Rejected post

[James Michael Schmitt]

Dear Cycling Group Moderators,

I made the following post to the cycling newsgroup earlier this
morning. The post was rejected shortly afterwards as being "rude, a
flame, and/or personal abuse."

I wonder if someone could be kind enough to expand on the reason for
the rejection and why it was considered to be "rude, a flame, and/or
personal abuse"?

Or if the rejection was an error perhaps I could be told and I will
resubmit the post for authorisation.

Best wishes,
J.M. Schmitt



Text of original message follows:

> Subject: What the AA wants for cyclists
>
> THE AA WANTS
> All road users to follow the Highway Code
> More cycle routes/lanes where quieter alternative routes do not exist
> More widespread cycle proficiency and truck/cycle awareness training
> More cycle-safety elements in the driving test
>
> THE AA DOESN�T WANT
> The licensing of bicycles
> Compulsory cycle helmet use
>
> More:
> http://road.cc/content/news/70497-aa-president-calls-end-two-tribes-mentality-divides-cyclists-and-motorists



More:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-135293916224006.txt

[Toom Tabard]

On Thursday, 15 November 2012 09:07:09 UTC, James Michael Schmitt wrote:
> Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
>
>
>
> I made the following post to the cycling newsgroup earlier this
>
> morning. The post was rejected shortly afterwards as being "rude, a
>
> flame, and/or personal abuse."
>

Thanks for drawing my attention to the article. URCM seems entirely appropriate
as a place to publish and discuss it. It is an interesting and useful
initiative in reference to a current conference issue and discussion.

It's not rude and is only a flame if one subjectively prejudges the motive for posting it, and unfairly remove the option for others to be aware of and discuss it by assuming some will be antagonised by it. Moderation should be applied
to immoderate responses; it should not deny airing and discussing important
initiatives.

Toom

[John Benn]

"James Michael Schmitt" <dont.spamatall.com> wrote in message
news:5ib9a8luc9cl3n87p...@4ax.com...

I can't see anything wrong in what you posted. Can a moderator explain why
it was considered "rude, a flame, and/or personal abuse"

However, I fully expected my own recent post to be rejected:

> "Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:WTo*Gu...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> > In article <slrnka6puo...@azaal.plus.com>,
> > Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> >>The Highway Code also recommends the last two for pedestrians as well.
> >>Do you always follow those recommendations when a pedestrian? I don't.
> >>I don't when cycling for pretty much the same reasons. I just wear
> >>normal clothing.
> >
> > I think these "recommendations" are totally iniquitous. The effect is
> > that pedestrians and cyclists who choose to wear the clothing they
> > want rather than clothing which makes it convenient for motorists to
> > drive too quickly and carelessly are punished. But no-one suggests
> > that drivers who choose to drive black cars rather than dayglo yellow
> > ones should be held partially liable.
> >
> > I think there is one approach we could use to counter this: perhaps we
> > get a "recommendation" put in the highway code to "consider whether
> > your journey can be made other than by motor vehicle; walking and
> > cycling are much safer" and "when choosing a vehicle, consider the
> > safety of other road users; do not drive a vehicle larger or heavier
> > than necessary".
> >
> > The result would be that someone who drives half a mile to the shops
> > when they could have walked, and crashes into someone, could be held
> > liable for the consequences of their choice to unnecessarily use
> > dangerous heavy machinery.
>
> What an utter load of bollocks!

[Judith]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:07:07 +0000, James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com>
wrote:

>Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
>
>I made the following post to the cycling newsgroup earlier this
>morning. The post was rejected shortly afterwards as being "rude, a
>flame, and/or personal abuse."
>
>I wonder if someone could be kind enough to expand on the reason for
>the rejection and why it was considered to be "rude, a flame, and/or
>personal abuse"?
>
>Or if the rejection was an error perhaps I could be told and I will
>resubmit the post for authorisation.
>
>Best wishes,
>J.M. Schmitt

<snip>

>More:
>http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-135293916224006.txt


Ah yes - My German cousin.

Perhaps the rejection is a family matter?

[Ian Jackson]

In article <5ib9a8luc9cl3n87p...@4ax.com>,

James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
>Dear Cycling Group Moderators,

Hi Judith.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[John Benn]

"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message

news:yIi*iE...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

You are meant to be answering the question rather than making ill-founded
allegations about someone's identity.

[Molly Mockford]

At 12:20:48 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Ian Jackson
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
<yIi*iE...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

>In article <5ib9a8luc9cl3n87p...@4ax.com>,
>James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
>>Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
>
>Hi Judith.

Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the
post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.

I admit I am struggling to see how that post could possibly be regarded
as "rude, a flame, and/or personal abuse" - unless the mere mention of
the AA not wanting "Compulsory cycle helmet use" is regarded as
dreadfully upsetting for those who might be in favour of compulsory
cycle helmet use. I wouldn't have thought that urcm would have had too
many of those, but it's good that you appear to be considerate of their
feelings.
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

[kat]

Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <5ib9a8luc9cl3n87p...@4ax.com>,
> James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
>> Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
>
> Hi Judith.

Does this mean that now the RFD has been withdrawn it is back to the old
idea that anyone who you decide must be Judith must be banned?

I notice you haven't answered the actual question as to why the post was
considered rude, offensive or a flame.


--
kat
>^..^<

[John Benn]

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k82ni0$o6e$1...@dont-email.me...

And even if it is Judith (I have no idea if it is or isn't), it's meant to
be the content you base moderation decisions on and not who you think might
be posting the message.

[me...@privacy.net]

On 15 Nov 2012 12:20:48 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson

<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>In article <5ib9a8luc9cl3n87p...@4ax.com>,
>James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
>>Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
>
>Hi Judith.

