Faux-ignorant!

[Bertie Wooster]

This is a new reason from a urcm moderator blocking a post of mine.

=====Quote=====
Your comment about the delay in posting the message is faux-ignorant.
Please repost without.
=====/Quote=====

=====Blocked-for-meta post=====
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:27:47 +0100, nomen-...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> >UCI criticised for accepting cash donation from Lance Armstrong
> >
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/16/uci-donation-lance-armstrong
>
> This story is two days old! Is there any reason for your delay in
> posting it?
>
> >The International Cycling Union has been criticised for accepting a cash
> >donation from the disgraced Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong.
> >
> >The UCI has admitted accepting a donation of more than $100,000 (Ł62,000) from
> >Armstrong in 2002, but has strongly denied that it was connected to any
> >cover-up of a positive test.
> >
> >Dr Michael Ashenden, acknowledged as the foremost expert in blood doping and
> >the man whose test caught Armstrong's US Postal team-mate Tyler Hamilton, told
> >BBC Radio 5 Live's programme "Peddlers – Cycling's Dirty Truth": "The UCI
> >should never have accepted money from Armstrong under any circumstances.
> >
> >"But if they took money after they were aware there were grounds to suspect
> >Armstrong had used EPO it takes on a really sinister complexion."
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Is anyone going to come out of this with a clean bill of health?
>
> I doubt it very much. It seems from the evidence I have seen that
> Armstrong and his team are guilty of doping over a number of years,
> and UCI have not wanted to investigate for fear of causing a scandal.
>
> A little like the BBC not wanting to investigate the Late Jimmy
> SirVile.
=====/Blocked-for-meta post=====
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-13505524192306.txt

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.moderation, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:

>This is a new reason from a urcm moderator blocking a post of mine.
>
>=====Quote=====
> Your comment about the delay in posting the message is faux-ignorant.
>Please repost without.
>=====/Quote=====
>
>=====Blocked-for-meta post=====
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:27:47 +0100, nomen-...@outlook.com wrote:
>>
>> >UCI criticised for accepting cash donation from Lance Armstrong
>> >
>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/16/uci-donation-lance-armstrong
>>
>> This story is two days old! Is there any reason for your delay in
>> posting it?

I would probably have rejected it with 'taking the piss'.
--
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 ]

[Pedt]

In message <k5ph01$5in$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, at 19:16:43 on Thu, 18
Oct 2012, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wibbled

>In uk.net.news.moderation, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>This is a new reason from a urcm moderator blocking a post of mine.
>>
>>=====Quote=====
>> Your comment about the delay in posting the message is faux-ignorant.
>>Please repost without.
>>=====/Quote=====
>>
>>=====Blocked-for-meta post=====
>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:27:47 +0100, nomen-...@outlook.com wrote:
>>>
>>> >UCI criticised for accepting cash donation from Lance Armstrong
>>> >
>>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/16/uci-donation-lance-armstrong
>>>
>>> This story is two days old! Is there any reason for your delay in
>>> posting it?
>
>I would probably have rejected it with 'taking the piss'.

I may have been slightly politer than you if it was one I had to
moderate and rejected but that would be my thought as well.

Don't see any problem with this rejection, perhaps the OP here will take
the advice offered.

--
Pedt

[Bertie Wooster]

I suppose the rejection is a tacit admission that the delay was not
the fault of the OP.

I'll re-work and repost as advised.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.moderation, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:

>I suppose the rejection is a tacit admission that the delay was not
>the fault of the OP.

No, it's a blunt statement that you're taking the piss. You have two
choices Tom, be part of the solution, or be part of the problem. The post
you made was part of the problem.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:16:56 +0100, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

>In uk.net.news.moderation, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>I suppose the rejection is a tacit admission that the delay was not
>>the fault of the OP.
>
>No, it's a blunt statement that you're taking the piss. You have two
>choices Tom, be part of the solution, or be part of the problem. The post
>you made was part of the problem.

The delayed post was the cause of the problem.

I simply highlighted the consequence of the delay: an out-of-date news
report. If highlighting the consequences of the urcm moderators'
policy causes them problems, so be it.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.moderation, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:16:56 +0100, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In uk.net.news.moderation, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I suppose the rejection is a tacit admission that the delay was not
>>>the fault of the OP.
>>
>>No, it's a blunt statement that you're taking the piss. You have two
>>choices Tom, be part of the solution, or be part of the problem. The post
>>you made was part of the problem.
>
>The delayed post was the cause of the problem.

