Nick Mclaren,"you're an ignorant fool" - the moderator at URC'M
36
"the above boils down to "you're an ignorant fool" as an answer to a
reasonably polite point (as quoted), not acceptable."
Exactly!
"Thank you for your submission to uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
"However, we regret to inform you that your message has been rejected
because it was rude, a flame, and/or personal abuse."
In intent, but not technically.
mod continues,
"Please refer to the group charter and moderation policy at
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/
and direct your queries to
urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
"If you have difficulty reaching the moderators (eg due to
spamfiltering) please tell postm...@chiark.greenend.org.uk.
Thank you,
- Moderator."
And here it is:
> From: thirty-six <thirt...@live.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> Subject: Re: PING...PING...
> On 18 July, 21:07, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>
> >
> > Not my point, which is why does a pothole impact cause a failure at
> > the elbow. That's not obvious.
>
> It is not obvious unless you study the wheels structure in its typical
> form and how it reacts to a varying load. I have done this and
> explained it to you. You need to accept that your experience and
> beliefs are unique to yourself and are limited by yourself. Your
> unwillingness to accept such a simple explanation gives wonderment as
> to why you bother to question the workings of a wheel at all. I
> beieve you would normally describe such an action as a troll, also the
> term used as the perpetrator of such behaviour.
NM
> A correctly moderated decision?
I totally fail to understand why anyone bothers with this group, or
why it gets people upset,
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
The reasons people bother with the group are obvious from a comparison
of urcm with urc right now, but the mod who wrote that comment (if it
is indeed correct that a mod did write it) should resign.
So should the mod who let through yet another tranche of Trevor /
Thirty-Six / xyxxzz or whatever it was's twaddle under yet another
nym. Repetitive covers it nicely.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.
Owen Dunn
Roger Thorpe
> A correctly moderated decision?
> "the above boils down to "you're an ignorant fool" as an answer to a
> reasonably polite point (as quoted), not acceptable."
The attributions are a little unclear, but if you wrote
>> It is not obvious unless you study the wheels structure in its typical
>> form and how it reacts to a varying load. I have done this and
>> explained it to you. You need to accept that your experience and
>> beliefs are unique to yourself and are limited by yourself. Your
>> unwillingness to accept such a simple explanation gives wonderment as
>> to why you bother to question the workings of a wheel at all. I
>> believe you would normally describe such an action as a troll, also the
>> term used as the perpetrator of such behaviour.
Then yes, the moderator was correct in my view.
--
Roger Thorpe
...Wait a minute, It's stopped raining/
Guys are swimming, guys are sailing.....
Just zis Guy, you know?
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:00:12 -0700 (PDT), NM <nik.m...@mac.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 19 July, 22:43, 36 <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>> A correctly moderated decision?
>>
>>I totally fail to understand why anyone bothers with this group, or
>>why it gets people upset,
>
>The reasons people bother with the group are obvious from a comparison
>of urcm with urc right now, but the mod who wrote that comment (if it
>is indeed correct that a mod did write it) should resign.
>
>So should the mod who let through yet another tranche of Trevor /
>Thirty-Six / xyxxzz or whatever it was's twaddle under yet another
>nym. Repetitive covers it nicely.
And having checked the logs, guess what? the thread title is a
complete misrepresentation. This was an unambiguously correct mod
decision with a perfectly civil summary. Well done urcm mods, keep up
the good work.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<myinitial...@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>36 wrote:
>> A correctly moderated decision?
>> "the above boils down to "you're an ignorant fool" as an answer to a
>> reasonably polite point (as quoted), not acceptable."
>
>The attributions are a little unclear, but if you wrote
>
>>> It is not obvious unless you study the wheels structure in its typical
>>> form and how it reacts to a varying load. I have done this and
>>> explained it to you. You need to accept that your experience and
>>> beliefs are unique to yourself and are limited by yourself. Your
>>> unwillingness to accept such a simple explanation gives wonderment as
>>> to why you bother to question the workings of a wheel at all. I
>>> believe you would normally describe such an action as a troll, also the
>>> term used as the perpetrator of such behaviour.
>
>
>Then yes, the moderator was correct in my view.
Yes. Unambiguously so, even while I think most of us agree with the
sentiments expressed in respect of Thirty-Six's bizarre views on
wheels.
Simon Brooke
> So should the mod who let through yet another tranche of Trevor /
> Thirty-Six / xyxxzz or whatever it was's twaddle under yet another nym.
> Repetitive covers it nicely.
There's active discussion among moderators about whether xyxxzz and 36
are indeed both names adopted by the same person. Some of us agree with
you and some don't; the jury, is, as they say, out.
However I believe that we are agreed that shifting nyms in order to
repeat things would be abuse of the group and should be treated as such.
--
;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundam variat
Pedt
<31d41120-ab3d-4005...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, at
14:43:29 on Mon, 19 Jul 2010, 36 <thirt...@live.co.uk> wibbled
>A correctly moderated decision?
> "the above boils down to "you're an ignorant fool" as an answer to a
>reasonably polite point (as quoted), not acceptable."
>
>Exactly!
>
Are you really suggesting that it should have been allowed? Or did you
want it allowed so you could complained that it had been allowed?
It's also a peculiar response to what appears to be a sensible point.