I categorically did not make that post - nor the one referenced which was
rejected by the moderators.

You have once again shown yourself up to be an utter fool - and to be clearly
quite pathetic.

Why not post any evidence whatsoever that makes you think I made the post.

(PS Giganews and Agent are likely to be one of the two most common combinations
of posting methods that there are; that combination is certainly not proof)

I must say well done to whoever pulled your string: incredible that you fell
for it.

I hope that you don't mind me using a different posting name - just so that you
*will* see the post.


Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

[M Wicks]

On Nov 15, 12:39 pm, "kat" <littlelio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ian Jackson wrote:

> > In article <5ib9a8luc9cl3n87psta3res81ccvit...@4ax.com>,

> > James Michael Schmitt  <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
> >> Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
>
> > Hi Judith.
>
> Does this mean that now the RFD has been withdrawn it is back to the old
> idea that anyone who you decide must be Judith must be banned?

Sigh. It looks like it, doesn't it? I really thought that URCM had
finally turned the corner, but no, they were just cynically pretending
to have learnt while the threat of a CFV was hanging over them. This
shows that Jackson and co are fully aware that what they are doing is
wrong and against what people voted for initially. They wish to run
URCM as a private club and simply ignore valid criticism unless it's
backed up by force.

So, now that we definitely know that URCM's problems are down to
malice rather than stupidity, it looks like more force is needed, and
this time, Jackson and co should not be kindly given the benefit of
the doubt when they pretend that they're toeing the line. It is clear
that they are not interested in getting true majority support for
their running of URCM: they played the voting system in the beginning
when they lied about what URCM was going to be, and they have just
played it again (and don't forget when Brooke also played the system
when he created an RFD just to "block" another RFD that was being
planned at that time).

They would clearly rather be underhand than genuinely change URCM to
fit people's requirements, even though it's just been shown that
they're perfectly capable of running URCM in a fair and popular way
when they feel like it. It's now crystal clear that they *can* run
URCM properly, they just *won't*. In the end, their top priority is,
as ever, to bully and exclude people with opinions they dislike,
however much most people here don't like it. Jackson wants the
privileges of running a uk.* group without any of the
responsibilities. And he seems to think that it's only right that
people should let him do that because he's such an important person.

This little incident perfectly demonstrates the utter stubbornness and
arrogance of Jackson. What a disgustingly obnoxious attitude he has. I
suspect that people like Andy Leighton and Danny Colyer are deeply
embarrassed at this latest turn of events.

> I notice you haven't answered the actual question as to why the post was
> considered rude, offensive or a flame.

Same old. The fact that it's definitely not Judith just makes him look
even worse.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <RTRoULX5...@molly.mockford>,

Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
>Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the
>post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.

Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
we reject their messages regardless of their merit. That's what being
banned means.

[M Wicks]

On Nov 15, 1:28 pm, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> In article <RTRoULX5COpQF...@molly.mockford>,

> Molly Mockford  <usenets...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>
> >Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
> >Judith sock?  That gives the impression that this was the reason the
> >post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
>
> Judith is a banned poster.  When we are sure that someone is Judith,
> we reject their messages regardless of their merit.

You weren't doing that for the last few weeks until today. I wonder
why? And the poster who you're so sure is Judith is *not* Judith!

[Judith]

On 15 Nov 2012 13:28:30 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson

<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>In article <RTRoULX5...@molly.mockford>,
>Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>>Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
>>Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the
>>post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
>
>Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
>we reject their messages regardless of their merit. That's what being
>banned means.

In which case you are categorically a liar and a fool.

Perhaps you can share with other people just how sure you are.

I am sure that you were not sure enough.

I can assure you that I did not post that message - or the rejected one.

You really are one sad bastard.

All we need now is for my other cousin: Jean Marcel Forgeron to appear and be
banned because he is family.

You have undone all the good work which the other moderators did over the last
two or three months.

It is clearly time that *you* went.

[D.M. Procida]

Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <RTRoULX5...@molly.mockford>,
> Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> >Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
> >Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the
> >post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
>
> Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
> we reject their messages regardless of their merit. That's what being
> banned means.

Shame, I thought that the moderators really had quietly started doing
things differently recently.

Daniele

[Molly Mockford]

At 05:46:03 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012, M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote in
<62a08d7d-0814-40a2...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>:

As I see it, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not it is
Judith. It is a post which passes the PCI test with flying colours, and
there is no reason why it should not have been allowed.

If Ian thinks it's a bad thing to lie about one's identity, how can he
justify lying about the reason for rejecting a post? "We strongly
suspect, although we have no evidence, that this is a banned poster who
is posting an unobjectionable post under an assumed name" is very far
from "this post is "rude, a flame, and/or personal abuse". The latter
says that the rejection has been made on content - which is clearly
untrue.

[Andy Leighton]

Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
after being banned is an abuse of the group.

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Molly Mockford]

At 08:04:46 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com>
wrote in <slrnka9tju...@azaal.plus.com>:

The reason selected says *personal* abuse! That means abuse directed
against one or more identifiable persons within the group.

If the moderators want to reject posts because they suspect (but cannot
prove) that the poster is a banned person posting under another nym,
they need to make that an official reason for rejecting posts, not grab
for one which could not be less related.

I should have expected it, I guess. The moment the RFD was withdrawn,
it's back to "I'll do what I want", regardless of all the hints, tips
and advice which have been offered. If Ian wants to destroy urcm, he is
going the right way about it.

[Judith]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:04:46 -0600, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:

<snip>

>Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
>however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
>after being banned is an abuse of the group.