The delayed post is a result of one of the problems.

>I simply highlighted the consequence of the delay:

You took a sly dig in the newsgroup. You exacerbated the problem.

>an out-of-date news
>report. If highlighting the consequences of the urcm moderators'
>policy causes them problems, so be it.

No, it causes you problems, because every sly dig breaks open the wound and
the chances of making useful progress is slowed.

Set an example. Be positive. Do the right thing, approach it with the
right mind set, post useful, on topic, polite content, be part of the
solution.

In unnm, provide constructive input.

Currently, you're bitching and sniping, why the fuck would anyone try and
help you?

[Pedt]

In message <s5n08814mueiqrm55...@4ax.com>, at 20:50:06 on
Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wibbled

No, you were micturating in public.

It was a snide comment and deserved to be rejected. End of.

Whilst I accept that the urcm mods are often overly defensive and
frequently polish their crystal balls trying to micro-manage, you are
part of the problem if you try to get a snide comment in along with
something else that, ISTM, looks acceptable.

You should have known it'd be rejected. It was. Trying to put a spin on
it that is really due to something else when others say it was right to
be rejected is rather disingenuous. Just makes you look like a bit of a
tit.

Up to you if you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution.

--
Pedt

[D.M. Procida]

Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:

> This is a new reason from a urcm moderator blocking a post of mine.

No, it's the same reason every time: it's your being destructive,
needling and spiteful towards people who - however badly I think they
might be doing it - are trying to do the right thing.

I think that the moderators of the group are mistaken in trying to
filter out what they think are attempts to troll the group, or attempts
just to post to it by certain individuals, but they are quite right to
reject the parcels of resentful bile that you try to post.

Daniele

[Pedt]

In message <jnr088pkm2oolmunq...@4ax.com>, at 22:07:47 on
Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wibbled

>On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:16:56 +0100, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In uk.net.news.moderation, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I suppose the rejection is a tacit admission that the delay was not
>>>the fault of the OP.
>>
>>No, it's a blunt statement that you're taking the piss. You have two
>>choices Tom, be part of the solution, or be part of the problem. The post
>>you made was part of the problem.
>
>The delayed post was the cause of the problem.

It may be a different problem, it's not the one you think it is.

>
>I simply highlighted the consequence of the delay: an out-of-date news
>report.

Then you merely say in the body of your post in reply that there is
updated information and either link to it or say what has changed/is now
known.

You do not need to say that a moderation delay made the post you are
replying to out of date.

It's hardly rocket science.

>If highlighting the consequences of the urcm moderators'
>policy causes them problems, so be it.

I really do not see that any report would be of such import to a cycling
newsgroup that it should appear immediately, ditto any updates.


The simple fact is that you made a snide comment in a post that was
rejected for that and you are now whinging you should have been allowed
to make it. Well, you've made that whinge in this unnm and not been
agreed with. Your move.


--
Pedt

[Bertie Wooster]

I took out the comment about a delay. Still my post was rejected.
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-135058990928350.txt

Those urcm moderators are really touchy guys.

[Alex Potter]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:54:18 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote:

> I took out the comment about a delay. Still my post was rejected.
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/
nr-135058990928350.txt
>
> Those urcm moderators are really touchy guys.

I don't think so. At best, "At the time of posting, this article was
already two days old!" was ambiguous.

--
Alex

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.moderation, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:

>I took out the comment about a delay.

No you didn't. Why the game?

[Percy Picacity]

I suspect Mr Wooster does not post here in any particular hope of
gaining support against the moderators, but merely to ensure that his
rejected wit gets a wider audience than the urcm rmoderation queue.

--

Percy Picacity

[D.M. Procida]

Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:

> I took out the comment about a delay.

That's not actually true, is it?

Daniele

[Pedt]

In message <3jq188pe5jibq3qht...@4ax.com>, at 06:54:18 on
Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wibbled

>On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:33:52 +0100, Pedt <"\"@
>@\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote:

[..]

>>
>>The simple fact is that you made a snide comment in a post that was
>>rejected for that and you are now whinging you should have been allowed
>>to make it. Well, you've made that whinge in this unnm and not been
>>agreed with. Your move.
>
>I took out the comment about a delay. Still my post was rejected.
>http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-135058990
>928350.txt

$DEITY on a velocipede.

You got a sensible reject message the first time round with advice and
you also got advice from two people here whom you had a conversation
with but you didn't actually remove the comment, you reworded it.

