one of them had posted about the
personal qualities of Internet trolls who use multiple identities it
could well have been taken as a directed dig in the opposite direction.
I do agree that as little as possible should be censored, and perhaps
you draw the line where individuals are named or identified
unequivocally - that makes sense. It means I could be rude about
categories of public officials involved in particular law enforcement
fields with impunity, I suppose.
--
Percy Picacity
jackshaft
Mar 13, 2013, 3:13:39 PM3/13/13
to
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:53:51 +0000, Percy Picacity
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> >> Should this have really passed moderation?
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
> >> Subject: Re: "Racing" Cyclist killed
> >> Message-ID: <vn6pj81gjgjtvae5k...@4ax.com>
> >>
> >>
> >> (Peloton: a rabble of psycholists who think they are above the
law. )
> >>
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> >> Should this have really passed moderation?
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
> >> Subject: Re: "Racing" Cyclist killed
> >> Message-ID: <vn6pj81gjgjtvae5k...@4ax.com>
> >>
> >>
> >> (Peloton: a rabble of psycholists who think they are above the
law. )
> >>
> > If the only part you are asking about is the phrase "Peloton: a
rabble
> > of psycholists who think they are above the law." then (assuming
it was
> > in one of Judith's posts) I can't see how that infringes any
moderation
> > rule in ULM. I don't give a flying fuck whether that offends the
> > delicate sensitivities of any cyclists who might read the group.
> On reflection, are you sure it was not a direct insult to several
> cyclists who do post to the group? If one of them had posted about
the
> personal qualities of Internet trolls who use multiple identities
it
> could well have been taken as a directed dig in the opposite
direction.
Leave 'im, 'e ain't worth it.
rabble
> > of psycholists who think they are above the law." then (assuming
it was
> > in one of Judith's posts) I can't see how that infringes any
moderation
> > rule in ULM. I don't give a flying fuck whether that offends the
> > delicate sensitivities of any cyclists who might read the group.
> On reflection, are you sure it was not a direct insult to several
> cyclists who do post to the group? If one of them had posted about
the
> personal qualities of Internet trolls who use multiple identities
it
> could well have been taken as a directed dig in the opposite
direction.
Plus he's just allowed another dig at cyclists (vide "lycra louts
like to masturbate"), so he's certainly practicing this version of
even-handedness as well as bragging about it.
The Todal
Mar 13, 2013, 5:14:21 PM3/13/13
to
I don't read every post.
I shall assume that you're both just taking the piss and not making a
serious point. Yes, I totally agree with what I think you both mean, ie
if any cyclists are hurt or offended by such remarks they probably need
a special group of their own, a sort of day-centre where they can avoid
mixing with real people and the nursing staff stand guard at the door.
Judith
Mar 13, 2013, 5:17:26 PM3/13/13
to
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:53:51 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:
<snip>
wrote:
>On reflection, are you sure it was not a direct insult to several
>cyclists who do post to the group? If one of them had posted about the
>personal qualities of Internet trolls who use multiple identities it
>could well have been taken as a directed dig in the opposite direction.
>
>I do agree that as little as possible should be censored, and perhaps
>you draw the line where individuals are named or identified
>unequivocally - that makes sense. It means I could be rude about
>categories of public officials involved in particular law enforcement
>fields with impunity, I suppose.
I made the post in reply to the following comment.:
>The same as the ID a policeman carries. I have no idea what that looks
>like either ;)
If a policeman in uniform directs someone to stop - then I suspect that most
people would do so.
If "someone" who just appeared to be a marshall because of a hi-viz jacket with
an advert on the back tried to make you stop because there was a peloton on
the road in front of him - would you do so? Would most people know that he may
actually have the authority to compel them to do so?)
(Peloton: a rabble of psycholists who think they are above the law. )
If anyone of the unknown cyclists who post here think that they fit the
definition on of a "psycholist" - then if the cap fits : wear it.
(Little flowers)
PS I am a cyclist.
Percy Picacity
Mar 13, 2013, 5:42:10 PM3/13/13
to
cyclists by that silly label in the past. Which makes you a bit of a
hypocrite, given that at least one to the cyclists to whom you have
applied that term posts in ULM. And there isn't a 'definition' of
psycholist, it is just a term invented in order to insult this
particular identifiable group of people. The more I think of it, the
more I think Todal is actually wrong in his original judgement.
--
Percy Picacity
Judith
Mar 13, 2013, 6:29:16 PM3/13/13
to
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:42:10 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:
>> PS I am a cyclist.
>
>That would work if you had not referred to several identifiable
>cyclists by that silly label in the past. Which makes you a bit of a
>hypocrite, given that at least one to the cyclists to whom you have
>applied that term posts in ULM. And there isn't a 'definition' of
>psycholist, it is just a term invented in order to insult this
>particular identifiable group of people. The more I think of it, the
>more I think Todal is actually wrong in his original judgement.
"One of the cyclists"? - Who was that I wonder.
There are ordinary cyclists - like me and tens of thousands of other people.
And then there are the psycholists - for some reason ULM attracts them like
flies to dog-shit.
These are the people who fit my (sorry - I meant of course the official OED)
definition below. Do you fit in any way? If so, then you are in deed a
psycholist. (PS - watch out for the P*nct*re Fairy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noun - Psycholist
Pronunciation Key : psy�cho�list.
A cyclist who is one of a small group who frequent the news group
uk.rec.cycling they have invented their own "language" to justify their views:
Examples:
1) "cycle helmet" - they would rather pretend that such devices do not
exist; they will try and overcome their problem by using the alternative
"h*l*et" - or just "h" for short; "lids", and other alternatives may also be
used.
2) "all pedestrians should be required to wear helmets" is a common
attempt to ridicule suggestions that cyclists should wear helmets.
3) They cannot bring themselves to use the word: "facility" in the context
of a "cycling facility". Whatever the facility - they must try and ridicule it
as they will not be able to fully comprehend the benefits as seen for all road
users. This is achieved by using the alternative "farcility".
4) "Cager" is used provocatively instead of the word "motorist", in the
hope that it irritates motorists; it doesn't - it makes them laugh at the
psycholist's inadequacies.
5) "Magic paint" - only used by the most inflicted psycholists. Used to
describe signage specific to cyclists on pavements and roads. Origin unknown.
6) The word "troll" is in common usage in Usenet. However, the
psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who disagrees
with their ingrained and irrational views. This enables them to say "ignore
him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which are too unpalatable for the
psycholist to contemplate - never mind discuss in a sensible fashion.
7) BSO : a bicycle shaped object. If someone's bicycle is not top of the
range, costing at least �500 with disc brakes, and at least 73 LEDs at the
front and 67 when viewed from the rear, then it cannot be called a bicycle.
Anything bought from Halfrauds (sic) must be a BSO.
8) "Peloton" - a rabble of psycholists who think they are above the law.
9) Whenever they hear of a cyclist being killed in an accident - they are
obliged to say things like "My thoughts are with his/her family" when they have
had no dealings with them whatsoever. This is commonly called a wankcry.
10) It is considered bad luck to mention having a puncture: hence the use
of the words "having had a visit from the P*nct*re Fairy". (Yes - these are
grown up people we are talking about!)
Not everyone who frequents the group URC is a "psycholist". Psycholists are not
very bright in general and are obliged to demonstrate that they lack common
sense; they are very good at this.
A common pseudonym for a "psycholist" is "fuckwit".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wrote:
>> PS I am a cyclist.
>
>That would work if you had not referred to several identifiable
>cyclists by that silly label in the past. Which makes you a bit of a
>hypocrite, given that at least one to the cyclists to whom you have
>applied that term posts in ULM. And there isn't a 'definition' of
>psycholist, it is just a term invented in order to insult this
>particular identifiable group of people. The more I think of it, the
>more I think Todal is actually wrong in his original judgement.
There are ordinary cyclists - like me and tens of thousands of other people.
And then there are the psycholists - for some reason ULM attracts them like
flies to dog-shit.
These are the people who fit my (sorry - I meant of course the official OED)
definition below. Do you fit in any way? If so, then you are in deed a
psycholist. (PS - watch out for the P*nct*re Fairy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noun - Psycholist
Pronunciation Key : psy�cho�list.
A cyclist who is one of a small group who frequent the news group
uk.rec.cycling they have invented their own "language" to justify their views:
Examples:
1) "cycle helmet" - they would rather pretend that such devices do not
exist; they will try and overcome their problem by using the alternative
"h*l*et" - or just "h" for short; "lids", and other alternatives may also be
used.
2) "all pedestrians should be required to wear helmets" is a common
attempt to ridicule suggestions that cyclists should wear helmets.
3) They cannot bring themselves to use the word: "facility" in the context
of a "cycling facility". Whatever the facility - they must try and ridicule it
as they will not be able to fully comprehend the benefits as seen for all road
users. This is achieved by using the alternative "farcility".
4) "Cager" is used provocatively instead of the word "motorist", in the
hope that it irritates motorists; it doesn't - it makes them laugh at the
psycholist's inadequacies.
5) "Magic paint" - only used by the most inflicted psycholists. Used to
describe signage specific to cyclists on pavements and roads. Origin unknown.
6) The word "troll" is in common usage in Usenet. However, the
psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who disagrees
with their ingrained and irrational views. This enables them to say "ignore
him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which are too unpalatable for the
psycholist to contemplate - never mind discuss in a sensible fashion.
7) BSO : a bicycle shaped object. If someone's bicycle is not top of the
range, costing at least �500 with disc brakes, and at least 73 LEDs at the
front and 67 when viewed from the rear, then it cannot be called a bicycle.
Anything bought from Halfrauds (sic) must be a BSO.
8) "Peloton" - a rabble of psycholists who think they are above the law.
9) Whenever they hear of a cyclist being killed in an accident - they are
obliged to say things like "My thoughts are with his/her family" when they have
had no dealings with them whatsoever. This is commonly called a wankcry.