Look - shit for brains : I did not make that post - it is clearly Jackson and
the likes of you who are abusing the group and hence uk.news.

If you believe that you have any evidence, then just post it here.

(PS Using Forte Agent is not proof - otherwise the other 800ish posts made this
year would have been banned)

[Mike Bristow]

In article <Qwp*-Tt...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <RTRoULX5...@molly.mockford>,
> Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>>Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
>>Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the
>>post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
>
> Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
> we reject their messages regardless of their merit. That's what being
> banned means.

Why was the rejection message not "We think you're a banned poster", then?

--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[Ian Jackson]

In article <slrnka9tju...@azaal.plus.com>,

Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
>however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
>after being banned is an abuse of the group.

The software automatically selects the "abuse" rejection reason for
banned posters. This is a known defect but since it only affects
banned posters who have already been told they are banned it's hardly
high up on my list of things to fix.

[kat]

James Michael Schmitt has been posting for several weeks without being
banned for "being Judith".

If James Michael has been banned in his own right, then the reason for
rejection was simply "from a banned poster". So the rejection is a lie.

If the reason ( given you assume James Michael is Judith Mary ) is abuse of
the group, then it isn't personal.


--
kat
>^..^<

[M Wicks]

On Nov 15, 1:55 pm, real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M.

Procida) wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > In article <RTRoULX5COpQF...@molly.mockford>,

> > Molly Mockford  <usenets...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> > >Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
> > >Judith sock?  That gives the impression that this was the reason the
> > >post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
>
> > Judith is a banned poster.  When we are sure that someone is Judith,
> > we reject their messages regardless of their merit.  That's what being
> > banned means.
>
> Shame, I thought that the moderators really had quietly started doing
> things differently recently.

So did I. But now you can see that, unquestionably, Jackson is
perfectly capable of moderating reasonably but chooses not to (unless
he is forced). So now you know that he is not "trying" or acting in
good faith, your approach to the task of remedying URCM will hopefully
become somewhat more hardline. You cannot assume good faith because
there obviously is none, except possibly when it comes to the
powerless moderators, who I can't believe were all happy with the
"Let's pretend to behave ourselves until the RFD is withdrawn"
approach.

I am annoyed with myself for starting to believe that Jackson was
trying to do the right thing when it is now obvious that we have all
been hoodwinked and treated with malicious, arrogant contempt. I
thought that before the last few weeks and clearly I was right all
along. Jackson thinks he should just be left to run URCM however he
wants, and only pretends to care what people think when he feels that
his leadership is under threat. The stupid thing is that he could have
the newsgroup he so passionately wants, where only psycholists are
allowed to say what they think, if only he ran it as a private
newsgroup. But no, Ian Jackson is too important, both as a cycling
campaigner and a Usenet poster, to deign to do such a thing, so
instead he wants to have his cake and eat it by running a private
newsgroup in the uk.* hierarchy. His newsgroup has to be *the*
moderated newsgroup for UK cyclists, otherwise it's not worth his
precious time.

And he really seems to have convinced himself that anyone who tries to
stand in his way is being unreasonable. Anyone who really cared about
Usenet or the War Against Trolls would just leave him to run URCM his
way. The evangelical fervour with which he continues to do whatever it
takes to have his psycholists-only uk.* newsgroup, no matter how
dishonest, is astonishing. He won't stop until every last underhand
way of keeping URCM as it is has been tried. Reality, or at least that
peddled by people disagreeing with psycholists, must be kept at bay at
all costs!

[m...@privacy.net]

On 15 Nov 2012 15:00:13 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson

<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>In article <slrnka9tju...@azaal.plus.com>,
>Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
>>however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
>>after being banned is an abuse of the group.
>
>The software automatically selects the "abuse" rejection reason for
>banned posters. This is a known defect but since it only affects
>banned posters who have already been told they are banned it's hardly
>high up on my list of things to fix.

Oh dear - more economy with the truth.

The post was manually moderated - and was manually given the reason "abuse".

Was it moderated by you?

The person posting using the name James Michael Schmitt was clearly not banned
as they had previously posted.

Without putting too fine a point on it: you are lying again..




Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.moderation, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:

>In article <slrnka9tju...@azaal.plus.com>,
>Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
>>however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
>>after being banned is an abuse of the group.
>
>The software automatically selects the "abuse" rejection reason for
>banned posters. This is a known defect but since it only affects
>banned posters who have already been told they are banned it's hardly
>high up on my list of things to fix.

Once again you miss the point of who the target audience is for the
rejection messages.
--
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 ]

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.moderation, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:

>Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
>however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
>after being banned is an abuse of the group.

If the rejection message was appropriate (i.e. You are banned, and hence
your post has been rejected), then this thread would have an entirely
different content (it may be no better, but at least it would be more
accurate).

I appreciate this is a 'known bug' in the software in question, but the
theory that because it only affects banned users it doesn't matter is
wrong.

For the same reason that including a statement on banning in the charter
was important, making sure rejections of banned posters are clearly
indicated as such is important.

[Clive George]

On 15/11/2012 17:07, Tony wrote:
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <slrnka9tju...@azaal.plus.com>,
>> Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>> Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
>>> however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
>>> after being banned is an abuse of the group.
>>
>> The software automatically selects the "abuse" rejection reason for
>> banned posters. This is a known defect but since it only affects
>> banned posters who have already been told they are banned it's hardly
>> high up on my list of things to fix.
>
> Once again you miss the point of who the target audience is for the
> rejection messages.

He's right - it might well be appropriate to increase the priority of
implementing "Reject: Banned" or similar.