--
Pedt

[Colin Reed]

On 18/10/12 21:16, Tony wrote:
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> I suppose the rejection is a tacit admission that the delay was not
>> the fault of the OP.
>
> No, it's a blunt statement that you're taking the piss. You have two
> choices Tom, be part of the solution, or be part of the problem. The post
> you made was part of the problem.
>

<pedant> That's actually two options, and he has one choice to make
between them. </pedant>

[Nick]

On 18/10/2012 21:16, Tony wrote:
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> I suppose the rejection is a tacit admission that the delay was not
>> the fault of the OP.
>
> No, it's a blunt statement that you're taking the piss. You have two
> choices Tom, be part of the solution, or be part of the problem. The post
> you made was part of the problem.
>

I don't remember a gentle piss-take as being part of the problem with urc.

I remember the problem as being people who became angry and aggressive
when someone pointed out a truth they didn't like.

[Nick]

"This story is two days old! Is there any reason for your delay in
posting it?"

You characterise this as "resentful bile"?

[John Benn]

"D.M. Procida" wrote in message
news:1ks6n29.1kc37ab1v6qkcqN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...

Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:

> This is a new reason from a urcm moderator blocking a post of mine.

No, it's the same reason every time: it's your being destructive,
needling and spiteful towards people who - however badly I think they
might be doing it - are trying to do the right thing.

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

They are not trying to do the right thing. They are trying to do their own
thing which isn't the same.

[Toom Tabard]

I can't comment on the individual contributor or post, but part of this problem is that contributors who take the trouble to write or respond, expect and deserve to have their efforts treated with respect, and not rejected or delayed for trivial and discriminatory reasons. Denial of free speech will itself provoke 'destructive, needling and spiteful' attitudes from those whose
views are suppressed, and whose time and efforts have been wasted. Much of the
problem is generated by some of the moderators. Using petty power to treat with
disdain the views of others might not go unchallenged.

Toom

[Judith]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 01:07:23 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

>Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> considered Fri, 19 Oct 2012

>09:46:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>In message <3jq188pe5jibq3qht...@4ax.com>, at 06:54:18 on
>>Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wibbled
>>>On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:33:52 +0100, Pedt <"\"@
>>>@\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote:
>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>The simple fact is that you made a snide comment in a post that was
>>>>rejected for that and you are now whinging you should have been allowed
>>>>to make it. Well, you've made that whinge in this unnm and not been
>>>>agreed with. Your move.
>>>
>>>I took out the comment about a delay. Still my post was rejected.
>>>http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-135058990
>>>928350.txt
>>
>>$DEITY on a velocipede.
>>

>Yew mayd oi larff! :) :)


Ah yes - 10 past one in the morning again.

I wonder _ have you had a drink?

[M Wicks]

On Oct 19, 8:18 pm, Nick <Nick.s...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18/10/2012 21:16, Tony wrote:
>

> > In uk.net.news.moderation, Bertie Wooster <b...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >> I suppose the rejection is a tacit admission that the delay was not
> >> the fault of the OP.
>
> > No, it's a blunt statement that you're taking the piss.  You have two
> > choices Tom, be part of the solution, or be part of the problem.  The post
> > you made was part of the problem.
>
> I don't remember a gentle piss-take as being part of the problem with urc.
>
> I remember the problem as being people who became angry and aggressive
> when someone pointed out a truth they didn't like.

You are absolutely, wonderfully right. And for being so (and thereby
pointing out another unwelcome truth), you will be killfiled in this
group by the 'they' in question, and any posts you make to URCM will
be delayed and/or rejected. You must not only be stopped from telling
it how it is in future, you must also be 'got back' for doing so in
the past.

I don't know of ANY other group of people (however mad) who behave
quite so resentfully or bitterly towards anyone who dares to point out
particular true facts. It happens again and again with the 'URCM lot'
once they identify someone as a Forbidden Truth-Teller, and it's
always unpleasant and mean-spirited in its manifestation. If you dare
to tell it how it is, then from then on you're worse than subhuman and
deserve to be treated as such. You are utter scum in their eyes.
You're pretty much the worst thing anyone could be, just for bursting
their bubble of willful ignorance.

These people are pathologically hypersensitive to having particular
facts pointed out. It is abnormal and unhealthy. Any logical person
would simply accept reality, if only for the sake of their own sanity,
instead of going to such extreme lengths to censor and get revenge on
anyone speaking particular truths. The time that they spend on doing
this, and the stress for them that results, is not something that any
reasonable person would subject themselves to if they could possibly
avoid it. Any sane person would just accept reality, if only for their
own sake. These people are not sane. Their bizarre conduct is clearly
detrimental, sooner or later, to their own well-being.