10) It is considered bad luck to mention having a puncture: hence the use
of the words "having had a visit from the P*nct*re Fairy". (Yes - these are
grown up people we are talking about!)
Not everyone who frequents the group URC is a "psycholist". Psycholists are not
very bright in general and are obliged to demonstrate that they lack common
sense; they are very good at this.
A common pseudonym for a "psycholist" is "fuckwit".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex
Mar 13, 2013, 6:50:28 PM3/13/13
to
Judith wrote:
[snip]
Purely in the interests of balancing the argument, I have come across
this description of the term 'psycholist':
"It is a term of, err, endearment invented by trolls to describe
someone that doesn't agree with their views. In particular, that foam
hats and yellow jackets are obligatory safety equipment; that people
should be tested, registered, have cycle specific TP insurance and pay
"road" tax before being allowed on a bike; that no matter how narrow
the road, a cyclist must not block a motor vehicle from overtaking.
Furthermore, anyone disagreeing will be accused of being a serial
breaker of traffic regulations - will have no lighting, will go
through red traffic lights, cycle on pavements where not permitted,
yet does not do so on some kind of principle where permitted
("facilities"); they will also be deemed to have no defensive skills
(blocking doesn't count), blindly relying on everybody else to behave
correctly." - dr6092.
[snip]
this description of the term 'psycholist':
"It is a term of, err, endearment invented by trolls to describe
someone that doesn't agree with their views. In particular, that foam
hats and yellow jackets are obligatory safety equipment; that people
should be tested, registered, have cycle specific TP insurance and pay
"road" tax before being allowed on a bike; that no matter how narrow
the road, a cyclist must not block a motor vehicle from overtaking.
Furthermore, anyone disagreeing will be accused of being a serial
breaker of traffic regulations - will have no lighting, will go
through red traffic lights, cycle on pavements where not permitted,
yet does not do so on some kind of principle where permitted
("facilities"); they will also be deemed to have no defensive skills
(blocking doesn't count), blindly relying on everybody else to behave
correctly." - dr6092.
The Todal
Mar 14, 2013, 4:55:44 AM3/14/13
to
point at the moment.
As an analogy, if Judith had got into a usenet argument with a lawyer or
law student, called him a shyster, then posted to ULM making disparaging
remarks about shysters without identifying any specific person, I would
see nothing wrong with that.
We'd obviously be into different territory if instead of shysters or
psycholists the words were "cripple" "wog" or "nancyboy".
jackshaft
Mar 14, 2013, 6:46:58 AM3/14/13
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:55:44 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:
> > That would work if you had not referred to several identifiable
cyclists
> > by that silly label in the past. Which makes you a bit of a
hypocrite,
> > given that at least one to the cyclists to whom you have applied
that
> > term posts in ULM. And there isn't a 'definition' of psycholist,
it is
> > just a term invented in order to insult this particular
identifiable
> > group of people. The more I think of it, the more I think Todal
is
> > actually wrong in his original judgement.
> >
Message-ID: <94pf8k...@mid.individual.net>
and
Message-ID: <9k1la7...@mid.individual.net>
or is it one rule for the group you like and another for about whom
you "don't give a flying fuck".
wrote:
> > That would work if you had not referred to several identifiable
cyclists
> > by that silly label in the past. Which makes you a bit of a
hypocrite,
> > given that at least one to the cyclists to whom you have applied
that
> > term posts in ULM. And there isn't a 'definition' of psycholist,
it is
> > just a term invented in order to insult this particular
identifiable
> > group of people. The more I think of it, the more I think Todal
is
> > actually wrong in his original judgement.
> >
> As an analogy, if Judith had got into a usenet argument with a
lawyer or
> law student, called him a shyster, then posted to ULM making
disparaging
> remarks about shysters without identifying any specific person, I
would
> see nothing wrong with that.
Have you forgotten what you wrote in
lawyer or
> law student, called him a shyster, then posted to ULM making
disparaging
> remarks about shysters without identifying any specific person, I
would
> see nothing wrong with that.
Message-ID: <94pf8k...@mid.individual.net>
and
Message-ID: <9k1la7...@mid.individual.net>
or is it one rule for the group you like and another for about whom
you "don't give a flying fuck".
Adam Funk
Mar 14, 2013, 6:56:10 AM3/14/13
to
On 2013-03-13, Percy Picacity wrote:
> That would work if you had not referred to several identifiable
> cyclists by that silly label in the past. Which makes you a bit of a
> hypocrite, given that at least one to the cyclists to whom you have
> applied that term posts in ULM. And there isn't a 'definition' of
> psycholist, it is just a term invented in order to insult this
> particular identifiable group of people. The more I think of it, the
> more I think Todal is actually wrong in his original judgement.
I'm a bit disappointed at his opinion on this. The remark in question
> That would work if you had not referred to several identifiable
> cyclists by that silly label in the past. Which makes you a bit of a
> hypocrite, given that at least one to the cyclists to whom you have
> applied that term posts in ULM. And there isn't a 'definition' of
> psycholist, it is just a term invented in order to insult this
> particular identifiable group of people. The more I think of it, the
> more I think Todal is actually wrong in his original judgement.
is hardly polite & civilized.
The Todal
Mar 14, 2013, 7:25:25 AM3/14/13
to
talking about because you haven't bothered to quote them. And I'm not
going to faff around with search engines just to save you the effort.
The Todal
Mar 14, 2013, 7:26:12 AM3/14/13
to
polite and civilized". I'd object strenuously to the introduction of
such a rule.
ben.d...@outlook.com
Mar 14, 2013, 8:02:19 AM3/14/13
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:25:25 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
Well, what a surprise.
Todal, caught out as acomplete hypocryte, decides to insert his
fingers firmly in his ears.
Don't worry though, quoting Message-ID is good enough for the rest of
us and your previous statements are available with amouse-click or
two.
But then. you are a goderator and you can continue to enable the
trolls in their attacks on the cyclists that post to ulm.
Todal, caught out as acomplete hypocryte, decides to insert his
fingers firmly in his ears.
Don't worry though, quoting Message-ID is good enough for the rest of
us and your previous statements are available with amouse-click or
two.
But then. you are a goderator and you can continue to enable the
trolls in their attacks on the cyclists that post to ulm.
Wm
Mar 14, 2013, 8:07:24 AM3/14/13
to
uk.net.news.moderation <aqdhkh...@mid.individual.net>
I'm going to yell "selective pejorativist" at you.
Many pejorative words have been reclaimed and I think that is a sign of
a healthy society. I think what you are showing is that you are rather
unreconstructed, a Luddite, a person behind the times.
Wog and nancyboy have definitely been reclaimed and I've just checked
and cripple has been too.
I don't think psycholists are anyone except a group of people to hate
for some individuals.
If I kept on about niggers you might conclude that I had a problem with
black people -- notice you would conclude the problem was *mine* not the
black people's.
Why do you not conclude that Judith has a problem with cyclists?
Many pejorative words have been reclaimed and I think that is a sign of
a healthy society. I think what you are showing is that you are rather
unreconstructed, a Luddite, a person behind the times.
Wog and nancyboy have definitely been reclaimed and I've just checked
and cripple has been too.
I don't think psycholists are anyone except a group of people to hate
for some individuals.
If I kept on about niggers you might conclude that I had a problem with
black people -- notice you would conclude the problem was *mine* not the
black people's.
Why do you not conclude that Judith has a problem with cyclists?
The Todal
Mar 14, 2013, 8:13:52 AM3/14/13
to
you also Ben Darling? Together you make quite a team.
>
> Many pejorative words have been reclaimed and I think that is a sign of
> a healthy society. I think what you are showing is that you are rather
> unreconstructed, a Luddite, a person behind the times.
compatible with our moderation rules, but that might not please everyone.
>
> Wog and nancyboy have definitely been reclaimed and I've just checked
> and cripple has been too.
>
> I don't think psycholists are anyone except a group of people to hate
> for some individuals.
>
> If I kept on about niggers you might conclude that I had a problem with
> black people -- notice you would conclude the problem was *mine* not the
> black people's.
>
> Why do you not conclude that Judith has a problem with cyclists?
trying to have?
There are huge numbers of cyclists. They probably have no shared
manifesto or agenda. No more than "wearers of overcoats" might have. So
there is no need to regard them as a protected species, in my opinion.
Sara
Mar 14, 2013, 8:33:53 AM3/14/13
to
In article <aqdhkh...@mid.individual.net>,
But she wasn't being rude about 'psycholists' she was saying that anyone
who is part of a peloton is by definition a 'psycholist'. Which is rude
to those of us that she knows cycle regularly.
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
who is part of a peloton is by definition a 'psycholist'. Which is rude
to those of us that she knows cycle regularly.
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
ben.d...@outlook.com
Mar 14, 2013, 8:52:52 AM3/14/13
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:33:53 +0000, Sara
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <aqdhkh...@mid.individual.net>,
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
> > On 13/3/13 21:42, Percy Picacity wrote:
> > > That would work if you had not referred to several identifiable
cyclists
> > > by that silly label in the past. Which makes you a bit of a
hypocrite,
> > > given that at least one to the cyclists to whom you have
applied that
> > > term posts in ULM. And there isn't a 'definition' of
psycholist, it is
> > > just a term invented in order to insult this particular
identifiable
> > > group of people. The more I think of it, the more I think
Todal is
> > > actually wrong in his original judgement.
> > >
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <aqdhkh...@mid.individual.net>,
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
> > On 13/3/13 21:42, Percy Picacity wrote:
> > > That would work if you had not referred to several identifiable
cyclists
> > > by that silly label in the past. Which makes you a bit of a
hypocrite,
> > > given that at least one to the cyclists to whom you have
applied that
> > > term posts in ULM. And there isn't a 'definition' of
psycholist, it is
> > > just a term invented in order to insult this particular
identifiable
> > > group of people. The more I think of it, the more I think
Todal is
> > > actually wrong in his original judgement.
> > >
> But she wasn't being rude about 'psycholists' she was saying that
anyone
> who is part of a peloton is by definition a 'psycholist'. Which is
rude
> to those of us that she knows cycle regularly.