[Judith]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:11:32 +0000, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:

And then he just needs to decide who is banned and who isn't.

(I see he still cannot find the correct integer 5, to change to the integer 10)

[Judith]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:09:40 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

>In uk.net.news.moderation, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
>>however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
>>after being banned is an abuse of the group.
>
>If the rejection message was appropriate (i.e. You are banned, and hence
>your post has been rejected), then this thread would have an entirely
>different content (it may be no better, but at least it would be more
>accurate).
>
>I appreciate this is a 'known bug' in the software in question, but the
>theory that because it only affects banned users it doesn't matter is
>wrong.
>
>For the same reason that including a statement on banning in the charter
>was important, making sure rejections of banned posters are clearly
>indicated as such is important.

I feel that treating people who are not actually banned, as being banned is
also outrageous.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
(Ian Jackson) came up to me and whispered:

> Judith is a banned poster.

Where is your list of Banned Posters published, and where in the RFD did
you state you would have such a list?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

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

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> (Ian Jackson) came up to me and whispered:
>
> > Judith is a banned poster.
>
> Where is your list of Banned Posters published, and where in the
> RFD did you state you would have such a list?

The section of the charter that says the moderators can do whatever
they like to maintain the group as they like it allows them to do
whatever they like. Surely that's not really a difficult concept to
understand? It's plainly stated in the charter.

Those that voted for the moderated group voted for this.

You can validly protest that the moderators are a bunch of fools whose
idiotic actions damage the group or the uk hierarchy or usenet in
general or even civilisation as we know it, but you can't claim they
don't have the authority to act as they are. They are acting entirely
in accordance with the charter, whatever foolish antic they are up to
this week.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[M Wicks]

On Nov 15, 6:57 pm, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Paul Cummins <useth...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
> >  We were about to embark at Dover, when ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

> >  (Ian Jackson) came up to me and whispered:
>
> > > Judith is a banned poster.
>
> >  Where is your list of Banned Posters published, and where in the
> >  RFD did you state you would have such a list?
>
> The section of the charter that says the moderators can do whatever
> they like to maintain the group as they like it allows them to do
> whatever they like.  Surely that's not really a difficult concept to
> understand?  It's plainly stated in the charter.
>
> Those that voted for the moderated group voted for this.
>
> You can validly protest that the moderators are a bunch of fools whose
> idiotic actions damage the group or the uk hierarchy or usenet in
> general or even civilisation as we know it, but you can't claim they
> don't have the authority to act as they are.  They are acting entirely
> in accordance with the charter, whatever foolish antic they are up to
> this week.

Fair point. So we need a CFV for a charter change, and for the CFV to
really go ahead no matter how much Jackson seems to be playing ball in
the run-up. That trick has worked once, but won't again. He clearly
can't be trusted.

The gloating, triumphant manner of Jackson's first posts in this
thread ("You fell for it, you stupid gullible idiots!") was really
beyond the pale, and should leave those who want to improve URCM in no
doubt as to who they are up against, and the lengths he will go to to
scupper any attempts to make the newsgroup moderation as it should be.
Ian Jackson is an obstacle to progress, and wlll never be anything
else, so the only way to change things is by force: the latest
developments conclusively demonstrate that Jackson will never be
talked into it. He views URCM reformers with utter contempt, and
considers all to be fair in combating them.

[Percy Picacity]

Well, if they deliberately use a nym which is designed to suggest
identity with a poster known to be banned I am not so sure. At best it
seems deliberately provocative. I did notice some infelicities in Herr
Schmidt's English not typical of you, but that may merely be part of
his cover.

--

Percy Picacity

[Bertie Wooster]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:57:09 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
<i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
>> We were about to embark at Dover, when ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>> (Ian Jackson) came up to me and whispered:
>>
>> > Judith is a banned poster.
>>
>> Where is your list of Banned Posters published, and where in the
>> RFD did you state you would have such a list?
>
>The section of the charter that says the moderators can do whatever
>they like to maintain the group as they like it allows them to do
>whatever they like. Surely that's not really a difficult concept to
>understand? It's plainly stated in the charter.

Yes.

See question 21 of the approved urcm faq.

=====urcm faq=====
Q1 What is urcm?
A1 urcm stands for uk.rec.cycling.moderated.

Q2 But what is the group for?
A2 The group is for the discussion of cycling issues in the UK

Q3 My post to urcm got rejected, why?
A3 The 'duty moderator' felt that it was not of interest to cyclists.

Q4 But I think that my post is of interest, why did the moderator not
allow it?
A4 We can't answer that, you could try emailing the moderators.

Q5 I have tried emailing the moderators, but they did not respond.
What can I do?
A5 Their email system is broken, so it might be that the moderators
have not received your email. You could try posting your complaint to
uk.net.news.moderation.

Q6 But I have seen posts in urcm that are rude, abrasive and impolite,
why have they not been blocked?
A6 It may be that the rude and abrasive posts you saw came from
someone on the pass-list and their post was not seen by a moderator.

Q7 Pass-list! That sounds like a great idea. How do I get onto the
pass-list?
A7 First of all you need to hold similar opinions to the moderators,
you must not sound at all argumentative towards the moderators'
opinions, and it helps if you post a few derogatory comments about
posters disliked by the moderators.

Q8 How does posting derogatory comments about other people help?
A8 So long at the posters you comment on are not on the pass-list,
posting derogatory comments about them will endear you to the
moderators and make it appear more likely to the moderators that you
will support them. They will trust you to be on the pass-list.

Q9 When I looked at the urcm logs it appeared that the rude posts were
authorised manually. How could they be allowed if the poster was not
on the pass-list?
A9 It may have been permitted by a moderator as moderation is by
personality as well as by content.