[Percy Picacity]

M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:99eaf2bd-44f9-410a-a230-2d477ecc61d8
@b12g2000vbg.googlegroups.co
m:

snip

Are you absolutely *sure* you don't know of any other group of
poeple who behave like that? FSVO "true facts"?


--
Percy Picacity

[Nick]

On 20/10/2012 17:38, M Wicks wrote:
> On Oct 19, 8:18 pm, Nick <Nick.s...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 18/10/2012 21:16, Tony wrote:
>>
>>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Bertie Wooster <b...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I suppose the rejection is a tacit admission that the delay was not
>>>> the fault of the OP.
>>
>>> No, it's a blunt statement that you're taking the piss. You have two
>>> choices Tom, be part of the solution, or be part of the problem. The post
>>> you made was part of the problem.
>>
>> I don't remember a gentle piss-take as being part of the problem with urc.
>>
>> I remember the problem as being people who became angry and aggressive
>> when someone pointed out a truth they didn't like.
>
> You are absolutely, wonderfully right. And for being so (and thereby
> pointing out another unwelcome truth), you will be killfiled in this
> group by the 'they' in question, and any posts you make to URCM will
> be delayed and/or rejected. You must not only be stopped from telling
> it how it is in future, you must also be 'got back' for doing so in
> the past.
>

They made it plain that I didn't fulfil their criteria as a suitable
urcm poster before the group was formed. So I've never bothered posting,
using //http://www.cyclechat.net/ instead.

However I do like the usenet format and so I keep an eye-out just in
case the moderation team changes.

[Clive George]

On 21/10/2012 11:52, Nick wrote:

> They made it plain that I didn't fulfil their criteria as a suitable
> urcm poster before the group was formed.

Seems very unlikely. Got any references to back this up, or are you just
inferring things which weren't said or even implied?

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <da759e11-7397-4061...@googlegroups.com>

Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 18 October 2012 23:02:53 UTC+1, D.M. Procida wrote:

> > Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:=20

> > > This is a new reason from a urcm moderator blocking a post of mine.

> >=20

>
> > No, it's the same reason every time: it's your being destructive,
> > needling and spiteful towards people who - however badly I think they
> > might be doing it - are trying to do the right thing.

> > =20

> > I think that the moderators of the group are mistaken in trying to
> > filter out what they think are attempts to troll the group, or attempts

> > just to post to it by certain individuals, but they are quite right to=20

> > reject the parcels of resentful bile that you try to post.

> >=20
> > Daniele
>
> I can't comment on the individual contributor or post, but part of this pro=
> blem is that contributors who take the trouble to write or respond, expect =
> and deserve to have their efforts treated with respect, and not rejected or=
> delayed for trivial and discriminatory reasons. Denial of free speech will=
> itself provoke 'destructive, needling and spiteful' attitudes from those w=
> hose
> views are suppressed, and whose time and efforts have been wasted. Much of =
> the
> problem is generated by some of the moderators. Using petty power to treat =

> with
> disdain the views of others might not go unchallenged.

if someone knows their message is not going to be accepted in good
spirit should they send it?

Bertie _knows_ he is not liked, JMS _knows_ she is not liked.

Why are people knocking on a door that is not going to open to them?

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when nob...@dizum.com (Nomen Nescio)
came up to me and whispered:

> if someone knows their message is not going to be accepted in
> good spirit should they send it?
>
> Bertie _knows_ he is not liked, JMS _knows_ she is not liked.
>
> Why are people knocking on a door that is not going to open to
> them?

Who owns UCRM?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[Clive George]

On 04/11/2012 12:26, Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when nob...@dizum.com (Nomen Nescio)
> came up to me and whispered:
>
>> if someone knows their message is not going to be accepted in
>> good spirit should they send it?
>>
>> Bertie _knows_ he is not liked, JMS _knows_ she is not liked.
>>
>> Why are people knocking on a door that is not going to open to
>> them?
>
> Who owns UCRM?

Wrong question. Nomen's assertions are incorrect - eg Tom/Bertie has
always been able to post to URCM, and has done so plenty of times, and
JMS appears to be able to post at the moment.

The door is wide open. So why is Nomen stirring trouble?