Well of course it was rude - what do you expect but a grunt?
anyone
> who is part of a peloton is by definition a 'psycholist'. Which is
rude
> to those of us that she knows cycle regularly.
The big problem is the Todal seeing cyclists as an "out-group" as
shown in TRL 549; and doing so willingly, repeatedly, and he to ice
the cake he brags about enabling the trolls in their relentless
campaign of attack on cyclists.
It's a school-ground way of bullying, and like all bullies they
cannot stand being brought to account.
He really ought to watch what he writes - it can (and here has) come
back to bite him on the arse.
The Todal
Mar 14, 2013, 9:07:42 AM3/14/13
to
upset cyclists? If she said something disparaging about home-owners, or
residents of London, or chartered accountants, or people who drive BMWs,
would that be so very painful for such people to read?
There is no risk that in response to her posts such people (or cyclists)
could be victimised and persecuted. Instead, the vast majority would
read "psycholists" and ignore it as a meaningless made-up word, and
those who understood its meaning might think "it's that fuckwit Judith
on her favourite subject again".
The bottom line is, we can't have a special moderation rule to protect a
few dozen cycling enthusiasts in Usenet, as one might protect the lesser
spotted grebe, so we'd have to have a rule prohibiting disparaging
remarks about various classes of people. Feel free to offer a draft of
such a rule.
Wm
Mar 14, 2013, 9:17:05 AM3/14/13
to
uk.net.news.moderation <aqdqej...@mid.individual.net>
Dunno about anyone else but right now I'm thinking what urcm ought to be
doing is removing the polite and civilised bit.
doing is removing the polite and civilised bit.
ben.d...@outlook.com
Mar 14, 2013, 9:20:41 AM3/14/13
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:07:42 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:
> spotted grebe, so we'd have to have a rule prohibiting disparaging
> remarks about various classes of people. Feel free to offer a draft
of
> such a rule.
How about:
" m) The moderators may at their discretion reject posts which
contain
incitement to racial hatred or derogatory descriptions of minority
groups
which may be hurtful or offensive to readers. "
wrote:
> spotted grebe, so we'd have to have a rule prohibiting disparaging
> remarks about various classes of people. Feel free to offer a draft
of
> such a rule.
" m) The moderators may at their discretion reject posts which
contain
incitement to racial hatred or derogatory descriptions of minority
groups
which may be hurtful or offensive to readers. "
Adam Funk
Mar 14, 2013, 9:30:59 AM3/14/13
to
that doesn't cover this.
Joan Frank
Mar 14, 2013, 9:49:56 AM3/14/13
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:30:59 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
> You've got the "abusive or hurtful" rejection option; I don't see
why
> that doesn't cover this.
The Todal doesn't "give a flying fuck" about (some) minority groups.
wrote:
> You've got the "abusive or hurtful" rejection option; I don't see
why
> that doesn't cover this.
The Todal
Mar 14, 2013, 9:54:20 AM3/14/13
to
also want to ban a post that said, eg, "For the umpteenth time I was
trying to cross a road today and a bloody cyclist came up at top speed,
going the wrong way down a one-way street, and nearly gave me a heart
attack. Why aren't these bastards ever stopped and arrested by the police?"?
Or would you simply ban that heinous word "psycholists"? And if Judith
were to invent some new word such as "drango" or "zabbadum" would those
also have to be banned?
Jon Ribbens
Mar 14, 2013, 10:05:55 AM3/14/13
to
On 2013-03-14, ben.darling outlook.com <ben.d...@outlook.com> wrote:
> Well, what a surprise.
>
> Todal, caught out as acomplete hypocryte, decides to insert his
> fingers firmly in his ears.
I have seen nothing to suggest that he has been "caught out as a
> Well, what a surprise.
>
> Todal, caught out as acomplete hypocryte, decides to insert his
> fingers firmly in his ears.
complete hypocrite".
Jon Ribbens
Mar 14, 2013, 10:08:56 AM3/14/13
to
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:33:53 +0000, Sara
><sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> But she wasn't being rude about 'psycholists' she was saying that
>> anyone who is part of a peloton is by definition a 'psycholist'.
>> Which is rude to those of us that she knows cycle regularly.
>
> Well of course it was rude - what do you expect but a grunt?
There's no rule against rudeness in ulm so far as I can see.
><sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> But she wasn't being rude about 'psycholists' she was saying that
>> anyone who is part of a peloton is by definition a 'psycholist'.
>> Which is rude to those of us that she knows cycle regularly.
>
> Well of course it was rude - what do you expect but a grunt?
> He really ought to watch what he writes - it can (and here has) come
> back to bite him on the arse.
Jon Ribbens
Mar 14, 2013, 10:10:01 AM3/14/13
to
e.g. "You would think that, you're an idiot."
Joan Frank
Mar 14, 2013, 10:17:35 AM3/14/13
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:05:55 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
> > Todal, caught out as acomplete hypocryte, decides to insert his
> > fingers firmly in his ears.
> I have seen nothing to suggest that he has been "caught out as a
> complete hypocrite".
You can't be arsed to click on a message-ID?
<jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
> > Todal, caught out as acomplete hypocryte, decides to insert his
> > fingers firmly in his ears.
> I have seen nothing to suggest that he has been "caught out as a
> complete hypocrite".
Or perhaps you've got two of his extras in yours.
Jon Ribbens
Mar 14, 2013, 10:21:01 AM3/14/13
to
On 2013-03-14, Joan Frank <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:05:55 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
><jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Todal, caught out as acomplete hypocryte, decides to insert his
>> > fingers firmly in his ears.
>
>> I have seen nothing to suggest that he has been "caught out as a
>> complete hypocrite".
>
> You can't be arsed to click on a message-ID?
You can't be arsed to post the alleged evidence?
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:05:55 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
><jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Todal, caught out as acomplete hypocryte, decides to insert his
>> > fingers firmly in his ears.
>
>> I have seen nothing to suggest that he has been "caught out as a
>> complete hypocrite".
>
> You can't be arsed to click on a message-ID?
I "clicked" on the Message-ID and it was so old that it's expired from
Eternal September's news spool, and hence nothing came up.
The Todal
Mar 14, 2013, 10:32:50 AM3/14/13
to
you male or female? I am sure Wm would like to know. He cares about such
things.
Wm
Mar 14, 2013, 10:34:50 AM3/14/13
to
uk.net.news.moderation <aqdt7u...@mid.individual.net>
I won't be Ben even when you admit to being Mr G, Todal :(
I'm not sure why you bother. Judith is more likely to expose you than
me. It is in her nature if you side against her ... and if you don't
you are a play thing.
Ben Darling seems to be more or less on the same side as me so I have no
need to challenge him.
>> Many pejorative words have been reclaimed and I think that is a sign of
>> a healthy society. I think what you are showing is that you are rather
>> unreconstructed, a Luddite, a person behind the times.
>
> I'm in favour of freedom of speech to the greatest extent that is
> compatible with our moderation rules, but that might not please everyone.
A proud statement of ... nothing, J
>> Wog and nancyboy have definitely been reclaimed and I've just checked
>> and cripple has been too.
>>
>> I don't think psycholists are anyone except a group of people to hate
>> for some individuals.
>>
>> If I kept on about niggers you might conclude that I had a problem with
>> black people -- notice you would conclude the problem was *mine* not the
>> black people's.
>>
>> Why do you not conclude that Judith has a problem with cyclists?
>
> How would that advance the debate - that is, whatever debate we're
> trying to have?
Judith complains a lot. Lots and lots and lots and lots and ... lots,
got it yet?
It would advance the debate lots if you said Judith was a piece of shit
for wasting people's time.
I think you are too chicken too do that but, interestingly, will get
involved in pejorative word debate.
What, I ask, is Judith a protected species of?
It can't be female, or monkey, or black, or gay? What is it you know
about Judith that we don't? Why are you offering protection to someone
that is horrid to groups of people and posts obsessively?
Are you in general support of paranoia in the uk.* management ngs?
> There are huge numbers of cyclists. They probably have no shared
> manifesto or agenda. No more than "wearers of overcoats" might have. So
> there is no need to regard them as a protected species, in my opinion.
So you should agree with me that Judith is a bit odd, spends way too
much of her time trying to hunt down people and should generally be
ignored as a nutter. She has never actually said why she doesn't like
most cyclists. Did you know that?
I'm not sure why you bother. Judith is more likely to expose you than
me. It is in her nature if you side against her ... and if you don't
you are a play thing.
Ben Darling seems to be more or less on the same side as me so I have no
need to challenge him.
>> Many pejorative words have been reclaimed and I think that is a sign of
>> a healthy society. I think what you are showing is that you are rather
>> unreconstructed, a Luddite, a person behind the times.
>
> I'm in favour of freedom of speech to the greatest extent that is
> compatible with our moderation rules, but that might not please everyone.
>> Wog and nancyboy have definitely been reclaimed and I've just checked
>> and cripple has been too.
>>
>> I don't think psycholists are anyone except a group of people to hate
>> for some individuals.
>>
>> If I kept on about niggers you might conclude that I had a problem with
>> black people -- notice you would conclude the problem was *mine* not the
>> black people's.
>>
>> Why do you not conclude that Judith has a problem with cyclists?
>
> How would that advance the debate - that is, whatever debate we're
> trying to have?
got it yet?
It would advance the debate lots if you said Judith was a piece of shit
for wasting people's time.
I think you are too chicken too do that but, interestingly, will get
involved in pejorative word debate.
What, I ask, is Judith a protected species of?
It can't be female, or monkey, or black, or gay? What is it you know
about Judith that we don't? Why are you offering protection to someone
that is horrid to groups of people and posts obsessively?
Are you in general support of paranoia in the uk.* management ngs?
> There are huge numbers of cyclists. They probably have no shared
> manifesto or agenda. No more than "wearers of overcoats" might have. So
> there is no need to regard them as a protected species, in my opinion.
much of her time trying to hunt down people and should generally be
ignored as a nutter. She has never actually said why she doesn't like
most cyclists. Did you know that?