Q10 Moderation by personality *and* content. What does that mean?
A10 In deciding whether to allow or block a post moderators consider
the posting history of the poster from other groups.

Q11 Really, how does that work?
A11 No one really knows, but it seems that the moderators use their
gut feeling on a poster as well as the content of the post.

Q12 So what is more important in getting a post approved, personality
or content?
A12 Personality.

Q13 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?
A13 Some call them 'moderator apologists' and others call them
'moderator wanabees'. They are best ignored.

Q14 Who is in charge of urcm?
A14 No one.

Q15 What, no one is in charge or urcm?
A15 Yes, that's right.

Q16 But how was urcm formed?
A16 A person called Ian Jackson posted two requests for discussion for
the creation of the group and hand-picked a number of moderators. When
the creation of the group was voted upon there was overwhelming
support for its creation.

Q17 But surely Ian Jackson is in charge of the group?
A17 No.

Q18 But why?
A18 Because he says he isn't in charge.

Q19 Overwhelming support for the groups creation. Did people really
vote for moderation by personality to be more important than
moderation by content?
A19 No.

Q20 Eh!?
A20 The group that was discussed during the RFD bears little
resemblance to the group that has been created.

Q21 How is that so?
A21 In the charter there is a clause that says, "The moderators may
use whatever tools and processes they collectively feel appropriate to
ensure the smooth running of the group." This clause is used to allow
the moderators to moderate posts based on personality as well as
content.

Q22 But I cannot believe this.
A22 That is not a question.

Q23 Oh, OK - but back to my original question, what is urcm?
A23 urcm is a group for the discussion of anything that the moderators
allow to be discussed.
=====/urcm faq=====

>Those that voted for the moderated group voted for this.

See question 20 above.

[Judith]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:26:22 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:

<snip>

>Well, if they deliberately use a nym which is designed to suggest
>identity with a poster known to be banned I am not so sure. At best it
>seems deliberately provocative. I did notice some infelicities in Herr
>Schmidt's English not typical of you, but that may merely be part of
>his cover.

Why not just call me a liar?

You are very good at lying yourself as we have seen previously - so don't hold
back.

Let me try again: I did not make the post from James Michael Schmitt
<dont.spamatall.com> which was banned by URCM; I did not make the post from
James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> complaining about the ban, which
was made here.

Comprehend?

[Mark Goodge]

On 15 Nov 2012 13:28:30 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>In article <RTRoULX5...@molly.mockford>,
>Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>>Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
>>Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the
>>post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
>
>Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
>we reject their messages regardless of their merit. That's what being
>banned means.

Then why not say so in the rejection message? Why the need to lie about it?

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.moderation, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>I feel that treating people who are not actually banned, as being banned is
>also outrageous.

You admit you post with multiple identities. You admit you post to URCM.
It's clearly no surprise to you that it inflames the situation and leads to
paranoia among the moderators.

I suggest this is exactly why you do it.

i.e. since you're in a glass house, I suggest you stop throwing stones.

[Judith]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:27:13 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

>In uk.net.news.moderation, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I feel that treating people who are not actually banned, as being banned is
>>also outrageous.
>
>You admit you post with multiple identities. You admit you post to URCM.
>It's clearly no surprise to you that it inflames the situation and leads to
>paranoia among the moderators.
>
>I suggest this is exactly why you do it.
>
>i.e. since you're in a glass house, I suggest you stop throwing stones.

Fuck off

[M Wicks]

On Nov 15, 9:29 pm, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:27:13 +0000, Tony <t...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
> >In uk.net.news.moderation, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>I feel that treating people who are not actually banned, as being banned is
> >>also outrageous.
>
> >You admit you post with multiple identities.  You admit you post to URCM.
> >It's clearly no surprise to you that it inflames the situation and leads to
> >paranoia among the moderators.
>
> >I suggest this is exactly why you do it.
>
> >i.e. since you're in a glass house, I suggest you stop throwing stones.
>
> Fuck off

From what Tony Hart says he must be perfect, given the criticism that
he continually doles out here on "his" newsgroup to most regular
posters (except Ian Jackson) at one time or another.

(Of course the real Tony Hart was great! They don't make theme tune
music like that of Hartbeat and Vision On anymore! The decline in the
quality of such things is one way in which society has got worse over
the last couple of decades. Another way society has got worse is in
pandering to cyclists and telling them they're better than other road
users. You just have to look at how belligerently self-righteous the
psycholists are to realise what a bad idea that is. But anyway, I'd
better stop talking about those things before I get told off by the
UNNM moderator.)

[Percy Picacity]

I fully believe you! Didn't I say so? But whoever did make the post
(and I think we can discount the possibility it was his real name) was
clearly trying to give the impression that he was you, or at least
bring about real doubt. Otherwise why did he use your initials?

--

Percy Picacity

[Judith]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:20:23 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>

wrote:

>On 2012-11-15 19:42:39 +0000, Judith said:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:26:22 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> Well, if they deliberately use a nym which is designed to suggest
>>> identity with a poster known to be banned I am not so sure. At best it
>>> seems deliberately provocative. I did notice some infelicities in Herr
>>> Schmidt's English not typical of you, but that may merely be part of
>>> his cover.
>>
>> Why not just call me a liar?
>>
>> You are very good at lying yourself as we have seen previously - so don't hold
>> back.
>>
>> Let me try again: I did not make the post from James Michael Schmitt
>> <dont.spamatall.com> which was banned by URCM; I did not make the post from
>> James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> complaining about the ban, which
>> was made here.
>>
>> Comprehend?
>
>I fully believe you! Didn't I say so?