[Judith]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 12:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:

>We were about to embark at Dover, when nob...@dizum.com (Nomen Nescio)
>came up to me and whispered:
>
>> if someone knows their message is not going to be accepted in
>> good spirit should they send it?
>>
>> Bertie _knows_ he is not liked, JMS _knows_ she is not liked.
>>
>> Why are people knocking on a door that is not going to open to
>> them?
>
>Who owns UCRM?

Ian Jackson

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <F6ydndAEdcWW-gvN...@brightview.co.uk>

you are mentioned in Message-ID: <d21q885ajts48ehch...@4ax.com>

Q I have had a lot of replies to my queries to moderators from
people
who reply as if they are moderators but I do not see them on the
list
of moderators on the website. Who are these people?
A Some call them 'moderator apologists' and others call them
'moderator wanabees'. They are best ignored.

[Clive George]

The author there is behaving like a wanker. You are too.

[Steve Firth]

Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
[snip]

> if someone knows their message is not going to be accepted in good
> spirit should they send it?

How can they know such a thing? The URCM moderators' decisions are
notoriously capricious.

> Bertie _knows_ he is not liked, JMS _knows_ she is not liked.

Well Wm, what is the childish obsession you have with being "liked" by a
bunch of strangers the majority of whom are complete flying fucknuggets?
Whether one is "liked" or not should not be the criterion on which a post
to a moderated group is based.

It seems to be some deep psychological need in yourself that you are
outlining here - the need to be liked. It caused you over years to toady to
individuals in several newsgroups - it didn't get you liked. Then you
decided that joining in with the herd mentality in URCM would get you liked
so you joined in like the ragged-arsed suck up to the school bully
presumably in the hope this would make you "popular". It won't, so why not
just grow a pair and stop your suck-up activities?

> Why are people knocking on a door that is not going to open to them?

Why is that state of affairs right? The URCM mods are a stain on the face
of usenet. Although using the plural is misleading. This is Whacko Jacko's
policy and he enforces it like some third world dictator. He's already
threatened to pull support for moderation if anyone dares to make him stand
down. He's a disgrace and so are you for your tongue to anus performances.

Oh and drop the pathetic nym. It makes you look like an even bigger turd
than you are.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <YPGdnWVBhe9-BgvN...@brightview.co.uk>

you have changed your tune

read what I said

I was wondering why some people were still posting

[Clive George]

Nope.

> read what I said

I did. Sadly your writing style at best isn't the clearest, and at worst
is apparently the incoherent babblings of a lunatic.

> I was wondering why some people were still posting

No, that was only part of what you wrote. Your question assumed things
which clearly aren't true.

[M Wicks]

On Nov 4, 4:46 pm, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 14:42, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <F6ydndAEdcWW-gvNnZ2dnUVZ8tSdn...@brightview.co.uk>

> > Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> On 04/11/2012 12:26, Paul Cummins wrote:
> >>> We were about to embark at Dover, when nob...@dizum.com (Nomen Nescio)
> >>> came up to me and whispered:
>
> >>>> if someone knows their message is not going to be accepted in
> >>>> good spirit should they send it?
>
> >>>> Bertie _knows_ he is not liked, JMS _knows_ she is not liked.
>
> >>>> Why are people knocking on a door that is not going to open to
> >>>> them?
>
> >>> Who owns UCRM?
>
> >> Wrong question. Nomen's assertions are incorrect - eg Tom/Bertie has
> >> always been able to post to URCM, and has done so plenty of times, and
> >> JMS appears to be able to post at the moment.
>
> >> The door is wide open. So why is Nomen stirring trouble?
>

> > you are mentioned in Message-ID: <d21q885ajts48ehch84o9pjg7rk3v2i...@4ax.com>

>
> > Q I have had a lot of replies to my queries to moderators from
> > people
> > who reply as if they are moderators but I do not see them on the
> > list
> > of moderators on the website. Who are these people?
> > A Some call them 'moderator apologists' and others call them
> > 'moderator wanabees'. They are best ignored.
>
> The author there is behaving like a wanker. You are too.

Ha ha. You don't think you were the inspiration for that FAQ being
included, surely?

(You still haven't ever denied wanting to be a moderator AFAIK... FWIW
I think you'd do the job as well as the current bunch...)

[M Wicks]

On Nov 4, 5:14 pm, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> complete flying fucknuggets

> The URCM mods are a stain on the face of usenet.

I did enjoy reading both of those. And your very pertinent comments
about the arrogant control freak Jackson, who clearly doesn't care
about Usenet despite claiming to.