Clive George
Mar 14, 2013, 10:28:28 AM3/14/13
to
The Todal
Mar 14, 2013, 11:03:46 AM3/14/13
to
On 14/3/13 14:34, Wm wrote:
> uk.net.news.moderation <aqdt7u...@mid.individual.net>
> On 14/03/2013 12:13, The Todal wrote:
>
> Judith complains a lot. Lots and lots and lots and lots and ... lots,
> got it yet?
Her posts to this group are at times unnecessarily insulting and
> uk.net.news.moderation <aqdt7u...@mid.individual.net>
> On 14/03/2013 12:13, The Todal wrote:
>
> Judith complains a lot. Lots and lots and lots and lots and ... lots,
> got it yet?
offensive in my opinion.
Her posts to UKLM are reasonable and intelligent, and as this group UNNM
is not a moderated group she can post as she likes here and if it
damages her image and makes people dislike her, that's her problem not mine.
>
> It would advance the debate lots if you said Judith was a piece of shit
> for wasting people's time.
wasting people's time, but you don't seriously think that saying so will
advance the debate.
>
> I think you are too chicken too do that but, interestingly, will get
> involved in pejorative word debate.
>
> What, I ask, is Judith a protected species of?
>
> It can't be female, or monkey, or black, or gay? What is it you know
> about Judith that we don't? Why are you offering protection to someone
> that is horrid to groups of people and posts obsessively?
>
> Are you in general support of paranoia in the uk.* management ngs?
>
>> There are huge numbers of cyclists. They probably have no shared
>> manifesto or agenda. No more than "wearers of overcoats" might have. So
>> there is no need to regard them as a protected species, in my opinion.
>
> So you should agree with me that Judith is a bit odd, spends way too
> much of her time trying to hunt down people and should generally be
> ignored as a nutter. She has never actually said why she doesn't like
> most cyclists. Did you know that?
inconsiderate, rude and a threat to health and safety. There is no rule
whereby a cyclist has to perpetually voice support for other cyclists.
They aren't all members of a Sisterhood or Brotherhood.
If I say that IT support companies are loathesome reptiles, which
happens to be my opinion today, it wouldn't suprise me if someone leapt
to their defence and accused me of being unreasonable. But to ban me
from voicing such opinions is really rather unreasonable. Rhetoric
sometimes involves exaggerating one's point of view for effect. To say
"cyclists are bastards" is more likely to lead to an interesting
converstation than the pedantic "a few cyclists, possibly because they
have never had proper road training, are sometimes inconsiderate to
other road users".
And if I were you I would rise above Judith's disparaging remarks and
not rise to the bait.
John Briggs
Mar 14, 2013, 11:24:14 AM3/14/13
to
--
John Briggs
Jon Ribbens
Mar 14, 2013, 11:25:48 AM3/14/13
to
Judith
Mar 14, 2013, 11:55:09 AM3/14/13
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:34:50 +0000, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>She has never actually said why she doesn't like
>most cyclists. Did you know that?
That just maybe because I do not actually dislike most cyclists.
Is that too difficult for you?
<snip>
>She has never actually said why she doesn't like
>most cyclists. Did you know that?
Is that too difficult for you?
Judith
Mar 14, 2013, 12:01:18 PM3/14/13
to
>But she wasn't being rude about 'psycholists' she was saying that anyone
>who is part of a peloton is by definition a 'psycholist'. Which is rude
>to those of us that she knows cycle regularly.
Perhaps you could share with us what are these "pelotons" which *you* are part
>who is part of a peloton is by definition a 'psycholist'. Which is rude
>to those of us that she knows cycle regularly.
of?
There does seem to be some confusion as to what the word means.
Brian Morrison
Mar 14, 2013, 12:22:05 PM3/14/13
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:01:18 +0000
Judith wrote:
> There does seem to be some confusion as to what the word means.
Is there? Can't imagine why, it simply means a group of riders in a
Judith wrote:
> There does seem to be some confusion as to what the word means.
bike race, usually the largest trailing group if there are more than
two such divisions in the race field.
I can't imagine why anyone would use it to apply to cyclists who are
not participating in a race.
--
Brian Morrison
Alex
Mar 14, 2013, 12:53:54 PM3/14/13
to
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/peloton?q=peloton
"Definition of peloton:
noun | the main field or group of cyclists in a race."
--
Alexis
"Taboo is sometimes a treasure chest waiting to be opened."
Percy Picacity
Mar 14, 2013, 2:00:50 PM3/14/13
to
sufficiently clearly directed at indiviidual ulm posters to trigger
that criterion. I do have some doubt.
Will: "Sociopaths who use multiple identities to wreck usenet groups
as a result of minor or imaginary grievances oughtt to be identified in
real life and held up to public ridicule: ask your ISP to support this
objective." be an acceptable sig. for ulm?
--
Percy Picacity
Wm
Mar 14, 2013, 3:27:51 PM3/14/13
to
uk.net.news.moderation <3ks3k810r81veiqgj...@4ax.com>
Yes, if you like most cyclists why do you spend so much time saying they
are bad people?
If the minority urcm isn't to your liking then urc is there for you and
your playmates.
However, you have made more than 500 more postings than anyone else in
this ng over a given period ... why?
Because you *like* cyclists? I don't believe you.
are bad people?
If the minority urcm isn't to your liking then urc is there for you and
your playmates.
However, you have made more than 500 more postings than anyone else in
this ng over a given period ... why?
Because you *like* cyclists? I don't believe you.
Tony
Mar 14, 2013, 3:45:16 PM3/14/13
to
In uk.net.news.moderation, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>Will: "Sociopaths who use multiple identities to wreck usenet groups
>as a result of minor or imaginary grievances oughtt to be identified in
>real life and held up to public ridicule: ask your ISP to support this
>objective." be an acceptable sig. for ulm?
I hope not.
>Will: "Sociopaths who use multiple identities to wreck usenet groups
>as a result of minor or imaginary grievances oughtt to be identified in
>real life and held up to public ridicule: ask your ISP to support this
>objective." be an acceptable sig. for ulm?
Ought only has one t.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
Judith
Mar 14, 2013, 5:04:42 PM3/14/13
to
taking part in a race.
Perhaps Sara takes part in cycle races in large groups on the main roads on a
regular basis.
Judith
Mar 14, 2013, 5:07:47 PM3/14/13
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:00:50 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:
Yeah - go for it.
Perhaps you can now identify all these racing cyclists who take part in URCM
and UNNM are - you know the ones who I aimed my peloton piss-take at?
wrote:
Perhaps you can now identify all these racing cyclists who take part in URCM
and UNNM are - you know the ones who I aimed my peloton piss-take at?
Judith
Mar 14, 2013, 5:09:14 PM3/14/13
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:45:16 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>In uk.net.news.moderation, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Will: "Sociopaths who use multiple identities to wreck usenet groups
>>as a result of minor or imaginary grievances oughtt to be identified in
>>real life and held up to public ridicule: ask your ISP to support this
>>objective." be an acceptable sig. for ulm?
>
>I hope not.
>
>Ought only has one t.
I think it would be OK - after all, it is not aimed at an individual.
>In uk.net.news.moderation, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Will: "Sociopaths who use multiple identities to wreck usenet groups
>>as a result of minor or imaginary grievances oughtt to be identified in
>>real life and held up to public ridicule: ask your ISP to support this
>>objective." be an acceptable sig. for ulm?
>
>I hope not.
>
>Ought only has one t.
Steve Firth
Mar 14, 2013, 5:15:35 PM3/14/13
to
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
> If I say that IT support companies are loathesome reptiles, which happens
> to be my opinion today,
You have wounded me to the quick. How dare you say such a thing about me?
> If I say that IT support companies are loathesome reptiles, which happens
> to be my opinion today,
Are you a good person?
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Steve Firth
Mar 14, 2013, 5:15:36 PM3/14/13
to
that.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Anonymous
Mar 14, 2013, 6:20:26 PM3/14/13
to
In article <aqe0cu...@mid.individual.net>
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> On 14/3/13 12:33, Sara wrote:
> > In article <aqdhkh...@mid.individual.net>,
> upset cyclists? If she said something disparaging about home-owners, or
> residents of London, or chartered accountants, or people who drive BMWs,
> would that be so very painful for such people to read?
You are missing the repetition bit.
Again, again, again, Judith has no love, you fool
Judith does not like people.
I'd support her starting her own group to talk about things she
likes.
> There is no risk that in response to her posts such people (or cyclists)
> could be victimised and persecuted. Instead, the vast majority would
> read "psycholists" and ignore it as a meaningless made-up word, and
> those who understood its meaning might think "it's that fuckwit Judith
> on her favourite subject again".
Problem is you are one of the main people that entertain her.
That is just numbers JG, you can't undo your opinion after the
event.
> The bottom line is, we can't have a special moderation rule to protect a
> few dozen cycling enthusiasts in Usenet,
Correct. What we as a community can do is tell a very odd person
to fuck off repeatedly.
You know that. I know that.
> as one might protect the lesser
consistently failed to get a rule made?
Are you really that dumb?
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> On 14/3/13 12:33, Sara wrote:
> > In article <aqdhkh...@mid.individual.net>,
> > The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 13/3/13 21:42, Percy Picacity wrote:
> >>> On 2013-03-13 21:17:26 +0000, Judith said:
> >>>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> If anyone of the unknown cyclists who post here think that they fit the
> >>>> definition on of a "psycholist" - then if the cap fits : wear it.
> >>>> (Little flowers)
> >>>>
> >>>> PS I am a cyclist.
> >>>
> >
> >> On 13/3/13 21:42, Percy Picacity wrote:
> >>> On 2013-03-13 21:17:26 +0000, Judith said:
> >>>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> If anyone of the unknown cyclists who post here think that they fit the
> >>>> definition on of a "psycholist" - then if the cap fits : wear it.