In which case I cannot quite understand you comment: " I did notice some

infelicities in Herr Schmidt's English not typical of you, but that may merely
be part of his cover."

So he said something which was not typical of me, just so people would think it
was me - and that was part of his cover.

Is that what you really meant?

[Percy Picacity]

On 2012-11-15 19:42:39 +0000, Judith said:

I've realised why you thought I was accusing you of being Herr Schmitt,
despite your denial. When I said "I am not so sure" I meant I was
not convinced you were right in your statement (deleted above) that:

> I feel that treating people who are not actually banned, as being banned is
> also outrageous.

I am not sure that someone who deliberately pretends that they might be
a banned poster isn't fair game for rejecting.

However, I do still think the ban should be withdrawn as it causes the
group many more problems than it solves.


--

Percy Picacity

[Owen Dunn]

Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> writes:

> Well, if they deliberately use a nym which is designed to suggest
> identity with a poster known to be banned I am not so sure. At best
> it seems deliberately provocative.

Particularly with the `Keywords: I am not Judith' in the headers.

(S)

[Percy Picacity]

Or equally that he genuinely wasn't you. I was merely pointing out
that I had some doubt before you denied it, but the doubt was
ambiguous! You will no doubt point out I should have put "might have
been" rather than "may", to agree with "did" in the first clause - I
agree and apologise for the error.

--

Percy Picacity

[Percy Picacity]

You could equally say that that is so provocative as to inject a seed
of doubt as to whether it really is Judith!

Do away with the ban and treat Judith's ID with same fairness (FSVO)
that you treat her socks - you know it makes sense. You could then
reject inappropriate stuff or repetition without having to constantly
wonder if you needed to reject a all the works of a given entity to
shore up a failed policy.

--

Percy Picacity

[James Michael Schmitt]

On 15 Nov 2012 12:20:48 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>In article <5ib9a8luc9cl3n87p...@4ax.com>,
>James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
>>Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
>
>Hi Judith.

Dear Herr Jackson,

Just for the avoidance of any doubt, I am not Judith.

Now, can you clarify the reason for my posy being rejected was not
valid, and if I repost it will be passed for public reading?

Many thanks,
J.M. Schmitt

[Percy Picacity]

I'd try a bigger bouquet as a peace offering! Or perhaps, if you have
recently posted in urcm under any other identity, say what it was. And
why you are pretending to be a Judith sock-puppet?

None of my business, you may say.

--

Percy Picacity

[Owen Dunn]

I should point out that I'm not a moderator of urcm and have no say in
the disposal of Judith's smalls.

(S)

[Percy Picacity]

On 2012-11-16 00:04:35 +0000, Owen Dunn said:

>
> I should point out that I'm not a moderator of urcm and have no say in
> the disposal of Judith's smalls.
>
> (S)

Sorry! I must get a post-it with their names.

--

Percy Picacity

[Periander]

On 15-Nov-2012, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> >Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
> >Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the
> >post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
>
> Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
> we reject their messages regardless of their merit. That's what being
> banned means.

(I really have no axe to grind, the one thread I've started in the two
cycling groups was well received and I got a couple of useful pointers from
the replies so when I say ...

You're making a rod for your own back.

Moderate on content rather than personality and half your work will
disappear ... as will the vast majority of these threads here.

... sit back and think for a while and take the sugegstion in the spirit
it's intended.

--

All the best,

Periander

[Ian Jackson]

In article <4svaa8pqtmkbbhhld...@4ax.com>,

James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
>Just for the avoidance of any doubt, I am not Judith.

You are either Judith pretending to be someone else, or someone
pretending to be Judith pretending to be someone else. In both cases
the ban should apply to you.

Your questions here are not in good faith and I don't intend to answer
any more of them.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[John Benn]

"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:hBg*uW...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

> In article <4svaa8pqtmkbbhhld...@4ax.com>,
> James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
>>Just for the avoidance of any doubt, I am not Judith.
>
> You are either Judith pretending to be someone else, or someone
> pretending to be Judith pretending to be someone else. In both cases
> the ban should apply to you.
>
> Your questions here are not in good faith and I don't intend to answer
> any more of them.

Can someone provide a suitable translation for this?

[Percy Picacity]

Apart from the question of whether the ban was reasonable in the first
place, it seems an absolutely clear, rational and appropriate argument.


--

Percy Picacity

[Steve Firth]

"My name is Ian Jackson and this box of frogs considers me to be insane. I
am sticking two fingers up at the whole of UK Usenet."

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[James Michael Schmitt]

On 16 Nov 2012 12:23:47 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson

<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>In article <4svaa8pqtmkbbhhld...@4ax.com>,
>James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
>>Just for the avoidance of any doubt, I am not Judith.
>
>You are either Judith pretending to be someone else, or someone
>pretending to be Judith pretending to be someone else. In both cases
>the ban should apply to you.
>
>Your questions here are not in good faith and I don't intend to answer
>any more of them.

Dear Herr Jackson,

In case my previous post confused you, let me add further
clarification: I am neither Judith Mary Smith pretending to be James
Michael Schmitt, or James Michael Schmitt pretending to be Judith Mary
Smith.

If I repost my original message, will it be passed for general
viewing?

Many thanks,
J.M. Schmitt

[Clive George]

A question for you : Which is more important to you, posting to URCM or
making waves here?

If you really want to post to URCM, I suggest dropping the JMS-related
nym and removing your keyword header line.

That applies whether you're Judith, in cahoots with Judith, or merely an
innocent bystander.