Your Subject header is also very misleading. A urcm moderator did not
call Nick a fool. The moderator said that *you* were trying to do that.
Yes, it was correctly rejected and bringing your dispute with another
poster into unnm{od} is not Netiquetee. F/U set.
--
Pedt Cryptic Crossword Clues. Round 4, #8
Ordinary potato was reportedly for the broadcaster (11)
36
from what I've seen of xyzzz, I dont agree with the posts. It's not
me.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> So should the mod who let through yet another tranche of Trevor /
>> Thirty-Six / xyxxzz or whatever it was's twaddle under yet another nym.
>> Repetitive covers it nicely.
>
>There's active discussion among moderators about whether xyxxzz and 36
>are indeed both names adopted by the same person. Some of us agree with
>you and some don't; the jury, is, as they say, out.
>
>However I believe that we are agreed that shifting nyms in order to
>repeat things would be abuse of the group and should be treated as such.
Fair enough. The fact that he's done this more than once before, and
for the exact same reason (evading killfiles and trying to get
everyone to read the same load of wibble all over again) is rather
suggestive, IMO..
JMS
<stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Indeed :-)
Keep your eye on Porky Chapman - he has been caught nym-shifting
previously.
--
"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:58:02 +0100, Roger Thorpe
><myinitial...@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>36 wrote:
>>> A correctly moderated decision?
>>> "the above boils down to "you're an ignorant fool" as an answer to a
>>> reasonably polite point (as quoted), not acceptable."
>>
>>The attributions are a little unclear, but if you wrote
>>
>>>> It is not obvious unless you study the wheels structure in its typical
>>>> form and how it reacts to a varying load. I have done this and
>>>> explained it to you. You need to accept that your experience and
>>>> beliefs are unique to yourself and are limited by yourself. Your
>>>> unwillingness to accept such a simple explanation gives wonderment as
>>>> to why you bother to question the workings of a wheel at all. I
>>>> believe you would normally describe such an action as a troll, also the
>>>> term used as the perpetrator of such behaviour.
>>
>>
>>Then yes, the moderator was correct in my view.
>
>Yes. Unambiguously so, even while I think most of us agree with the
>sentiments expressed in respect of Thirty-Six's bizarre views on
>wheels.
>
>Guy
I bet you can't keep this one on the boil, Porky.
Oh - hang on - you are doing.
Fuckwit.
Tosspot
> On 20 Jul 2010 10:33:23 GMT, Simon Brooke
> <stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:42:08 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>>> So should the mod who let through yet another tranche of Trevor /
>>> Thirty-Six / xyxxzz or whatever it was's twaddle under yet another nym.
>>> Repetitive covers it nicely.
>>
>> There's active discussion among moderators about whether xyxxzz and 36
>> are indeed both names adopted by the same person. Some of us agree with
>> you and some don't; the jury, is, as they say, out.
>>
>> However I believe that we are agreed that shifting nyms in order to
>> repeat things would be abuse of the group and should be treated as such.
>
>
> Indeed :-)
>
>
>
> Keep your eye on Porky Chapman - he has been caught nym-shifting
> previously.
You still nym shifting on urcm?
Tom Crispin
<stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Have you tried asking 36? It seems an obvious first step.
36
wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2010 10:33:23 GMT, Simon Brooke
>
> >> So should the mod who let through yet another tranche of Trevor /
> >> Thirty-Six / xyxxzz or whatever it was's twaddle under yet another nym.
> >> Repetitive covers it nicely.
>
> >There's active discussion among moderators about whether xyxxzz and 36
> >are indeed both names adopted by the same person. Some of us agree with
> >you and some don't; the jury, is, as they say, out.
>
> >However I believe that we are agreed that shifting nyms in order to
> >repeat things would be abuse of the group and should be treated as such.
>
> Fair enough. The fact that he's done this more than once before, and
> for the exact same reason (evading killfiles and trying to get
> everyone to read the same load of wibble all over again) is rather
> suggestive, IMO..
>
> Guy
> The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
> to be worth the price paid.
Lies.
36
wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2010 10:33:23 GMT, Simon Brooke
>
> >On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:42:08 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> >> So should the mod who let through yet another tranche of Trevor /
> >> Thirty-Six / xyxxzz or whatever it was's twaddle under yet another nym.
> >> Repetitive covers it nicely.
>
> >There's active discussion among moderators about whether xyxxzz and 36
> >are indeed both names adopted by the same person. Some of us agree with
> >you and some don't; the jury, is, as they say, out.
I changed my moniker to match my username to help prevent this
twaddle. Chapman is stirring it again. "xyyzzzz" has no connection
with me.
>
> >However I believe that we are agreed that shifting nyms in order to
> >repeat things would be abuse of the group and should be treated as such.
>
> Have you tried asking 36? It seems an obvious first step.
On 20 July, 14:24, 36 <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> from what I've seen of xyzzz, I dont agree with the posts. It's not
> me.
Is that clear?
JMS
wrote:
>On 20 July, 15:03, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chap...@spamcop.net>
>wrote:
<Lies snipped>
>Lies.
You know that he is called Porky, I assume.
(That has nothing to do with his sexual habits and pigs)
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>On 20 July, 16:54, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
I was already convinced, but it seems that the moderators are not.