> >>>> (Little flowers)
> >>>>
> >>>> PS I am a cyclist.
> >>>
> >>> That would work if you had not referred to several identifiable cyclists
> >>> by that silly label in the past. Which makes you a bit of a hypocrite,
> >>> given that at least one to the cyclists to whom you have applied that
> >>> term posts in ULM. And there isn't a 'definition' of psycholist, it is
> >>> just a term invented in order to insult this particular identifiable
> >>> group of people. The more I think of it, the more I think Todal is
> >>> actually wrong in his original judgement.
> >>>
> >>
> >>> by that silly label in the past. Which makes you a bit of a hypocrite,
> >>> given that at least one to the cyclists to whom you have applied that
> >>> term posts in ULM. And there isn't a 'definition' of psycholist, it is
> >>> just a term invented in order to insult this particular identifiable
> >>> group of people. The more I think of it, the more I think Todal is
> >>> actually wrong in his original judgement.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Always happy to debate such points but I am unable to understand your
> >> point at the moment.
> >>
> >> point at the moment.
> >>
> >> As an analogy, if Judith had got into a usenet argument with a lawyer or
> >> law student, called him a shyster, then posted to ULM making disparaging
> >> remarks about shysters without identifying any specific person, I would
> >> see nothing wrong with that.
> >>
> >> law student, called him a shyster, then posted to ULM making disparaging
> >> remarks about shysters without identifying any specific person, I would
> >> see nothing wrong with that.
> >>
> >> We'd obviously be into different territory if instead of shysters or
> >> psycholists the words were "cripple" "wog" or "nancyboy".
> >
> >> psycholists the words were "cripple" "wog" or "nancyboy".
> >
> > But she wasn't being rude about 'psycholists' she was saying that anyone
> > who is part of a peloton is by definition a 'psycholist'. Which is rude
> > to those of us that she knows cycle regularly.
> >
>
> Yes, it's rude and disrespectful to all cyclists. But why should that
> > who is part of a peloton is by definition a 'psycholist'. Which is rude
> > to those of us that she knows cycle regularly.
> >
>
> upset cyclists? If she said something disparaging about home-owners, or
> residents of London, or chartered accountants, or people who drive BMWs,
> would that be so very painful for such people to read?
You are missing the repetition bit.
Again, again, again, Judith has no love, you fool
Judith does not like people.
I'd support her starting her own group to talk about things she
likes.
> There is no risk that in response to her posts such people (or cyclists)
> could be victimised and persecuted. Instead, the vast majority would
> read "psycholists" and ignore it as a meaningless made-up word, and
> those who understood its meaning might think "it's that fuckwit Judith
> on her favourite subject again".
Problem is you are one of the main people that entertain her.
That is just numbers JG, you can't undo your opinion after the
event.
> The bottom line is, we can't have a special moderation rule to protect a
> few dozen cycling enthusiasts in Usenet,
Correct. What we as a community can do is tell a very odd person
to fuck off repeatedly.
You know that. I know that.
> as one might protect the lesser
> spotted grebe, so we'd have to have a rule prohibiting disparaging
> remarks about various classes of people. Feel free to offer a draft of
> such a rule.
Why do you ask people to make a rule about a person that has
> remarks about various classes of people. Feel free to offer a draft of
> such a rule.
consistently failed to get a rule made?
Are you really that dumb?
Steve Firth
Mar 14, 2013, 6:04:05 PM3/14/13
to
Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> Will: "Sociopaths who use multiple identities to wreck usenet groups
> as a result of minor or imaginary grievances oughtt to be identified in
> real life and held up to public ridicule: ask your ISP to support this
> objective." be an acceptable sig. for ulm?
I suggest you use it, if only to ensure that you advertise to the world
> Will: "Sociopaths who use multiple identities to wreck usenet groups
> as a result of minor or imaginary grievances oughtt to be identified in
> real life and held up to public ridicule: ask your ISP to support this
> objective." be an acceptable sig. for ulm?
that you have problems with basic English.
--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground
Anonymous
Mar 14, 2013, 6:20:01 PM3/14/13
to
In article <almarsoft.5105...@news.aioe.org>
Joan Frank <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
and someone thought I was Joan Frank.
sigh
Joan Frank <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:30:59 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You've got the "abusive or hurtful" rejection option; I don't see
> why
> > that doesn't cover this.
>
> The Todal doesn't "give a flying fuck" about (some) minority groups.
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:30:59 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You've got the "abusive or hurtful" rejection option; I don't see
> why
> > that doesn't cover this.
>
and someone thought I was Joan Frank.
sigh
Percy Picacity
Mar 14, 2013, 6:20:40 PM3/14/13
to
On 2013-03-14 19:45:16 +0000, Tony said:
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Will: "Sociopaths who use multiple identities to wreck usenet groups
>> as a result of minor or imaginary grievances oughtt to be identified in
>> real life and held up to public ridicule: ask your ISP to support this
>> objective." be an acceptable sig. for ulm?
>
> I hope not.
>
> Ought only has one t.
OK, so it is definitely unacceptable, but will it be rejected by the
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Will: "Sociopaths who use multiple identities to wreck usenet groups
>> as a result of minor or imaginary grievances oughtt to be identified in
>> real life and held up to public ridicule: ask your ISP to support this
>> objective." be an acceptable sig. for ulm?
>
> I hope not.
>
> Ought only has one t.
moderators?
--
Percy Picacity
Percy Picacity
Mar 14, 2013, 6:43:51 PM3/14/13
to
On 2013-03-14 22:04:05 +0000, Steve Firth said:
> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Will: "Sociopaths who use multiple identities to wreck usenet groups
>> as a result of minor or imaginary grievances oughtt to be identified in
>> real life and held up to public ridicule: ask your ISP to support this
>> objective." be an acceptable sig. for ulm?
>
> I suggest you use it, if only to ensure that you advertise to the world
> that you have problems with basic English.
I wasn't planning to use it - I was asking if it would be acceptable to
> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Will: "Sociopaths who use multiple identities to wreck usenet groups
>> as a result of minor or imaginary grievances oughtt to be identified in
>> real life and held up to public ridicule: ask your ISP to support this
>> objective." be an acceptable sig. for ulm?
>
> I suggest you use it, if only to ensure that you advertise to the world
> that you have problems with basic English.
the moderators. It didn't need to be particularly polished to ask that
question. Any more than suggesting that all racing cyclists are
mentally unbalanced was a particularly well thought out comment for
someone who professes to be interested in cycling.
--
Percy Picacity
Dave U. Random
Mar 14, 2013, 6:57:50 PM3/14/13
to
In article <1520055544384986815.753835%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org>
You are both nice in your own way.
Anonymous
Mar 14, 2013, 7:56:26 PM3/14/13
to
In article <aqe76i...@mid.individual.net>
The rest are bye and bye.
> Her posts to UKLM are reasonable and intelligent, and as this group UNNM
> is not a moderated group she can post as she likes here and if it
> damages her image and makes people dislike her, that's her problem not mine.
The problem is that she thinks you like her.
Do you?
All we are asking is honesty.
> > It would advance the debate lots if you said Judith was a piece of shit
> > for wasting people's time.
>
> I know you don't mean that.
I do actually.
I think one of us is appearing camp.
> Well, you see her as a piece of shit for
> wasting people's time, but you don't seriously think that saying so will
> advance the debate.
Wrong! I really do think the person posting as Judith is equivalent
to a turd.
It may seem like a high school jink to you but I really think
Judith is a piece of shit.
Have you seen thought necessary beyond that?
> > I think you are too chicken too do that but, interestingly, will get
> > involved in pejorative word debate.
> >
> > What, I ask, is Judith a protected species of?
> >
> > It can't be female, or monkey, or black, or gay? What is it you know
> > about Judith that we don't? Why are you offering protection to someone
> > that is horrid to groups of people and posts obsessively?
> >
> > Are you in general support of paranoia in the uk.* management ngs?
Look at the stats and get back to me about weird and obsessive
posting.
> >> There are huge numbers of cyclists. They probably have no shared
> >> manifesto or agenda. No more than "wearers of overcoats" might have. So
> >> there is no need to regard them as a protected species, in my opinion.
Tell Judith that. Think about who the problem person is.
> > So you should agree with me that Judith is a bit odd, spends way too
> > much of her time trying to hunt down people and should generally be
> > ignored as a nutter. She has never actually said why she doesn't like
> > most cyclists. Did you know that?
>
> Cycling is fun. Cycling is healthy. A lot of cyclists out there are
> inconsiderate, rude and a threat to health and safety.
Nope. Try again as Judith.
> There is no rule
> whereby a cyclist has to perpetually voice support for other cyclists.
> They aren't all members of a Sisterhood or Brotherhood.
There actually is if you aren't from the dark side.
I, for example, see you and other people getting in the way of
traffick, that just doesn't happen to other people.
> If I say that IT support companies are loathesome reptiles, which
> happens to be my opinion today, it wouldn't suprise me if someone leapt
> to their defence and accused me of being unreasonable.
I think Steve agreed with you.
> But to ban me
> from voicing such opinions is really rather unreasonable. Rhetoric
> sometimes involves exaggerating one's point of view for effect. To say
> "cyclists are bastards" is more likely to lead to an interesting
> converstation than the pedantic "a few cyclists, possibly because they
> have never had proper road training, are sometimes inconsiderate to
> other road users".
There is a group for that. You are the fucking idiot that is
ignoring the point that Judith has made
hundreds of posts about people (mainly herself) not getting to say
her bit exactly where she wants.
When will *you* grow a pair of nuts and say someone is doing it
wrong?
> And if I were you I would rise above Judith's disparaging remarks and
> not rise to the bait.
Have you failed to noticed you are disparaged?
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> On 14/3/13 14:34, Wm wrote:
> > uk.net.news.moderation <aqdt7u...@mid.individual.net>
> > On 14/03/2013 12:13, The Todal wrote:
>
> >
> > Judith complains a lot. Lots and lots and lots and lots and ... lots,
> > got it yet?