(BTW "M Wicks" was a parody of a psycholist, to show how simplistic
and easy to copy they are, if you hadn't seen my post on URC about it.
Now I'm posting my real opinions. I enjoyed (and agreed with) many of
your "direct" responses to me before, and if my religious claptrap got
you to start using that "Darwin" sig then that can't be bad either!)

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 16:46:28 +0000, Clive George

The consultation is still open for version 2.0, please do respond in
the appropriate thread.

[M Wicks]

On Nov 4, 1:35 pm, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 12:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>

> useth...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
> >We were about to embark at Dover, when nob...@dizum.com (Nomen Nescio)
> >came up to me and whispered:
>
> >> if someone knows their message is not going to be accepted in
> >> good spirit should they send it?
>
> >> Bertie _knows_ he is not liked, JMS _knows_ she is not liked.
>
> >> Why are people knocking on a door that is not going to open to
> >> them?
>
> >Who owns UCRM?
>
> Ian Jackson

He'll killfile you, and then you'll be sorry.

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <76526511-c1e3-4ef1...@v9g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:

as you wanted, Filth

[M Wicks]

On Nov 4, 10:32 pm, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> In article <76526511-c1e3-4ef1-9d8d-ac2476976...@v9g2000yql.googlegroups.com>

Oh FFS. You're surely not implying that I'm Steve Firth. Difficult to
tell what the hell you're saying half the time of course. That's one
thing I do agree with Clive George on.

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <963da76f-8990-4ffd...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 4, 10:32=A0pm, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> > In article <76526511-c1e3-4ef1-9d8d-ac2476976...@v9g2000yql.googlegroups.=

> com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > M Wicks <mwicks1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 4, 5:14=3DA0pm, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > complete flying fucknuggets
> >
> > > > The URCM mods are a stain on the face of usenet.
> >
> > > I did enjoy reading both of those. And your very pertinent comments
> > > about the arrogant control freak Jackson, who clearly doesn't care
> > > about Usenet despite claiming to.
> >
> > > (BTW "M Wicks" was a parody of a psycholist, to show how simplistic
> > > and easy to copy they are, if you hadn't seen my post on URC about it.
> > > Now I'm posting my real opinions. I enjoyed (and agreed with) many of
> > > your "direct" responses to me before, and if my religious claptrap got
> > > you to start using that "Darwin" sig then that can't be bad either!)
> >
> > as you wanted, Filth
>
> Oh FFS. You're surely not implying that I'm Steve Firth. Difficult to
> tell what the hell you're saying half the time of course. That's one
> thing I do agree with Clive George on.

Judith has had to put you to rights regarding McAlpine. You aren't
doing very well at the moment, are you?

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <1184728144373733932.960633%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org>

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > if someone knows their message is not going to be accepted in good
> > spirit should they send it?
>
> How can they know such a thing? The URCM moderators' decisions are
> notoriously capricious.

I agree. My question is why people knock at the door if they know
that.

Or`why, having knocked on the door and been refused entry, they
continue knocking.

> > Bertie _knows_ he is not liked, JMS _knows_ she is not liked.
>
> Well Wm, what is the childish obsession you have with being "liked" by a
> bunch of strangers the majority of whom are complete flying fucknuggets?

I don't know. I don't want to be liked by Ian Jackson but it seems
some people do want to be liked by him.

Bertie / Tom and JMS seem to make the most noise here so ask them.

> Whether one is "liked" or not should not be the criterion on which a post
> to a moderated group is based.

I agree.

> It seems to be some deep psychological need in yourself that you are
> outlining here - the need to be liked.

Strange.

> It caused you over years to toady to
> individuals in several newsgroups - it didn't get you liked. Then you
> decided that joining in with the herd mentality in URCM would get you liked
> so you joined in like the ragged-arsed suck up to the school bully
> presumably in the hope this would make you "popular". It won't, so why not
> just grow a pair and stop your suck-up activities?

Very strange.

> > Why are people knocking on a door that is not going to open to them?
>
> Why is that state of affairs right? The URCM mods are a stain on the face
> of usenet. Although using the plural is misleading. This is Whacko Jacko's
> policy and he enforces it like some third world dictator. He's already
> threatened to pull support for moderation if anyone dares to make him stand
> down. He's a disgrace and so are you for your tongue to anus performances.

I'll leave you to it, not my thing at all.

> Oh and drop the pathetic nym. It makes you look like an even bigger turd
> than you are.

> <•DarWin><|
> _/ _/


PKB