I'm still not sure which of the above applies to you - Judith claims
it's not the first, but has a long history of lying about such things.
OTOH it's not implausible that she's got somebody else to make these
posts so she can claim she's telling the truth for a change. I'm pretty
sure it's not the third though.

[Ian Smith]

Roughly:
"Nyaah nyaah nyaah not listening, not listening, not liiiisstening"

HTH

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Steve Walker]

"Molly Mockford" <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in message
news:TxwIM$a$dPpQ...@molly.mockford...

> I should have expected it, I guess. The moment the RFD was withdrawn,
> it's back to "I'll do what I want", regardless of all the hints, tips and
> advice which have been offered. If Ian wants to destroy urcm, he is going
> the right way about it.

It does look very much like that.

[Tim Jackson]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:16:11 -0000, kat wrote...

> James Michael Schmitt has been posting for several weeks without being
> banned for "being Judith".

Have there been any significant problems as a result of his posts?

> If James Michael has been banned in his own right, then the reason for
> rejection was simply "from a banned poster".

I think there are potentially several reasons why James Michael's post
could legitimately have been rejected.

1. It could have been done on the basis of what it actually said. But
there's clearly nothing wrong with that.

2. The mods could have felt that James was really Judith, and therefore
banned. Indeed, it seems that was Ian's belief. Maybe he's right,
maybe he's wrong.

3. The mods could have felt that posting under a name clearly chosen to
look like Judith is provocative, irrespective of the true identity. I'm
inclined to agree that it is.

But in either case 2 or case 3, the issue was surely evident the first
time James posted. Yet the mods felt it wasn't a good enough reason to
reject the posts. Presumably they decided to moderate purely on
content, as I and many others here have urged them.

If the posts actually caused no significant problems, then that was a
good call. Ignoring provocation is a good way to defuse it.

So why have the mods suddenly changed away from a good policy on how to
deal with James? Why have they belatedly decided to rise to the bait?

Was it a collective decision? Or could it be that one rogue moderator
was unable to contain himself, gave in to the provocation, and broke
ranks?

Moderation is a difficult and often thankless task. Broad shoulders,
the ability to ignore provocation and to take on board criticism are
obvious qualities for the job. In the aftermath of the previous RFD, it
seemed that was happening. Until now. And look at the consequence:
the mods now face another RFD, and this time no-one would say that the
proponent is a troll.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Judith]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:57:28 +0000, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:

Look you shit: just provide some evidence of this "long history" of lying about
such things - otherwise people will see you for what you are.

[Bertie Wooster]

Wrong. Message-ID: <5T*bj...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>

OK, not quite a troll, but as close to as possible.

[Percy Picacity]

Sorry. It may be robust and, in my opinion, inaccurate, but it is not close.

--

Percy Picacity

[Bertie Wooster]

Tim Jackson said that no one would call Mark Goodge a troll, however,
Ian Jackson (any relation?) came as close to calling Mark Goodge a
troll, without actually calling him a troll, as possible.

I could have been clearer.

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:32:05 +0000, Bertie Wooster wrote...

> Ian Jackson (any relation?)

No.

[Percy Picacity]

You were perfectly clear. I was disagreeing with you.

--

Percy Picacity

[Bertie Wooster]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:14:06 +0000, Percy Picacity

Then you're wrong.

[Colin Reed]

This is not a newsgroup posting.

Signed: Rene Magritte

[Toom Tabard]

On Thursday, 15 November 2012 15:00:16 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:

>
>
> The software automatically selects the "abuse" rejection reason for
> banned posters. This is a known defect but since it only affects
> banned posters who have already been told they are banned it's hardly
> high up on my list of things to fix.
>

The wording is actually 'personal abuse'. You'll find it a weak defence to claim you can accuse someone of that because it's the known defect that this response is given automatically to an otherwise innocuous posting. Some folks would put it higher on their list of things to fix.

Toom

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <k837em$h30$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <slrnka9tju...@azaal.plus.com>,
> >Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> >>Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
> >>however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
> >>after being banned is an abuse of the group.

> >
> >The software automatically selects the "abuse" rejection reason for
> >banned posters. This is a known defect but since it only affects
> >banned posters who have already been told they are banned it's hardly
> >high up on my list of things to fix.
>

> Once again you miss the point of who the target audience is for the
> rejection messages.

I think you are incorrect, Tony.

I think Ian knows exactly who he is talking to and it is you that
don't appear to know who you are talking to.

Think about the target audience again.

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <MPG.2b10bd2b5...@text.usenet.plus.net>

Read this, please

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <b7haa8lgrjbsh3k9i...@4ax.com>
Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:26:22 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>

>
>
> >Well, if they deliberately use a nym which is designed to suggest
> >identity with a poster known to be banned I am not so sure. At best it

> >seems deliberately provocative. I did notice some infelicities in Herr
> >Schmidt's English not typical of you, but that may merely be part of
> >his cover.
>
> Why not just call me a liar?
>
> You are very good at lying yourself as we have seen previously - so don't hold
> back.
>
> Let me try again: I did not make the post from James Michael Schmitt
> <dont.spamatall.com> which was banned by URCM; I did not make the post from
> James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> complaining about the ban, which
> was made here.
>
> Comprehend?

Speak out against your imitor

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <TxwIM$a$dPpQ...@molly.mockford>
Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>
> At 08:04:46 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com>
> wrote in <slrnka9tju...@azaal.plus.com>:
>
> >On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:56:10 +0000,
> > Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>
> >> If Ian thinks it's a bad thing to lie about one's identity, how can he
> >> justify lying about the reason for rejecting a post? "We strongly
> >> suspect, although we have no evidence, that this is a banned poster who
> >> is posting an unobjectionable post under an assumed name" is very far
> >> from "this post is "rude, a flame, and/or personal abuse". The latter
> >> says that the rejection has been made on content - which is clearly
> >> untrue.

> >
> >Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
> >however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
> >after being banned is an abuse of the group.
>

> The reason selected says *personal* abuse! That means abuse directed
> against one or more identifiable persons within the group.
>
> If the moderators want to reject posts because they suspect (but cannot
> prove) that the poster is a banned person posting under another nym,
> they need to make that an official reason for rejecting posts, not grab
> for one which could not be less related.

>
> I should have expected it, I guess. The moment the RFD was withdrawn,
> it's back to "I'll do what I want", regardless of all the hints, tips
> and advice which have been offered. If Ian wants to destroy urcm, he is
> going the right way about it.

I'd pay to watch Molly oversee Ian and Judith kick the shit out of
each other.

Problem is Judith wont be there.

Judith is a chicken.

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <83mwyi2...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

I do not want to see JMS underwear.

[Judith]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:00:51 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com>
wrote:

<snip>


>Judith is a chicken.
>


Yes Wm - whatever you say.

[Judith]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 13:50:33 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>Speak out against your imitor

Yes Wm - whatever you say - even if it makes zero sense, as you usually do.

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <Qwp*-Tt...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <RTRoULX5...@molly.mockford>,
> Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> >Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
> >Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the
> >post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
>
> Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
> we reject their messages regardless of their merit. That's what being
> banned means.

I agree with this

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <873ed924-7ee0-42e7...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:


> The gloating, triumphant manner of Jackson's first posts in this
> thread ("You fell for it, you stupid gullible idiots!") was really
> beyond the pale, and should leave those who want to improve URCM in no
> doubt as to who they are up against, and the lengths he will go to to
> scupper any attempts to make the newsgroup moderation as it should be.
> Ian Jackson is an obstacle to progress, and wlll never be anything
> else, so the only way to change things is by force: the latest
> developments conclusively demonstrate that Jackson will never be
> talked into it. He views URCM reformers with utter contempt, and
> considers all to be fair in combating them.

Please list the people you think are reformers.

JMS, yourself and a number of other people can be discarded as they
needn't have posted in the first place.

Given that, please tell

[Judith]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:42:39 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com>
wrote:

perhaps you know how Jackson is "sure" that a particular post is from me.

He was clearly wrong in the current case.

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <733769742374763784.594214%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org>

He can do that, what is your problem?

If you had a go at the other people you might have more people on
your side.

[Steve Firth]

Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:

> > "My name is Ian Jackson and this box of frogs considers me to be insane. I
> > am sticking two fingers up at the whole of UK Usenet."
>
> He can do that, what is your problem?

That his behaviour is inappropriate for a moderator.

> If you had a go at the other people you might have more people on
> your side.

<sigh> I don't have your childish belief that sucking up to individuals
in order to have them "like" me is in any way desirable or necessary. I
am particular about who I choose as a friend. Jackson[1] isn't even on
the first rung of the ladder. Do the world a favour and grow up William.
Your only point in posting to Usenet these days seems to be to prove
that you are a fuckwit. I get it already. You're an idiot. Now stop
proving it.


[1] Actually if he's the Ian Jackson who I think he is, I'm surprised
that I haven't met him yet. If we do meet I'll tell him to his face that
he's a drooling cretin even if some of his contributions to information
security have been of passing interest.

[Judith]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:14:08 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>If you had a go at the other people you might have more people on
>your side.

The return of the Maggot.

Are you a good person? Are you a bad person? Whose side are you on?


Fuck off Wm - no-one is fooled.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when MrBenn...@yahoo.com (John Benn)
came up to me and whispered:

> Can someone provide a suitable translation for this?

He said "Despite the fact it's not my ball or my game, I won't let you,
anyone I think is you, or anyone that looks even slightly like you, play"

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

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

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)

came up to me and whispered:

>

> "My name is Ian Jackson and this box of frogs considers me to
> be insane. I am sticking two fingers up at the whole of UK Usenet."

Fuck - I'm agreeing with Firth again for the second time this year!

[Steve Firth]

Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> came up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> "My name is Ian Jackson and this box of frogs considers me to
>> be insane. I am sticking two fingers up at the whole of UK Usenet."
>
> Fuck - I'm agreeing with Firth again for the second time this year!

I'll check my reality. Clearly I have been wrong about two things this
year.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <8bqha893tqk6gnmaq...@4ax.com>

tell the other JMS not to impersonate you

often

loudly

every time they use your initials

maybe we will believe you then

[Steve Firth]

Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> In article

[snip]

> maybe we will believe you then

"We"? Presumably you refer to yourself and the voices in your head?
Because it is fairly clear that both sides of the argument see you as a
pointless tit with whom an association would bring nothing but
embarrassment.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[tarr...@outlook.com]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:12:50 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com>

wrote:

>In article <8bqha893tqk6gnmaq...@4ax.com>
>Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:42:39 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <Qwp*-Tt...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>> >Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <RTRoULX5...@molly.mockford>,
>> >> Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>> >> >Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
>> >> >Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the
>> >> >post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
>> >>
>> >> Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
>> >> we reject their messages regardless of their merit. That's what being
>> >> banned means.
>> >
>> >I agree with this
>>
>> perhaps you know how Jackson is "sure" that a particular post is from me.
>>
>> He was clearly wrong in the current case.
>
>tell the other JMS not to impersonate you
>
>often
>
>loudly
>
>every time they use your initials
>
>maybe we will believe you then

Who is this "we" you talk of?