>
> Her posts to this group are at times unnecessarily insulting and
> offensive in my opinion.
Which bit of lots and lots are you missing, J?
>
> On 14/3/13 14:34, Wm wrote:
> > uk.net.news.moderation <aqdt7u...@mid.individual.net>
> > On 14/03/2013 12:13, The Todal wrote:
>
> >
> > Judith complains a lot. Lots and lots and lots and lots and ... lots,
> > got it yet?
>
> Her posts to this group are at times unnecessarily insulting and
> offensive in my opinion.
The rest are bye and bye.
> Her posts to UKLM are reasonable and intelligent, and as this group UNNM
> is not a moderated group she can post as she likes here and if it
> damages her image and makes people dislike her, that's her problem not mine.
Do you?
All we are asking is honesty.
> > It would advance the debate lots if you said Judith was a piece of shit
> > for wasting people's time.
>
> I know you don't mean that.
I think one of us is appearing camp.
> Well, you see her as a piece of shit for
> wasting people's time, but you don't seriously think that saying so will
> advance the debate.
to a turd.
It may seem like a high school jink to you but I really think
Judith is a piece of shit.
Have you seen thought necessary beyond that?
> > I think you are too chicken too do that but, interestingly, will get
> > involved in pejorative word debate.
> >
> > What, I ask, is Judith a protected species of?
> >
> > It can't be female, or monkey, or black, or gay? What is it you know
> > about Judith that we don't? Why are you offering protection to someone
> > that is horrid to groups of people and posts obsessively?
> >
> > Are you in general support of paranoia in the uk.* management ngs?
posting.
> >> There are huge numbers of cyclists. They probably have no shared
> >> manifesto or agenda. No more than "wearers of overcoats" might have. So
> >> there is no need to regard them as a protected species, in my opinion.
> > So you should agree with me that Judith is a bit odd, spends way too
> > much of her time trying to hunt down people and should generally be
> > ignored as a nutter. She has never actually said why she doesn't like
> > most cyclists. Did you know that?
>
> Cycling is fun. Cycling is healthy. A lot of cyclists out there are
> inconsiderate, rude and a threat to health and safety.
> There is no rule
> whereby a cyclist has to perpetually voice support for other cyclists.
> They aren't all members of a Sisterhood or Brotherhood.
I, for example, see you and other people getting in the way of
traffick, that just doesn't happen to other people.
> If I say that IT support companies are loathesome reptiles, which
> happens to be my opinion today, it wouldn't suprise me if someone leapt
> to their defence and accused me of being unreasonable.
> But to ban me
> from voicing such opinions is really rather unreasonable. Rhetoric
> sometimes involves exaggerating one's point of view for effect. To say
> "cyclists are bastards" is more likely to lead to an interesting
> converstation than the pedantic "a few cyclists, possibly because they
> have never had proper road training, are sometimes inconsiderate to
> other road users".
ignoring the point that Judith has made
hundreds of posts about people (mainly herself) not getting to say
her bit exactly where she wants.
When will *you* grow a pair of nuts and say someone is doing it
wrong?
> And if I were you I would rise above Judith's disparaging remarks and
> not rise to the bait.
Tony
Mar 14, 2013, 8:46:53 PM3/14/13
to
In uk.net.news.moderation, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>On 2013-03-14 19:45:16 +0000, Tony said:
>
>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Will: "Sociopaths who use multiple identities to wreck usenet groups
>>> as a result of minor or imaginary grievances oughtt to be identified in
>>> real life and held up to public ridicule: ask your ISP to support this
>>> objective." be an acceptable sig. for ulm?
>>
>> I hope not.
>>
>> Ought only has one t.
>
>OK, so it is definitely unacceptable, but will it be rejected by the
>moderators?
That depends on whether they can cope with the typo.
>On 2013-03-14 19:45:16 +0000, Tony said:
>
>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Will: "Sociopaths who use multiple identities to wreck usenet groups
>>> as a result of minor or imaginary grievances oughtt to be identified in
>>> real life and held up to public ridicule: ask your ISP to support this
>>> objective." be an acceptable sig. for ulm?
>>
>> I hope not.
>>
>> Ought only has one t.
>
>OK, so it is definitely unacceptable, but will it be rejected by the
>moderators?
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
Mar 14, 2013, 9:08:54 PM3/14/13
to
In article <almarsoft.5105...@news.aioe.org>
Joan Frank <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:30:59 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You've got the "abusive or hurtful" rejection option; I don't see
> why
> > that doesn't cover this.
>
> The Todal doesn't "give a flying fuck" about (some) minority groups.
posting on his doorstep.
How fucking thick are you JG?
The Todal
Mar 15, 2013, 5:24:17 AM3/15/13
to
would necessarily notice it, if in a footer.
The Todal
Mar 15, 2013, 5:39:22 AM3/15/13
to
On 14/3/13 14:34, Wm wrote:
> uk.net.news.moderation <aqdt7u...@mid.individual.net>
> On 14/03/2013 12:13, The Todal wrote:
>> On 14/3/13 12:07, Wm wrote:
> uk.net.news.moderation <aqdt7u...@mid.individual.net>
> On 14/03/2013 12:13, The Todal wrote:
>>> uk.net.news.moderation <aqdhkh...@mid.individual.net>
>>
>> No problem. Nice to see you back, Wm, using your usual posting name. Are
>> you also Ben Darling? Together you make quite a team.
>
> I won't be Ben even when you admit to being Mr G, Todal :(
You come across as a malevolent, slightly unhinged stalker. Tell me, was
that the impression you really wanted to give to the world?
The Todal
Mar 15, 2013, 5:51:37 AM3/15/13
to
On 14/3/13 23:56, Anonymous wrote:
> In article <aqe76i...@mid.individual.net>
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>> Her posts to UKLM are reasonable and intelligent, and as this group UNNM
>> is not a moderated group she can post as she likes here and if it
>> damages her image and makes people dislike her, that's her problem not mine.
>
> The problem is that she thinks you like her.
>
> Do you?
>
> All we are asking is honesty.
>
Quite honestly? I think you are insecure about whether I love you
> In article <aqe76i...@mid.individual.net>
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>> Her posts to UKLM are reasonable and intelligent, and as this group UNNM
>> is not a moderated group she can post as she likes here and if it
>> damages her image and makes people dislike her, that's her problem not mine.
>
> The problem is that she thinks you like her.
>
> Do you?
>
> All we are asking is honesty.
>
enough. Don't worry. I have enough love to spare for you and for Judith.
Have some Ribena.
Steve Firth
Mar 15, 2013, 7:59:31 AM3/15/13
to
Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> > I suggest you use it, if only to ensure that you advertise to the world
> > that you have problems with basic English.
>
> I wasn't planning to use it
I still suggest that you use it.
> > I suggest you use it, if only to ensure that you advertise to the world
> > that you have problems with basic English.
>
> I wasn't planning to use it
Jon Ribbens
Mar 15, 2013, 8:15:58 AM3/15/13
to
personally it would not tend to raise the poster in my esteem.
The Todal
Mar 15, 2013, 8:34:29 AM3/15/13
to
moderation policy. I'd be tempted to introduce a new rule to cover it.
In principle I could be persuaded to agree with the sentiments
expressed. But assessing whether a poster has the intention to "wreck
usenet groups" is very subjective and we'd be into URCM territory,
identifying trolls based on gut instinct rather than reliable objective
criteria. Wm seems to be using multiple identities but I doubt if he is
doing so to wreck usenet groups. Others might take a sterner line.
I am in favour of giving people the freedom to post with multiple
identities if their aim is to preserve confidentiality. I wouldn't want
to scare any new ULM users by implying that we'll be reporting such
activity to ISPs.
Percy Picacity
Mar 15, 2013, 9:58:39 AM3/15/13
to
was clearly aimed at one or more of a very few identifiable posters on
ulm. I still wonder if the 'psycholist' comment comes in the same
category.
--
Percy Picacity
The Todal
Mar 15, 2013, 10:46:18 AM3/15/13
to
other users of ULM who like to use fake posting names. They might think
that they will be wrongly categorised as wreckers and their grievances
seen as minor or imaginary.
So I wouldn't have a problem with a post that said "in some usenet
groups, there are posters who use multiple identities to stir up
arguments and intimidate other people. I am not suggesting that this is
currently happening in ULM. Can it be argued that they are breaking any
law, or that there are grounds for reporting them to their ISP".
David Damerell
Mar 15, 2013, 11:20:16 AM3/15/13
to
Quoting Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk>:
>I can't imagine why anyone would use it to apply to cyclists who are
>not participating in a race.
Without wishing to get into the larger question of crazy people posting to
>I can't imagine why anyone would use it to apply to cyclists who are
>not participating in a race.
ulm, I often hear it used analogously to mean the large group in some
non-racing event. You might well speak of "coming up on the peloton" on
the Dunwich Dynamo.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.
Today is First Leicesterday, March.
Tomorrow will be First Brieday, March.
Anonymous
Mar 15, 2013, 12:44:03 PM3/15/13
to
Judith
Mar 15, 2013, 1:07:17 PM3/15/13
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:56:26 -0400 (EDT), Anonymous
<anon...@foto.nl1.torservers.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> And if I were you I would rise above Judith's disparaging remarks and
>> not rise to the bait.
>
>Have you failed to noticed you are disparaged?
Now, now Maggot - please show me where I have disparaged the Todal. I do not
always agree with him but I do not think I have ever said he is of little
worth.
It would be a good idea if you now produced the posts where you think I have
disparaged him - otherwise people will say "Wm really is a fuckwit - just
ignore his unfounded claims",
<anon...@foto.nl1.torservers.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> And if I were you I would rise above Judith's disparaging remarks and
>> not rise to the bait.
>
>Have you failed to noticed you are disparaged?
always agree with him but I do not think I have ever said he is of little
worth.
It would be a good idea if you now produced the posts where you think I have
disparaged him - otherwise people will say "Wm really is a fuckwit - just
ignore his unfounded claims",
The Todal
Mar 15, 2013, 1:09:32 PM3/15/13
to
Klingon could engage in debate without vapourising the other person.
John Briggs
Mar 15, 2013, 3:56:41 PM3/15/13
to
On 15/03/2013 11:59, Steve Firth wrote:
> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> I suggest you use it, if only to ensure that you advertise to the world
>>> that you have problems with basic English.
>>
>> I wasn't planning to use it
>
> I still suggest that you use it.
My problem with it is that the vocabulary is too restricted.
> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> I suggest you use it, if only to ensure that you advertise to the world
>>> that you have problems with basic English.
>>
>> I wasn't planning to use it
>
> I still suggest that you use it.
--
John Briggs
Judith
Mar 15, 2013, 4:12:04 PM3/15/13
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:34:29 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
<snip>
>I am in favour of giving people the freedom to post with multiple
>identities if their aim is to preserve confidentiality. I wouldn't want
>to scare any new ULM users by implying that we'll be reporting such
>activity to ISPs.
I am really surprised that Percy has not already invested his time by
complaining to ISPs about people who use multiple identities. You really would
have thought if his, Wm's, and Porky Chapman's estimates of the number of IDs I
have used were anything like accurate, I would have been banned by every single
ISP on the web by now.
Unless he is talking shite of course.
<snip>
>I am in favour of giving people the freedom to post with multiple
>identities if their aim is to preserve confidentiality. I wouldn't want
>to scare any new ULM users by implying that we'll be reporting such
>activity to ISPs.
complaining to ISPs about people who use multiple identities. You really would
have thought if his, Wm's, and Porky Chapman's estimates of the number of IDs I
have used were anything like accurate, I would have been banned by every single
ISP on the web by now.
Unless he is talking shite of course.
Judith
Mar 15, 2013, 4:26:50 PM3/15/13
to
>She was very different from what I expected. I had no idea that a
>Klingon could engage in debate without vapourising the other person.
Are you saying that you were not satisfied?
>Klingon could engage in debate without vapourising the other person.
Tony
Mar 15, 2013, 5:25:55 PM3/15/13
to
use, and you like it that way. Deniability, with an added element of
paranoia from those that way inclined.
Or does your dishonest posting approach have some other, beneficial,
purpose?
Ophelia
Mar 15, 2013, 5:40:48 PM3/15/13
to
"Tony" <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in message
news:ki03hi$a5v$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk...
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:34:29 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>I am in favour of giving people the freedom to post with multiple
>>>identities if their aim is to preserve confidentiality. I wouldn't want
>>>to scare any new ULM users by implying that we'll be reporting such
>>>activity to ISPs.
>>
>>I am really surprised that Percy has not already invested his time by
>>complaining to ISPs about people who use multiple identities. You really
>>would
>>have thought if his, Wm's, and Porky Chapman's estimates of the number of
>>IDs I
>>have used were anything like accurate, I would have been banned by every
>>single
>>ISP on the web by now.
>>
>>Unless he is talking shite of course.
>
> But since you're dishonest, no one can be really sure how many ID's you
> use, and you like it that way. Deniability, with an added element of
> paranoia from those that way inclined.
>
> Or does your dishonest posting approach have some other, beneficial,
> purpose?
Given you admit that no one knows how many IDs Judith has, ought you to be
>
>>On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:34:29 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>I am in favour of giving people the freedom to post with multiple
>>>identities if their aim is to preserve confidentiality. I wouldn't want
>>>to scare any new ULM users by implying that we'll be reporting such
>>>activity to ISPs.
>>
>>I am really surprised that Percy has not already invested his time by
>>complaining to ISPs about people who use multiple identities. You really
>>would
>>have thought if his, Wm's, and Porky Chapman's estimates of the number of
>>IDs I
>>have used were anything like accurate, I would have been banned by every
>>single
>>ISP on the web by now.
>>
>>Unless he is talking shite of course.
>
> But since you're dishonest, no one can be really sure how many ID's you
> use, and you like it that way. Deniability, with an added element of
> paranoia from those that way inclined.
>
> Or does your dishonest posting approach have some other, beneficial,
> purpose?
calling her dishonest when you have no evidence?
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
Judith
Mar 15, 2013, 5:43:20 PM3/15/13
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:25:55 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>Or does your dishonest posting approach have some other, beneficial,
>purpose?
Yep
It winds up *you* up and you froth at the mouth - just like now.
<snip>
>Or does your dishonest posting approach have some other, beneficial,
>purpose?
It winds up *you* up and you froth at the mouth - just like now.
Tony
Mar 15, 2013, 7:23:10 PM3/15/13
to
In uk.net.news.moderation, "Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.me.ku.invalid>
wrote:
Given that she's admitted to posting to the management groups under
multiple identities, including one RFD, I think I'm perfectly within my
rights to believe her behaviour to be dishonest.
wrote:
multiple identities, including one RFD, I think I'm perfectly within my
rights to believe her behaviour to be dishonest.
Tony
Mar 15, 2013, 7:25:18 PM3/15/13
to
stuff I actually care about. You're free to think I'm somehow frothing,
but you would be genuinely mistaken.
Ophelia
Mar 16, 2013, 5:07:22 AM3/16/13
to
"Tony" <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in message
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
Tony
Mar 16, 2013, 6:47:01 AM3/16/13
to
In uk.net.news.moderation, "Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.me.ku.invalid>
wrote:
>"Tony" <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in message
>news:ki0add$l49$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk...
>> In uk.net.news.moderation, "Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.me.ku.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Tony" <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:ki03hi$a5v$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk...
wrote:
>"Tony" <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in message
>news:ki0add$l49$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk...
>> In uk.net.news.moderation, "Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.me.ku.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Tony" <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:ki03hi$a5v$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk...
>>>> But since you're dishonest, no one can be really sure how many ID's you
>>>> use, and you like it that way. Deniability, with an added element of
>>>> paranoia from those that way inclined.
>>>> Or does your dishonest posting approach have some other, beneficial,
>>>> purpose?
>>>Given you admit that no one knows how many IDs Judith has, ought you to be
>>>calling her dishonest when you have no evidence?
>> Given that she's admitted to posting to the management groups under
>> multiple identities, including one RFD, I think I'm perfectly within my
>> rights to believe her behaviour to be dishonest.
>But, if she has admitted it, how is that dishonest?
My point is that simply posting under multiple ID's, specifically in the
>>>> use, and you like it that way. Deniability, with an added element of
>>>> paranoia from those that way inclined.
>>>> Or does your dishonest posting approach have some other, beneficial,
>>>> purpose?
>>>Given you admit that no one knows how many IDs Judith has, ought you to be
>>>calling her dishonest when you have no evidence?
>> Given that she's admitted to posting to the management groups under
>> multiple identities, including one RFD, I think I'm perfectly within my
>> rights to believe her behaviour to be dishonest.
>But, if she has admitted it, how is that dishonest?
management groups, is a dishonest activity. It's lying about your
identity. She's dishonest, and yet she claims to be fighting against
dishonesty, so she's a hypocrite as well as being dishonest.
This is my personal view, other people may have different views, clearly.
You may feel that Judith's behaviour in the management groups, where she
posts or has posted under multiple identities but won't reveal which ones
or how many, as being perfectly acceptable. I don't.
Ophelia
Mar 16, 2013, 7:14:09 AM3/16/13
to
"Tony" <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in message
about a poster I would simply bin them. I certainly wouldn't get myself all
upset about it. If you must read her posts, why not just take them on
content?
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
kathystarke
Mar 16, 2013, 7:15:44 AM3/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:47:01 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:
> You may feel that Judith's behaviour in the management groups,
where she
> posts or has posted under multiple identities but won't reveal
which ones
> or how many, as being perfectly acceptable. I don't.
You are a fuckwit.
I do not post under multiple identities.
(Though I could easily do so if I wished).
Why don't you complain to my ISP if you think I have?
Is it because they might say something like:
"Sorry, sir, but the actions you describe are not a violation of our
terms of service."
(Translation: "You are a fuckwit; now go away").
How do I know this, you ask?
It is very simple, sunshine; a certain "thought-leader" has done
exactly that, and is about to get into trouble with his own ISP.
Letter on its way - as we say.
wrote:
> You may feel that Judith's behaviour in the management groups,
where she
> posts or has posted under multiple identities but won't reveal
which ones
> or how many, as being perfectly acceptable. I don't.
I do not post under multiple identities.
(Though I could easily do so if I wished).
Why don't you complain to my ISP if you think I have?
Is it because they might say something like:
"Sorry, sir, but the actions you describe are not a violation of our
terms of service."
(Translation: "You are a fuckwit; now go away").
How do I know this, you ask?
It is very simple, sunshine; a certain "thought-leader" has done
exactly that, and is about to get into trouble with his own ISP.
Letter on its way - as we say.
Percy Picacity
Mar 16, 2013, 8:11:52 AM3/16/13
to
--
Percy Picacity
Tony
Mar 16, 2013, 8:17:19 AM3/16/13
to
In uk.net.news.moderation, "Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.me.ku.invalid>
wrote:
wrote:
>I have no opinion on anything Judith write or posts but if I felt that way
>about a poster I would simply bin them. I certainly wouldn't get myself all
>upset about it. If you must read her posts, why not just take them on
>content?
Are you upset with what I said, or are you just commenting on a post I
>about a poster I would simply bin them. I certainly wouldn't get myself all
>upset about it. If you must read her posts, why not just take them on
>content?
wrote? I'm not upset, I was just commenting, as you were. As to
'content', I think you'll find I was discussing content.
Tony
Mar 16, 2013, 8:18:10 AM3/16/13
to
In uk.net.news.moderation, kathystarke <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:47:01 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> You may feel that Judith's behaviour in the management groups,
>where she
>> posts or has posted under multiple identities but won't reveal
>which ones
>> or how many, as being perfectly acceptable. I don't.
>On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:47:01 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> You may feel that Judith's behaviour in the management groups,
>where she
>> posts or has posted under multiple identities but won't reveal
>which ones
>> or how many, as being perfectly acceptable. I don't.
>I do not post under multiple identities.
Oops.
kat
Mar 16, 2013, 8:54:59 AM3/16/13
to
Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:25:55 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> Or does your dishonest posting approach have some other, beneficial,
>>> purpose?
>
>> Yep
>> It winds up *you* up and you froth at the mouth - just like now.
>
> You're mistaken. It's more like passing idle comment in between reading
> stuff I actually care about. You're free to think I'm somehow frothing,
> but you would be genuinely mistaken.
You do tend to come across as pretty frothy. And as you seem to say "
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:25:55 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> Or does your dishonest posting approach have some other, beneficial,
>>> purpose?
>
>> Yep
>> It winds up *you* up and you froth at the mouth - just like now.
>
> You're mistaken. It's more like passing idle comment in between reading
> stuff I actually care about. You're free to think I'm somehow frothing,
> but you would be genuinely mistaken.
perception is truth".
--
kat >^..^<
Judith
Mar 16, 2013, 11:17:51 AM3/16/13
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 23:23:10 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
>Given that she's admitted to posting to the management groups under
>multiple identities, including one RFD, I think I'm perfectly within my
>rights to believe her behaviour to be dishonest.
Yep - it was outrageous and clearly extremely dishonest - probably against the
>multiple identities, including one RFD, I think I'm perfectly within my
>rights to believe her behaviour to be dishonest.
law and the UNHRC findings as well to post an RFD as Brighton. I also made
millions out of the outrageous fraud.
Please Sir, please Sir - will you forgive me Sir?
Alternatively : you could get a life: it's usenet : get over it.
Judith
Mar 16, 2013, 11:27:51 AM3/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:47:01 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>You may feel that Judith's behaviour in the management groups, where she
>posts or has posted under multiple identities but won't reveal which ones
>or how many, as being perfectly acceptable. I don't.
You don't really *know* do you?
>posts or has posted under multiple identities but won't reveal which ones
>or how many, as being perfectly acceptable. I don't.
Feel free to explain what unfair advantage I may have made for myself by doing
such a thing.
PS "Multiple"? Care to list them all........
Well - we have Brighton - and we have ..........er ........ er ..........
As you know they are "multiple" - you should have one or two more (even three?)
in mind?
Or perhaps not.
Would you like me to raise an RFD:
It will be classified as unlawful for anyone to post to the management groups
when they use a different identity from their normal one.
Anyone who does so, will be deemed to be taking the piss out of Control and
will be banned from usenet for life.
Is that OK for you?
Remind what was the harm posting as Brighton did?
Judith
Mar 16, 2013, 11:30:03 AM3/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:17:19 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>In uk.net.news.moderation, "Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.me.ku.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>I have no opinion on anything Judith write or posts but if I felt that way
>>about a poster I would simply bin them. I certainly wouldn't get myself all
>>upset about it. If you must read her posts, why not just take them on
>>content?
>
>Are you upset with what I said, or are you just commenting on a post I
>wrote? I'm not upset, I was just commenting, as you were. As to
>'content', I think you'll find I was discussing content.
And there was me thinking you were commenting on posting IDs rather than on the
>In uk.net.news.moderation, "Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.me.ku.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>I have no opinion on anything Judith write or posts but if I felt that way
>>about a poster I would simply bin them. I certainly wouldn't get myself all
>>upset about it. If you must read her posts, why not just take them on
>>content?
>
>Are you upset with what I said, or are you just commenting on a post I
>wrote? I'm not upset, I was just commenting, as you were. As to
>'content', I think you'll find I was discussing content.
contents of what the posts said.
Judith
Mar 16, 2013, 11:32:10 AM3/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:11:52 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:
<snip>
>Why are you replying to a comment addressed to Judith?
Difficult one that.
How about because it might make some people who are not very bright think it
was from me?
wrote:
<snip>
>Why are you replying to a comment addressed to Judith?
How about because it might make some people who are not very bright think it
was from me?
Judith
Mar 16, 2013, 11:32:55 AM3/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:18:10 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>In uk.net.news.moderation, kathystarke <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:47:01 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> You may feel that Judith's behaviour in the management groups,
>>where she
>>> posts or has posted under multiple identities but won't reveal
>>which ones
>>> or how many, as being perfectly acceptable. I don't.
>
>>I do not post under multiple identities.
>
>Oops.
Thanks for confirming my last post.
>In uk.net.news.moderation, kathystarke <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:47:01 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> You may feel that Judith's behaviour in the management groups,
>>where she
>>> posts or has posted under multiple identities but won't reveal
>>which ones
>>> or how many, as being perfectly acceptable. I don't.
>
>>I do not post under multiple identities.
>
>Oops.
Judith
Mar 16, 2013, 11:34:26 AM3/16/13
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 23:25:18 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>In uk.net.news.moderation, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:25:55 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>Or does your dishonest posting approach have some other, beneficial,
>>>purpose?
>
>>Yep
>>It winds up *you* up and you froth at the mouth - just like now.
>
>You're mistaken. It's more like passing idle comment in between reading
>stuff I actually care about. You're free to think I'm somehow frothing,
>but you would be genuinely mistaken.
Yes of course.
>In uk.net.news.moderation, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:25:55 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>Or does your dishonest posting approach have some other, beneficial,
>>>purpose?
>
>>Yep
>>It winds up *you* up and you froth at the mouth - just like now.
>
>You're mistaken. It's more like passing idle comment in between reading
>stuff I actually care about. You're free to think I'm somehow frothing,
>but you would be genuinely mistaken.
Would "upset" be a better word? Oh - I see someone else has come to that
conclusion.
Tony
Mar 16, 2013, 12:16:39 PM3/16/13
to
of that statement, but the underlying meaning is that if we think about
that, we realise that truth therefore is entirely dependant on your point
of view. I'm not frothing, but you believe me to be frothing, so in your
eyes I am, both are equally true.
It's ultimately unimportant because all any of us have to go on, are the
words we put here, and the meaning they pick up when they're read by
someone else. Which is why for me, having the honesty to present your
views from a common posting ID is critical to constructive discussion in
the management groups.
Ophelia
Mar 16, 2013, 12:26:55 PM3/16/13
to
"Tony" <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in message
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
Judith
Mar 16, 2013, 12:50:54 PM3/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:16:39 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
>We all assume our perceptions of reality are the truth. That's the point
>of that statement, but the underlying meaning is that if we think about
>that, we realise that truth therefore is entirely dependant on your point
>of view. I'm not frothing, but you believe me to be frothing, so in your
>eyes I am, both are equally true.
>
>It's ultimately unimportant because all any of us have to go on, are the
>words we put here, and the meaning they pick up when they're read by
>someone else. Which is why for me, having the honesty to present your
>views from a common posting ID is critical to constructive discussion in
>the management groups.
Have you been drinking?
>of that statement, but the underlying meaning is that if we think about
>that, we realise that truth therefore is entirely dependant on your point
>of view. I'm not frothing, but you believe me to be frothing, so in your
>eyes I am, both are equally true.
>
>It's ultimately unimportant because all any of us have to go on, are the
>words we put here, and the meaning they pick up when they're read by
>someone else. Which is why for me, having the honesty to present your
>views from a common posting ID is critical to constructive discussion in
>the management groups.
Tony
Mar 16, 2013, 1:11:28 PM3/16/13
to
>Have you been drinking?
You'll need to specify a time frame, and the particular liquid in which
you're interested.
You'll need to specify a time frame, and the particular liquid in which
you're interested.
Ophelia
Mar 16, 2013, 1:35:16 PM3/16/13
to
"Tony" <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in message
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Have you been drinking?
>
> You'll need to specify a time frame, and the particular liquid in which
> you're interested.
lol
>
>>Have you been drinking?
>
> You'll need to specify a time frame, and the particular liquid in which
> you're interested.
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
kat
Mar 16, 2013, 4:53:34 PM3/16/13
to
surely time for cocktails.
But nothing frothy.
--
kat >^..^<
kat
Mar 16, 2013, 4:53:34 PM3/16/13
to
Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
> In uk.net.news.moderation, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:25:55 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Or does your dishonest posting approach have some other, beneficial,
>>>>> purpose?
>>>
>>>> Yep
>>>> It winds up *you* up and you froth at the mouth - just like now.
>>>
>>> You're mistaken. It's more like passing idle comment in between reading
>>> stuff I actually care about. You're free to think I'm somehow frothing,
>>> but you would be genuinely mistaken.
>>
>> You do tend to come across as pretty frothy. And as you seem to say "
>> perception is truth".
>
> We all assume our perceptions of reality are the truth. That's the point
> of that statement, but the underlying meaning is that if we think about
> that, we realise that truth therefore is entirely dependant on your point
> of view. I'm not frothing, but you believe me to be frothing, so in your
> eyes I am, both are equally true.
>
And indeed you perceived a meaning from something I wrote but did not say.
> In uk.net.news.moderation, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:25:55 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Or does your dishonest posting approach have some other, beneficial,
>>>>> purpose?
>>>
>>>> Yep
>>>> It winds up *you* up and you froth at the mouth - just like now.
>>>
>>> You're mistaken. It's more like passing idle comment in between reading
>>> stuff I actually care about. You're free to think I'm somehow frothing,
>>> but you would be genuinely mistaken.
>>
>> You do tend to come across as pretty frothy. And as you seem to say "
>> perception is truth".
>
> We all assume our perceptions of reality are the truth. That's the point
> of that statement, but the underlying meaning is that if we think about
> that, we realise that truth therefore is entirely dependant on your point
> of view. I'm not frothing, but you believe me to be frothing, so in your
> eyes I am, both are equally true.
>
That i say you come across as frothy does not mean I believe you to be
frothing.
Regardless, I can see why people do think it and if you don't want to
appear frothy you might care to pop a few bubbles.
--
kat >^..^<
Ophelia
Mar 16, 2013, 5:12:02 PM3/16/13
to
"kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120364564385159899.19887...@news.individual.net...
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages