U.r.c.m Moderation policy
Simon Brooke
uk.net.news.moderated should indicate their approach to moderation
policy by indicating which messages they would pass and which they
would block. I therefore went through the group as an exercise looking
at just that. As I thought I would block virtually all the messages, I
started a pass list rather than a block list; however, going through
the exercise carefully I find the situation is not quite as bad as I
had thought it was. Here is a list of messages posted between noon and
9pm today on this group which I would NOT block. Note that there may
be messages not on this list which I simply missed. All posts cross-
posted to other groups, including unnc, would have been blocked for
that reason, so their absence from this list is not /necessarily/ a
reflection of their contents.
Note there are messages of mine which I would hope some other
moderator would have had the good sense to block; for example
<8bc64ad6-ee22-4ea8...@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
should have been blocked.
Help! Brompton-fu weak
Just zis Guy, you know?
<77tc451tvqf4kk9fq...@4ax.com>
Clubs
Bill <7ana0fF...@mid.individual.net>
Simon Mason <O7ednQQMR-y069vX...@eclipse.net.uk>
Bimble
Marc <zpudnYtaW_yB19vX...@bt.com>
The dangers of pavement cycling
Tom Anderson <alpine.DEB.1.10.0...@urchin.earth.li>
John Kane <53580c17-9b5c-43e4-a035-
f4c0fd...@k15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
Are these wheels any good?
a...@x.com <ef7c455c4u3ojipb9...@4ax.com>
AMuzi <h25f29$3sm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
Simon Brooke <85be0646-9c3d-4255-94d1-
b4c2cd...@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
Tyre Pressures
a...@x.com <9g4c45t4ob4feo2th...@4ax.com>
Alistair Gunn <h25f5q$80v$1...@aioe.org>
Alan Braggins <slrnh4cfq...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Simon Brooke <cd6fc193-
ee8a-4186-975...@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
Paul Luton <O-GdndAkvbAc2NvX...@eclipse.net.uk>
Nigel Cliffe <h25kth$t52$1...@news.albasani.net>
Simon Mason <x4idnWXF7_ISytvX...@eclipse.net.uk>
John Kane
<0c045b8a-8f92-4d55...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
Tom Crispin <3vrc45htd993jt0qo...@4ax.com>
m...@nildram.co.uk <c7rc45dhmidetm61o...@4ax.com>
Cycling in England - South East
Justin Lewis <arub45ljbtng5ap9o...@4ax.com>
Simon Brooke <8f1f2281-a6a1-42d7-
aa7a-029...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
Adam Lea <s8Gdna9aS4AAv9vX...@bt.com>
Justin Lewis <5lac45ld6orab3hng...@4ax.com>
Keitht <n_mdnY2eRNh0otvX...@bt.com>
JNugent <MNqdnTC_Ov5ZpNvX...@pipex.net>
Danny Colyer <ToCdnVvAv76jo9vX...@brightview.co.uk>
Alistair Gunn <h25igd$avk$1...@aioe.org>
Roger Merriman <1j1zkl5.j5avpb1awmo3uN%NE...@sarlet.com>
Greenwich and Woolwich Tunnels
Brimstone <LL6dnXnwDeWmY9jX...@bt.com>
Happi Monday <h25285$rv0$1...@aioe.org>
Keitht <U4udnY07huvwh9vX...@bt.com>
Just zis Guy, you know?
<at5c45p6f76hikcvv...@4ax.com>
Brimstone <bNWdnRBn37cOzNvX...@bt.com>
Tom Crispin <3tkc45pjn3sea75m5...@4ax.com>
David Hansen <q6lc45dhko4g2g3u0...@4ax.com>
Tom Crispin <e5lc459mutfnr1ha0...@4ax.com>
Tom Crispin <1hlc45dckilgue78a...@4ax.com>
Brimstone <udGdnTvxk8s--NvX...@bt.com>
Brimstone <CYKdnRckTdIH-9vX...@bt.com>
Tom Crispin <a1pc45l293of0ge88...@4ax.com>
Brimstone <d7udneXGcvA89NvX...@bt.com>
Tom Crispin <5ksc45168r04qcqme...@4ax.com>
Alistair Gunn <h25smh$km7$1...@aioe.org>
Tom Crispin <1ctc45psofit31tsp...@4ax.com>
Tom Crispin <jjuc459fkm4ihtutj...@4ax.com>
How do the police respond to Dangerous Driving reports?
Danny Colyer <Y7-dnR53nZpsmtvX...@brightview.co.uk>
Adam Lea <7LKdncCiI-BAo9vX...@bt.com>
Just zis Guy, you know?
<1nec45ldgc3uoi6nn...@4ax.com>
JNugent <ov-dnUvDnOgqoNvX...@pipex.net>
Mudguards ( the lack of)
Jeremy Parker <Vcs1m.324$BA7...@newsfe05.ams2>
Jeremy Parker <Vcs1m.325$BA7...@newsfe05.ams2>
LightLane Virtual Bike Path to Become a Reality
Jeremy Parker <Wcs1m.326$BA7...@newsfe05.ams2>
What is this the rest of the time?
Jeremy Parker <Wcs1m.327$BA7...@newsfe05.ams2>
*big* hole in bike path
Jeremy Parker <Xcs1m.328$BA7...@newsfe05.ams2>
Tom Crispin
<stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Here is a list of messages posted between noon and
>9pm today on this group which I would NOT block. Note that there may
>be messages not on this list which I simply missed. All posts cross-
>posted to other groups, including unnc, would have been blocked for
>that reason, so their absence from this list is not /necessarily/ a
>reflection of their contents.
Why the Devil would you censor:
Message-ID: <26mc45t9uvo2g93lh...@4ax.com>
Giving details of crossings of the River Thames between the Woolwich
Ferry and Tower Bridge, and the proposed pedestrian/cyclist bridge
between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf?
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
I'd expect to read that.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Simon Brooke
wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
>
Oversight. Having read it this morning, it's clear I missed it. You're
right, there's no reason to block that.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Oversight. Having read it this morning, it's clear I missed it. You're
>right, there's no reason to block that.
It might be simpler and less ambiguous to list the threads / posts you
would have blocked and why.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.
Ian Smith
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
> <stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
[simon listed postings he would have passed, explicitly noting that he
might have missed some]
[someone questioned why he did not include a particular posting]
> >Oversight. Having read it this morning, it's clear I missed it. You're
> >right, there's no reason to block that.
>
> It might be simpler and less ambiguous to list the threads / posts you
> would have blocked and why.
So, we don't have moderation, the moderation that is being proposed
does not have a formalised appeals process whereby the moderators have
to justify publicly every decision and already a would-be-moderator
is being taken to task and people are picking over individual
decisions and requiring justification, and telling him better ways to
do the job.
_This_ is exactly why it is better to close the avenue to such.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Marc
Yes! You never need a better way!
BIG_ONE
<stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>It's been suggested that nominee moderators for the proposed
>uk.net.news.moderated should indicate their approach to moderation
>policy by indicating which messages they would pass and which they
>would block. I therefore went through the group as an exercise looking
>at just that. As I thought I would block virtually all the messages, I
>started a pass list rather than a block list; however, going through
>the exercise carefully I find the situation is not quite as bad as I
>had thought it was. Here is a list of messages posted between noon and
>9pm today on this group which I would NOT block. Note that there may
>be messages not on this list which I simply missed.
<snip>
all this discussion of moderators escapes me, surely it's just for
those who lack a configurable client & the effort to configure it (I
suppose that includes users of google groups & similar, who IMO bring
it upon themselves). Personally I just read the posts I read & ignore
the others, almost all posts regarding moderation fall into the latter
- even if the list of posts snipped falls into the former. Moderate if
you will but if & when have the decency to CP into URC
Rob Morley
Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> So, we don't have moderation, the moderation that is being proposed
> does not have a formalised appeals process whereby the moderators
> have to justify publicly every decision and already a
> would-be-moderator is being taken to task and people are picking over
> individual decisions and requiring justification, and telling him
> better ways to do the job.
>
> _This_ is exactly why it is better to close the avenue to such.
>
That's fascism, and not necessarily of the benevolent variety. Do you
really not see why concerns are being raised?
m...@nildram.co.uk
<telav...@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote:
>all this discussion of moderators escapes me, surely it's just for
>those who lack a configurable client & the effort to configure it (I
>suppose that includes users of google groups & similar, who IMO bring
>it upon themselves). Personally I just read the posts I read & ignore
>the others, almost all posts regarding moderation fall into the latter
>- even if the list of posts snipped falls into the former. Moderate if
>you will but if & when have the decency to CP into URC
How can you configure a newsreader to ignore someone posting the same
message to every thread under different false names (without killing
every message in the group)?
Rob Morley
m...@nildram.co.uk wrote:
> How can you configure a newsreader to ignore someone posting the same
> message to every thread under different false names (without killing
> every message in the group)?
Identify a key phrase in the body of the message and kill any post that
contains it?
Steve Firth
> How can you configure a newsreader to ignore someone posting the same
> message to every thread under different false names (without killing
> every message in the group)?
Because there's always something about those posts that identify the
individual. It's possible to construct kill file rules that will see off
even the most persistent trolls. Most of the flaming could be removed
from sight by killing cross posts, since trolls really, really like
cross posting to stir up trouble. Even persistent drooling cretins like
Toomy who change their From: line every day can be kill-filed using a
bit of RegExp magic. The trolls need you to know who they are, otherwise
their trolling isn't effective. If they need you to know who they are,
then there must always be something about their post to identify them.
The truth is that the one who shout most loudly about the trolls and
about needing a moderated group are the ones who engage in bashing their
heads with the trolls each day in a display of alpha-male virility.
Although they profess to be horrified and appalled and upset and evey
other expression of shock and revulsion under the sun they actually
enjoy combatting with the trolls.
I'll give a 5p prediction. After the moderated groups has been created
the ones shouting about how terrible the trolls are and what damage they
have inflicted on urc will continue to post to urc. They will continue
to lock horns with the trolls as they attempt to prove that they are the
biggest billy-goat gruff.
Already one of the troll-baiters has thrown his toys out of the pram
because he's been told that posting personal attacks (against the
"trolls" of course, never against the "nice" people) will not be
permitted. That shows that some really don't want a moderated civilised
newsgroup, they simply want to indulge in recreational flaming then run
back to nice safe moderated group to comment on what awful people the
trolls are.
Ian Smith
Do you really want ten posts on why a particular post was or was not
allowed for each post about cycling?
It's not fascism, it's (hopefully benevelont) dictatorship. It's how
(the vast majority of) moderated groups work.
Tom Crispin
<telav...@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote:
>Moderate if
>you will but if & when have the decency to CP into URC
Is that an option?
Can all posts to urcm be crossposted to urc with the moderators acting
as a sort of filter. Those posts they deem unsuitable for urcm
readers they remove while allowing the post to go to urc without let
or hinderance.
If that were the case, I would not oppose urcm.
But if a significant section of urc posters abandon urc for urcm,
never to post again, it will be to the ruin of urc.
In other words, if urcm is a subset of urc posts I can see no problem.
Happi Monday
BIG_ONE
>On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:52:23 +0200, BIG_ONE
><telav...@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Moderate if
>>you will but if & when have the decency to CP into URC
>
>Is that an option?
no idea - that's why I brought it up
>Can all posts to urcm be crossposted to urc with the moderators acting
>as a sort of filter. Those posts they deem unsuitable for urcm
>readers they remove while allowing the post to go to urc without let
>or hinderance.
>
>If that were the case, I would not oppose urcm.
>
>But if a significant section of urc posters abandon urc for urcm,
>never to post again, it will be to the ruin of urc.
>
>In other words, if urcm is a subset of urc posts I can see no problem.
agreed
Andy Leighton
> Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:52:23 +0200, BIG_ONE
>><telav...@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Moderate if
>>>you will but if & when have the decency to CP into URC
>>
>>Is that an option?
>
> no idea - that's why I brought it up
Technically it would be possible to send rejected posts to urc.
However that isn't being proposed (but isn't ruled out) by the
RFD. It is not an acceptable solution. It may work for Tom
but it breaks the social contract with the poster. If my
newsgroups line says urcm I don't expect to see my post appear
in urc (if rejected). Plus it also treats urc as a dumping
ground for all kinds of spam - which doesn't seem to me as
being a good netizen.
Similarly for silently cross-posting all ucrm articles to urc.
Technically possible. Socially not acceptable - even more so
than just sending the rejects to urc. I doubt that such an RFD
would ever get the go-ahead from Control.
--
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_
James
>
> Technically it would be possible to send rejected posts to urc.
> However that isn't being proposed (but isn't ruled out) by the
> RFD. It is not an acceptable solution. It may work for Tom
> but it breaks the social contract with the poster. If my
> newsgroups line says urcm I don't expect to see my post appear
> in urc (if rejected). Plus it also treats urc as a dumping
> ground for all kinds of spam - which doesn't seem to me as
> being a good netizen.
>
> Similarly for silently cross-posting all ucrm articles to urc.
> Technically possible. Socially not acceptable - even more so
> than just sending the rejects to urc. I doubt that such an RFD
> would ever get the go-ahead from Control.
I concur with your analysis, but it might be worth mentioning that
anyone who feels to have been unfairly "censored" by urcm can (and
probably will, in many cases) send their post to urc anyway. I'm sure
many posters will keep an eye on both groups and if they feel that the
mods are overly controlling, they can vote with their feet (or
keyboards).
James
Simon Brooke
> Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:52:23 +0200, BIG_ONE
> ><telavers...@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>Moderate if
> >>you will but if & when have the decency to CP into URC
>
> >Is that an option?
>
> no idea - that's why I brought it up
It should certainly be technically /possible/ to automatically block
any post to urcm which is not also posted to urc. The opposite could
not be done of course, nor would I imagine anyone would want it.
Whether it is possible with the proposed moderation software I don't
know. The fact that a thing is /possible/ does not necessarily make it
desirable, of course.
I agree it's an interesting idea but am not certain whether it is one
I'd support.
Keitht
> Jesus! Why don't you moderation pricks f**k off and be done with it.
But how should they fuck off, oh Lord?
Hmm, new group can't come soon enough.
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
David Hansen
<james...@gmail.com> wrote this:-
>I concur with your analysis, but it might be worth mentioning that
>anyone who feels to have been unfairly "censored" by urcm can (and
>probably will, in many cases) send their post to urc anyway.
Indeed, with a bit at the top saying that this posting was censored
by the clique.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Dave Larrington
Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
Assuming one's newsreader has such a option. And naughty types posting from
work may not be permitted to install something which does, lest the Thought
Police nobble them for the use of unauthorised software.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
We had that Maurits C. Escher in to do some building work once.
I haven't been able to leave the house since.
Happi Monday
> Happi Monday wrote:
>> Jesus! Why don't you moderation pricks f**k off and be done with it.
>
>
> But how should they fuck off, oh Lord?
>
> Hmm, new group can't come soon enough.
>
>
>
If I was moderating it, all talk of moderating/banning would be bared!
Keitht
Good grief - pictures of nekkid moderators!!!
But it wouldn't matter, as amoderator you'd just be playing with yourself.
Happi Monday
> Happi Monday wrote:
>> Keitht wrote:
>>> Happi Monday wrote:
>>>> Jesus! Why don't you moderation pricks f**k off and be done with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> But how should they fuck off, oh Lord?
>>>
>>> Hmm, new group can't come soon enough.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If I was moderating it, all talk of moderating/banning would be bared!
>
> Good grief - pictures of nekkid moderators!!!
>
> But it wouldn't matter, as amoderator you'd just be playing with yourself.
I'd expect any moderated group to end up with the mods doing just that.
Ian Jackson
Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:52:23 +0200, BIG_ONE
><telav...@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote:
>>Moderate if you will but if & when have the decency to CP into URC
>
>Is that an option?
>
>Can all posts to urcm be crossposted to urc with the moderators acting
>as a sort of filter. Those posts they deem unsuitable for urcm
>readers they remove while allowing the post to go to urc without let
>or hinderance.
In principle that it is technically possible.
However, it is without precedent (I'm pretty sure) elsewhere on
usenet, and IMO it would be very unwise. It's asking for the problem
posters and problem threads to be constantly hammering on the urcm
barricades.
>But if a significant section of urc posters abandon urc for urcm,
>never to post again, it will be to the ruin of urc.
urc is dead. It just hasn't stopped moving.
--
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
BIG_ONE
>In news:20090628150038.0dac78c5@bluemoon,
>Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:45:33 +0100
>> m...@nildram.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> How can you configure a newsreader to ignore someone posting the same
>>> message to every thread under different false names (without killing
>>> every message in the group)?
>>
>> Identify a key phrase in the body of the message and kill any post
>> that contains it?
>
>Assuming one's newsreader has such a option. And naughty types posting from
>work may not be permitted to install something which does, lest the Thought
>Police nobble them for the use of unauthorised software.
there are portable newsreaders out there - I won't recomend one as I
don't use one
BIG_ONE
>urc is dead. It just hasn't stopped moving.
nonsense, it's such a vibrant group folk are even talking of setting
up colonies.
David Damerell
>Can all posts to urcm be crossposted to urc with the moderators acting
>as a sort of filter.
I am listening carefully for the sound of the unnc types vomiting up their
skulls at this idea.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is First Thursday, Presuary.
Theo Markettos
> Even persistent drooling cretins like Toomy who change their From: line
> every day can be kill-filed using a bit of RegExp magic.
And how many people have a clue what RegExp magic is, or have a client that
can employ it?
Genuine question... do Thunderbird, Outlook Express etc provide killfiling
on that kind of level, and make it obvious how to do matching on the body of
a message? Google Groups for one doesn't provide any killfiling (and as a
big news client we can't ignore it).
In any case, I think expecting all users to set up complex filtering rules
is a bit optimistic. And new users are just going to see the unfiltered
spew - which might even drown out the signal, and hardly entice people to
stay.
Theo
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>Google Groups for one doesn't provide any killfiling (and as a
>big news client we can't ignore it).
GG isn't usenet. It should be ignored except for research.
>In any case, I think expecting all users to set up complex filtering rules
>is a bit optimistic. And new users are just going to see the unfiltered
>spew - which might even drown out the signal, and hardly entice people to
>stay.
usenet *is* the filter.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
James
wrote:> uk.net.news.config Theo Markettos <theom+n...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>
> >Google Groups for one doesn't provide any killfiling (and as a
> >big news client we can't ignore it).
>
> GG isn't usenet. It should be ignored except for research.
There's a greasemonkey script for firefox which is better than
nothing, but it's a bit primitive.
James
jms
<stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 27 June, 23:00, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
>>
>> <still...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >Here is a list of messages posted between noon and
>> >9pm today on this group which I would NOT block. Note that there may
>> >be messages not on this list which I simply missed. All posts cross-
>> >posted to other groups, including unnc, would have been blocked for
>> >that reason, so their absence from this list is not /necessarily/ a
>> >reflection of their contents.
>>
>> Why the Devil would you censor:
>> Message-ID: <26mc45t9uvo2g93lh...@4ax.com>
>> Giving details of crossings of the River Thames between the Woolwich
>> Ferry and Tower Bridge, and the proposed pedestrian/cyclist bridge
>> between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf?
>
>Oversight. Having read it this morning, it's clear I missed it. You're
>right, there's no reason to block that.
You are going to have to treat the moderating more seriously than
that.
(Snigger - I knew you were not up to it.)
jms
I think Chapman only did it a couple of times as Lou Knee - just to
call someone a shit.
He was quickly caught out - so it has not really been a problem.
Wm...
<1e0f4a26-2ff2-46c2...@l32g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
uk.net.news.config James <james...@gmail.com>
I keep 3 and a bit months of usenet for the groups I follow. Text is
cheap in disk space terms.
Dave Larrington
Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> tweaked the
Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> Genuine question... do Thunderbird, Outlook Express etc provide
> killfiling on that kind of level, and make it obvious how to do
> matching on the body of a message? Google Groups for one doesn't
> provide any killfiling (and as a big news client we can't ignore it).
OE certainly doesn't in its raw state, and attempts to use Newsproxy between
OE and news.individual.net have, for me, proven fruitless. When I used to
use Thunderbird it was pretty similar. The only reader I found which was
both free and had filtering on the message body is Gravity.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The Real Slim Shady's gone to play tennis.
Paul Rudin
> The only reader I found which was both free and had filtering on the
> message body is Gravity.
... and gnus (of course).
Keitht
> In news:nyb*NT...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk,
> Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> tweaked the
> Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>> Genuine question... do Thunderbird, Outlook Express etc provide
>> killfiling on that kind of level, and make it obvious how to do
>> matching on the body of a message? Google Groups for one doesn't
>> provide any killfiling (and as a big news client we can't ignore it).
>
> OE certainly doesn't in its raw state, and attempts to use Newsproxy between
> OE and news.individual.net have, for me, proven fruitless. When I used to
> use Thunderbird it was pretty similar. The only reader I found which was
> both free and had filtering on the message body is Gravity.
>
TBird lets you filter for body text on mail but not on ng's.
It has very few options for news filtering.
(I'm still in manual drive.)
Wm...
uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>I think Chapman only did it a couple of times as Lou Knee - just to
>call someone a shit.
>
>He was quickly caught out - so it has not really been a problem.
You are a shit.
I am easily identifiable.
Go figure.
David Damerell
trn, too, and I suspect most old-school newsreaders do.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is First Friday, Presuary.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
[snip judith's usual twaddle]
> You are a shit.
> I am easily identifiable.
> Go figure.
I think this is part of the problem. There is an inbuilt self-
restraint mechanism at least at some level when you join a social
space using your own identity - you have said you can be a bit of a
dick for a day or two, and so can Ibut ultimately real people with
real identities tend to calm down, in my experience - with a few
notable exceptions (anyone here know Jeff Merkey? Great guy but even
his friends think he's a mite odd).
Nuxx and judith post pseudonymously so probably think they can get
away with whatever they like, although both appear to have been TOSd
at least once since their campaign of trolling started. Both,
especially judith, have nym shifted (with varying degrees of
clumsiness). The most likely to sock in a vote is probably nully, who
gives even less of a toss about his reputation than the other two.
None of them use their real identities, yet all seem to think it is
somehow "unfair" to prevent them from making personal attacks, by
name, against those who do. That kind of unfairness is something we
could do with a lot more of, IMO.
--
Guy
aard...@the.zoo
<GUY.C...@SPAMCOP.NET> wrote:
>On Jun 30, 2:01�pm, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
>wrote:
>[snip judith's usual twaddle]
>
>> You are a shit.
>> I am easily identifiable.
>> Go figure.
>
>I think this is part of the problem. There is an inbuilt self-
>restraint mechanism at least at some level when you join a social
>space using your own identity - you have said you can be a bit of a
>dick for a day or two, and so can Ibut ultimately real people with
>real identities tend to calm down, in my experience - with a few
>notable exceptions (anyone here know Jeff Merkey? Great guy but even
>his friends think he's a mite odd).
>
Oh, the irony...
>Nuxx and judith post pseudonymously so probably think they can get
>away with whatever they like, although both appear to have been TOSd
>at least once since their campaign of trolling started.
Any evidence of that, save some sparking in your own fevered mind? Or
is it just your repetitive complaints to ISPs when people respond to
your provocations?
>Both,
>especially judith, have nym shifted (with varying degrees of
>clumsiness). The most likely to sock in a vote is probably nully, who
>gives even less of a toss about his reputation than the other two.
Even a blind squirrel finds nuts! For once, you're right - I'm not
shallow enough to count a bunch of strangers online who just happen to
share a common love of cycling as my 'friends', and thus I couldn't
give a rats arse what they think of me. As for socking a vote, you
have (as ever) absolutely nothing to justify that comment, which again
leaves you open to the accusation that you're worse than what it is
you're trying to stifle. Still, having failed to answer at least two
invitations to get together and resolve these differences, I don't
suppose for one moment that you'll change - in fact one of the few
reasons I hang about here is to watch you sobbing when one of YOUR
posts fails moderation :)
Just zis Guy, you know?
[snip more crap]
Do stop nym-shifting, please, there's a good chap.
--
Guy
aard...@the.zoo
Well dear boy, all you need do is top referring to me. When you post
lies about me, I'm afraid I'm always going to respond, and despite
your whining I don't think VM will be that bothered about it.
Toodlepip :)
Nigel Cliffe
> In news:nyb*NT...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk,
> Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> tweaked the
> Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>> Genuine question... do Thunderbird, Outlook Express etc provide
>> killfiling on that kind of level, and make it obvious how to do
>> matching on the body of a message? Google Groups for one doesn't
>> provide any killfiling (and as a big news client we can't ignore it).
>
> OE certainly doesn't in its raw state, and attempts to use Newsproxy
> between OE and news.individual.net have, for me, proven fruitless.
I think I had that combination working when I was using news.individual.net.
I now use someone else.
But NewsProxy suffers from being a tech-heads solution, if you can't hack
regular expressions and wildcards you are stuffed. I use it mostly to
catch cross-posted threads to irrelevant groups.
Overall, the conclusion is that any tool which does the level of filtering
required is not the sort of thing most non-technical users are likely to
trip over.
- Nigel
--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Just zis Guy, you know?
> Well dear boy, all you need do is top referring to me. When you post
> lies about me, I'm afraid I'm always going to respond, and despite
> your whining I don't think VM will be that bothered about it.
> Toodlepip :)
It is something of a stretch to describe as a lie the assertion that
you are a serial nym-shifter and a troll. But do feel free to link to
some of your many positive contributions to urc.
--
Guy
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Nigel Cliffe <inv...@2mm.org.uk>
>Overall, the conclusion is that any tool which does the level of filtering
>required is not the sort of thing most non-technical users are likely to
>trip over.
Tech people specialise in that sort of obscurity. I have done it
myself, sorry. My excuse is I don't understand why other people don't
understand. Really. I know it sounds silly.
Bet someone will be selling this concept soon, never mind.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config "Just zis Guy, you know?" <GUY.C...@SPAMCOP.NET>
>On Jun 30, 4:34�pm, aardv...@the.zoo wrote:
>
>[snip more crap]
>
>Do stop nym-shifting, please, there's a good chap.
That may have been a nym-shift but I thought the words were honest.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config aard...@the.zoo
>and thus I couldn't
>give a rats arse what they think of me.
I've never sworn in front of an aadrvark before.
How would you feel if I offered you some termites?
> As for socking a vote, you
>have (as ever) absolutely nothing to justify that comment,
aardvarks don't actually suck
> which again
>leaves you open to the accusation that you're worse than what it is
>you're trying to stifle.
That'd be tricky, aardvarks don't particularly like people
> Still, having failed to answer at least two
>invitations to get together and resolve these differences, I don't
>suppose for one moment that you'll change - in fact one of the few
>reasons I hang about here is to watch you sobbing when one of YOUR
>posts fails moderation :)
I think only one pair of aardvarks have an Internet account. I think
they're trying to get *out* of the zoo.
>>None of them use their real identities,
They don't want their real names used. Do you know how embarrassing
that would be? An aardvark in a zoo! The liberty, gone, vanished,
vanquished.
>> yet all seem to think it is
>>somehow "unfair" to prevent them from making personal attacks, by
>>name, against those who do. That kind of unfairness is something we
>>could do with a lot more of, IMO.
I can but share your bitterness and sadness, one day they will be free.
--
Wm... <fx:cough>
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
> That may have been a nym-shift but I thought the words were honest.
Some of them, maybe. I do have evidence of judith being TOSd at least
once, I am pretty sure that I also have evidence of Nuxx being TOSd,
and the crank calls certainly happened. Nully likes to cast doubt on
that (as does judith) but it is not the kind of thing where evidence
should be shared publicly, though I don't mind discussing it privately
with anybody I trust. Ultimately the people on urc will have to
decide whether they believe me or them, and I can't do much to
influence that choice.
--
Guy
Wm...
<e6f1d575-4cb5-47d0...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
>On Jun 30, 5:26�pm, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
There are two levels of god above that.
ukv
the committee
to the best of my knowledge no person has fooled both of them yet. some
have tried.
Tom Crispin
Certainly sufficient personal details were posted about you for me to
identify your house on Google Earth in a matter of seconds. However,
I was helped by the fact that good friends of mine live a few minutes'
walk from where you live.
Nuxx Bar
Funny that, since it doesn't happen. What is this "evidence"? There
isn't any, is there? You just made it up, and said "pretty sure" so
that your precious "God" doesn't strike you down for lying (even
though it is still a lie).
> and the crank calls certainly happened.
You said you had "evidence" for that as well. What is it? Funny how
you went quiet when you were asked. There's none, is there, because
the calls never happened, did they? Liar.
> Nully likes to cast doubt on
> that (as does judith) but it is not the kind of thing where evidence
> should be shared publicly, though I don't mind discussing it privately
> with anybody I trust.
You mean, anyone you think you can trust to keep up the deception when
you tell them that actually the calls didn't happen and you're just
making it up for the "greater good"? Why can't you share the evidence
with me? If you're going to accuse me of things then you owe me that
much.
aard...@the.zoo
<GUY.C...@SPAMCOP.NET> wrote:
>On Jun 30, 5:12�pm, aardv...@the.zoo wrote:
>
>> Well dear boy, all you need do is top referring to me. When you post
>> lies about me, I'm afraid I'm always going to respond, and despite
>> your whining I don't think VM will be that bothered about it.
>> Toodlepip :)
>
>It is something of a stretch to describe as a lie the assertion that
>you are a serial nym-shifter
Possibly not, no. But then, that's not what you said, is it? Still,
ten out of ten for the attempt at diversion - it nearly worked.
>and a troll.
You mean, "a troll according to the definition set by Guy", shirley?
Which, loosely translated, actually means "won't defend cycling
without fail, and criticises others for doing so"?
>But do feel free to link to
>some of your many positive contributions to urc.
Tell you what, Guy. In the best traditions of playground taunting,
'you show me yours and I'll show you mine'. Yeah, you used to post
some reasonable stuff. And yeah, occasionally you still do, in the odd
thread. But you post a HELL of a lot more complete bollocks designed
to do nothing but keep you in the spotlight, taunt those you don't
like, and generally stir the dying embers a bit. As I've mentioned
before, I use a different nym and IP address to post here and have
done for some months - that nym has never been associated with any
flames.
aard...@the.zoo
<GUY.C...@SPAMCOP.NET> wrote:
>On Jun 30, 5:26�pm, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> That may have been a nym-shift but I thought the words were honest.
>
>Some of them, maybe. I do have evidence of judith being TOSd at least
>once, I am pretty sure that I also have evidence of Nuxx being TOSd,
>and the crank calls certainly happened. Nully likes to cast doubt on
>that
That's an outright lie. I've never 'cast doubt' on it, I've merely
asked if you'd like to demonstrate any evidence of it and pointed out
how nicely it works for your cause. I'm not particularly a conspiracy
theorist, but hey, there's some about who think that 9/11 was
conceived by the yanks to justify their laughable 'war on terror'.
Just zis Guy, you know?
successive incarnations of that particular persona. I've lost count
of the nym-shifts, but I think it's fair to say that I am far from the
only one to have identified you as a troll. If you want to adopt a
non-toxic persona in a moderated group then fine.
aard...@the.zoo
You've very conveniently snipped the entirely relevant points made in
my post, and instead answered a different question that hadn't even
been asked. Free clue; nymshift /= troll. Still, lets put it back for
you, just in case you want to answer this time.
"Tell you what, Guy. In the best traditions of playground taunting,
'you show me yours and I'll show you mine'. Yeah, you used to post
some reasonable stuff. And yeah, occasionally you still do, in the odd
thread. But you post a HELL of a lot more complete bollocks designed
to do nothing but keep you in the spotlight, taunt those you don't
like, and generally stir the dying embers a bit. As I've mentioned
before, I use a different nym and IP address to post here and have
done for some months - that nym has never been associated with any
flames. "
(May I be the first to predict a tumbleweed at this point?)
Just zis Guy, you know?
>You've very conveniently snipped the entirely relevant points made in
>my post, and instead answered a different question that hadn't even
>been asked. Free clue; nymshift /= troll. Still, lets put it back for
>you, just in case you want to answer this time.
I suppose to be completely fair I should acknowledge that a lot of
what you post is troll-enabling more than trolling.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.
Simon Brooke
wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:44:34 +0100, aardv...@the.zoo wrote:
> >You've very conveniently snipped the entirely relevant points made in
> >my post, and instead answered a different question that hadn't even
> >been asked. Free clue; nymshift /= troll. Still, lets put it back for
> >you, just in case you want to answer this time.
>
> I suppose to be completely fair I should acknowledge that a lot of
> what you post is troll-enabling more than trolling.
So that would be both of you, then.
Guy, do you think Aardvark makes a positive contribution to the group?
If so, do you think your contribution is more positive, and if so, in
what way? You seem perpetually to hover, searching out trolls to
wrestle with - in my view you are at least equally destructive.
And I /know/ that you have more to offer than this.
For heaven's sake stand away from your keyboard, now, and disconnect
your computer from the network for a fortnight. If you do that a
tremendous amount of the heat will go out of this discussion and it
will be much easier to achieve the outcome which you say you want.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>So that would be both of you, then.
>
>Guy, do you think Aardvark makes a positive contribution to the group?
>If so, do you think your contribution is more positive, and if so, in
>what way? You seem perpetually to hover, searching out trolls to
>wrestle with - in my view you are at least equally destructive.
Probably not, and yes, in turn, but actually I was trying to assume
good faith and find out whether I was wrong about nully. I don't
think so, but perhaps the way to find out is to wait for the new group
and the clean sheet everyone gets. Whether he will stick to one nym
is another question, I guess.
aard...@the.zoo
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:44:34 +0100, aard...@the.zoo wrote:
>
>>You've very conveniently snipped the entirely relevant points made in
>>my post, and instead answered a different question that hadn't even
>>been asked. Free clue; nymshift /= troll. Still, lets put it back for
>>you, just in case you want to answer this time.
>
>I suppose to be completely fair I should acknowledge that a lot of
>what you post is troll-enabling more than trolling.
>
Oh this is getting stupid - "troll _enabling_ "? Really? What am I
doing, harbouring a fugitive here? You do as you want, I do as I want,
others do as they want. Nobody _enables_ anybody else.
aard...@the.zoo
<stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 1 July, 13:01, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chap...@spamcop.net>
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:44:34 +0100, aardv...@the.zoo wrote:
>> >You've very conveniently snipped the entirely relevant points made in
>> >my post, and instead answered a different question that hadn't even
>> >been asked. Free clue; nymshift /= troll. Still, lets put it back for
>> >you, just in case you want to answer this time.
>>
>> I suppose to be completely fair I should acknowledge that a lot of
>> what you post is troll-enabling more than trolling.
>
>So that would be both of you, then.
>
>Guy, do you think Aardvark makes a positive contribution to the group?
Here we go, a bit more censorship just in case anyone vaguely
considered freedoms. So, Simon, you're not only in favour of the mod
group, but as mentioned elsewhere you reckon you'll sod off if it
doesn't happen. And if it _does_ happen, you'll not be happy with
letting mods decide if posts can get through, you also want to ensure
that others don't reply to people to whom you object. I've changed my
mind - I shall indeed now vote, and my vote will be No. I want to see
if you have sufficient spine to carry out your threat to leave - if
you do we get rid of a bigot, if you don't we get to take the piss out
of you. Sounds like win/win to me!
Ian Smith
> On 1 July, 13:01, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chap...@spamcop.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > I suppose to be completely fair I should acknowledge that a lot of
> > what you post is troll-enabling more than trolling.
>
> So that would be both of you, then.
>
> Guy, do you think Aardvark makes a positive contribution to the group?
> If so, do you think your contribution is more positive, and if so, in
> what way? You seem perpetually to hover, searching out trolls to
> wrestle with - in my view you are at least equally destructive.
If I had to rank them, judith is obviously worst, but followed by Nux,
then Guy. Null is rather less damaging than than Guy. None of them
make a nett positive contribution.
I too wish Guy would just get lost, since he has proved himself
incapable of keeping any of his myriad promises not to encourage the
trolls. It may be a minor loss on rare occasions, but on balance it
would be a much greater gain.
However, since the chances of them all behaving is so very tiny, I
think supporting moderation is the only option with a chance of
salvaging a useful group.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
aard...@the.zoo
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 05:54:48 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
><stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>So that would be both of you, then.
>>
>>Guy, do you think Aardvark makes a positive contribution to the group?
>>If so, do you think your contribution is more positive, and if so, in
>>what way? You seem perpetually to hover, searching out trolls to
>>wrestle with - in my view you are at least equally destructive.
>
>Probably not, and yes, in turn, but actually I was trying to assume
>good faith and find out whether I was wrong about nully. I don't
>think so, but perhaps the way to find out is to wait for the new group
>and the clean sheet everyone gets. Whether he will stick to one nym
>is another question, I guess.
>
So are you escalating the criteria for a post to survive in the
modgroup then? Not only now must it be ontopic, non-incendiary
(allegedly), and all the other disclosed criteria, but now it ALSO
needs to be from someone who "makes a positive contribution"? How
depressing...
What is it you want to find out if you were wrong about in respect of
me then?
Dave J.
in uk.net.news.config, 'Wm...' wrote:
>>There's a greasemonkey script for firefox which is better than
>>nothing, but it's a bit primitive.
>
>I keep 3 and a bit months of usenet for the groups I follow. Text is
>cheap in disk space terms.
There's a bit of OCD to my archiving I think.. This installation of agent
is about 4gig, with posts going back to 2000 and ISTR one of my zipped
copies goes back to 1997. As you say, text is cheap, which is fortunate
for the archives whenever I evaluate which bits of my disks to 'clear
out'.
The only consolation I have is to compare against some people's literal
HDs-FULL of past net-news..
Dave J.
Just zis Guy, you know?
>>Probably not, and yes, in turn, but actually I was trying to assume
>>good faith and find out whether I was wrong about nully. I don't
>>think so, but perhaps the way to find out is to wait for the new group
>>and the clean sheet everyone gets. Whether he will stick to one nym
>>is another question, I guess.
>So are you escalating the criteria for a post to survive in the
>modgroup then? Not only now must it be ontopic, non-incendiary
>(allegedly), and all the other disclosed criteria, but now it ALSO
>needs to be from someone who "makes a positive contribution"? How
>depressing...
Nope. On-topic, reasonably civil and not repetitious posting of
contentious twaddle will do just fine. See you there.
aard...@the.zoo
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:27:04 +0100, aard...@the.zoo wrote:
>
>
>>>Probably not, and yes, in turn, but actually I was trying to assume
>>>good faith and find out whether I was wrong about nully. I don't
>>>think so, but perhaps the way to find out is to wait for the new group
>>>and the clean sheet everyone gets. Whether he will stick to one nym
>>>is another question, I guess.
>
>>So are you escalating the criteria for a post to survive in the
>>modgroup then? Not only now must it be ontopic, non-incendiary
>>(allegedly), and all the other disclosed criteria, but now it ALSO
>>needs to be from someone who "makes a positive contribution"? How
>>depressing...
>
>Nope. On-topic, reasonably civil and not repetitious posting of
>contentious twaddle will do just fine. See you there.
>
Well that sounds fair. But it's in direct opposition to what Simon
suggests, and from what I've read he is apparently a proposed
moderator. He want's to exclude those who don't "have a positive
impact"?
chris French
aard...@the.zoo writes
Sigh.
Against my better judgement, I'm going to waste my time replying to you.
You misrepresent (surprise!) what Simon said. In typical fashion you
take one statement and then start to claim the poster was saying
something else.
He asked Guy if he thought you and he made positive contributions to the
group - his point being of course that he finds Guy's troll wrestling
as destructive as those who seem to be out to disrupt the group.
He never said that he wanted to exclude those who don't 'make a positive
contribution', nor that this should be a moderation criteria.
The moderation policy is aimed at the content of postings, not the
individual, (except in the hopefully rare occasions where someone is put
on a blocklist)
--
Chris French
Simon Brooke
wrote:
> In message <4l7n451shk5pkhe4uvj5h6abqom253o...@4ax.com>,
> aardv...@the.zoo writes
>
> >On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:50:47 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>
> >>On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:27:04 +0100, aardv...@the.zoo wrote:
>
> >>>>Probably not, and yes, in turn, but actually I was trying to assume
> >>>>good faith and find out whether I was wrong about nully. I don't
> >>>>think so, but perhaps the way to find out is to wait for the new group
> >>>>and the clean sheet everyone gets. Whether he will stick to one nym
> >>>>is another question, I guess.
>
> >>>So are you escalating the criteria for a post to survive in the
> >>>modgroup then? Not only now must it be ontopic, non-incendiary
> >>>(allegedly), and all the other disclosed criteria, but now it ALSO
> >>>needs to be from someone who "makes a positive contribution"? How
> >>>depressing...
>
> >>Nope. On-topic, reasonably civil and not repetitious posting of
> >>contentious twaddle will do just fine. See you there.
>
> >Well that sounds fair. But it's in direct opposition to what Simon
> >suggests, and from what I've read he is apparently a proposed
> >moderator. He want's to exclude those who don't "have a positive
> >impact"?
>
> Sigh.
>
> Against my better judgement, I'm going to waste my time replying to you.
Don't bother, Chris. the wreckers are incorrigible, and not
susceptible to reasoned argument. What I have said is in the record
for all to see, so Aardvark's lying about it is as pointless as it is
puerile.
aard...@the.zoo
Sorry, Simon, much as you'd love to rewrite Google to cover your
history, I'm afraid I haven't lied at all. You slagged off Guy for
responding to someone you thought wasn't making a "positive
contribution". You're apparently set to be a moderator. Doesn't seem a
huge leap of faith to get to the idea that you'll censor posts based
on whether you believe the poster was a net contributor or not. Sounds
like an EXCELLENT reason not to have you anywhere near a mod post, you
puerile twat :)
Chris Gerhard
I hate to agree but I do. Guy is knowledgeable but ultimately his
constant troll bating is just painful and looses him much of the high
ground. Moderation is the last hope.
--chris
jms
He is demonstrating to people in unnc that there is no necessity for a
moderated cycle group when self-control by those who propose it is
purely what is required.
Vote - no
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 05:54:48 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
><stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>So that would be both of you, then.
>>
>>Guy, do you think Aardvark makes a positive contribution to the group?
>>If so, do you think your contribution is more positive, and if so, in
>>what way? You seem perpetually to hover, searching out trolls to
>>wrestle with - in my view you are at least equally destructive.
>
>Probably not, and yes, in turn, but actually I was trying to assume
>good faith and find out whether I was wrong about nully. I don't
>think so, but perhaps the way to find out is to wait for the new group
>and the clean sheet everyone gets. Whether he will stick to one nym
>is another question, I guess.
>
>Guy
Yes of course you were.
Will you use your other nyms (plural)
jms
<snip>
>
>If I had to rank them, judith is obviously worst, but followed by Nux,
>then Guy. Null is rather less damaging than than Guy. None of them
>make a nett positive contribution.
And I assume that you think that that is a contribution to the debate
- perhaps you could explain what it would be.
jms
<GUY.C...@SPAMCOP.NET> wrote:
>On Jun 30, 5:26�pm, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> That may have been a nym-shift but I thought the words were honest.
>
>Some of them, maybe. I do have evidence of judith being TOSd at least
>once, I am pretty sure that I also have evidence of Nuxx being TOSd,
>and the crank calls certainly happened. Nully likes to cast doubt on
>that (as does judith) but it is not the kind of thing where evidence
>should be shared publicly, though I don't mind discussing it privately
>with anybody I trust. Ultimately the people on urc will have to
>decide whether they believe me or them, and I can't do much to
>influence that choice.
Ah yes - I have evidence - but I cannot post it in public. -always a
good one to fall back on. No doubt you have got loads of e-mails from
people telling you that they were right behind you on everything you
have done in urc.
People do NOT believe you. The Lou Knee fiasco is an example.
You are a liar.
You have been caught out - several times.
You are despicable.
--
Two direct quotes from you:
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
jms
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>I've never sworn in front of an aadrvark before.
>How would you feel if I offered you some termites?
<snip>
>aardvarks don't actually suck
<snip>
>That'd be tricky, aardvarks don't particularly like people
<snip>
>I think only one pair of aardvarks have an Internet account. I think
>they're trying to get *out* of the zoo.
<snip>
>They don't want their real names used. Do you know how embarrassing
>that would be? An aardvark in a zoo! The liberty, gone, vanished,
>vanquished.
<snip>
>I can but share your bitterness and sadness, one day they will be free.
Are you trying to be funny - or to prove that you are a fuckwit?
See if you can guess how successful you are being.
Keitht
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
Keitht
>
> You are despicable.
>
>
You are beginning to sound like Daffy Duck - which would explain a lot
of things about the apparent cartoon world you seem to inhabit.
Have YOU ever posted as Lou Knee?
Daffy Duck
> jms wrote:
>
>
>> You are despicable.
>>
>>
>>
> You are beginning to sound like Daffy Duck - which would explain a lot
> of things about the apparent cartoon world you seem to inhabit.
>
> Have YOU ever posted as Lou Knee?
You are dethpicable
Daffy
Judith M Smith
>jms wrote:
>
>>
>> You are despicable.
>>
>>
>
>You are beginning to sound like Daffy Duck - which would explain a lot
>of things about the apparent cartoon world you seem to inhabit.
>
>Have YOU ever posted as Lou Knee?
Yes - openly as part of the discussion after Chapman was caught.
Now it's Chapman's turn to answer the question
RudiL
> >Have YOU ever posted as Lou Knee?
>
> Yes - openly as part of the discussion after Chapman was caught.
>
> Now it's Chapman's turn to answer the question
Are you really unable to understand? It is not "Chapman's turn" to do
anything. And please drop this. It is really really boring.
Rudi
jms
wrote:
ffs
I was asked a question.
Please put me in your kill-file - I bet that was part of your original
problem in the old group - you don't know how to do so.
That would explain why I kept "jumping out" of it
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.invalid>
>If they had, how would you know?
Put your finger to your lips and make the shhhh sound. It will excite
some people not to know.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Dave J.
MsgID<dc84f2f7-7fa5-458a...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
on Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:25:21 -0700 (PDT), in uk.net.news.config, 'Nuxx
Bar' wrote:
>On Jun 30, 5:58�pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
><GUY.CHAP...@SPAMCOP.NET> wrote:
>>
>> I am pretty sure that I also have evidence of Nuxx being TOSd,
>
>Funny that, since it doesn't happen. What is this "evidence"? There
>isn't any, is there? You just made it up, and said "pretty sure" so
>that your precious "God" doesn't strike you down for lying (even
>though it is still a lie).
Yikes! He's god-squad? Talk about icing on cake.
Dave J.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>Yikes! He's god-squad? Talk about icing on cake.
Oh let's not stop there, according to Nuxx I am a murderer. He's
phoned me up to ensure I don't miss the message through killfiling him
and the numerous nyms he's used.
Keitht
The most interesting part of this is that the 'god will strike you down
if you lie' is a common jms jibe.
Personally I couldn't give a toss about Guy's religion, I do care that
it's being used as an attempt to provoke and taunt. Playground bullies
where they just want him to ract so they can go "Oooh, teacher, he said
something nasty, get him expelled". Bullies are low-life scum and it's
that that gets me. It's not a defence statement for Guy, it's standing
up to the total shitehawks who don't appear to even have a bike but want
to railroad any new group that might exclude them for being the spouters
of the products of colonic irrigation. It's the sanctimonius cries of
those who are seeing thier only pleasure in life apparently being taken
away from them.
Guy has a habit of replying to the trolls and they love it - then they
use it to complain that he's having a pop back - one reply was along the
lines of 'You're a christian, why don't you just turn the other cheek?'
But they forget the story of the temple getting cleared of scum.
I am also reminded of a couple of lines by Gordon Sumner:
"I cannot turn the other cheek,
It's black and blue as well"
Guy is (to his own admission) guilty of replying and troll-baiting but
it's the serial shit-stirrers who are crying wolf, feigning hurt and
surprise that their words of wisdom are re-labelled as 'absolute bottom
water of the first degree' (S.Fry)
Nuxx Bar
> In
> MsgID<dc84f2f7-7fa5-458a-bb80-97b7ca180...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
I know. But it's not really surprising, when you consider his
willingness to believe in things because he wants to, despite a
complete lack of evidence.
Nuxx Bar
wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:02:46 +0100, Dave J. <requ...@freeuk.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Yikes! He's god-squad? Talk about icing on cake.
>
> Oh let's not stop there, according to Nuxx I am a murderer.
Ah. Your standard reply whenever someone agrees with me about you in
any way. "But he called me a murderer, therefore everything else he
said about me is invalid as well (even though he's actually
demonstrated why I'm a murderer: because I have been responsible for
the implementation of anti-motorist measures in the full knowledge
that they kill thousands of people)."
> He's phoned me up to ensure I don't miss the message
Here we go again. Where's your "evidence"? Funny how you won't show
it to anyone outside the clique.
aard...@the.zoo
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:02:46 +0100, Dave J. <req...@freeuk.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Yikes! He's god-squad? Talk about icing on cake.
>
>Oh let's not stop there, according to Nuxx I am a murderer. He's
>phoned me up to ensure I don't miss the message through killfiling him
>and the numerous nyms he's used.
>
Try and stop trolling Guy - it makes you look a bit hypocritical when
you accuse others of doing it.
jms
wrote:
>In
That is exactly the reason he will not answer the question "Did you
make the first Lou Knee post" - as he knows that God will strike him
down with lightening.
He must assume that God thought it was OK for him to nym-shift to Lou
Knee - just so he could call someone "a shit"?
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:02:46 +0100, Dave J. <req...@freeuk.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Yikes! He's god-squad? Talk about icing on cake.
>
>Oh let's not stop there, according to Nuxx I am a murderer. He's
>phoned me up to ensure I don't miss the message through killfiling him
>and the numerous nyms he's used.
>
>Guy
You should not make accusations like that with no evidence - people
may think that you are despicable.
Marc
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:02:46 +0100, Dave J. <req...@freeuk.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In
>> MsgID<dc84f2f7-7fa5-458a...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
>> on Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:25:21 -0700 (PDT), in uk.net.news.config, 'Nuxx
>> Bar' wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 30, 5:58 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>> <GUY.CHAP...@SPAMCOP.NET> wrote:
>>>> I am pretty sure that I also have evidence of Nuxx being TOSd,
>>> Funny that, since it doesn't happen. What is this "evidence"? There
>>> isn't any, is there? You just made it up, and said "pretty sure" so
>>> that your precious "God" doesn't strike you down for lying (even
>>> though it is still a lie).
>> Yikes! He's god-squad? Talk about icing on cake.
>>
>> Dave J.
>
>
> That is exactly the reason he will not answer the question "Did you
> make the first Lou Knee post" - as he knows that God will strike him
> down with lightening.
I could do with being struck by some lightening!
Just zis Guy, you know?
<initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>I could do with being struck by some lightening!
I think judith could do with being struck by some /en/lightening. The
people who believe in instant divine retribution are Fundamental
Baptists I think but I could be wrong about that. Yer Fred Phelps,
for example.
Eddie Izzard was on the box last night taking the piss out of us
Anglicans, and it was hilarious. His Anglican Inquisition - "Death or
cake?" Priceless!
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip religious bits>
>Guy
Talking about religion - as a Christian, if someone asked you a
question - let's say it was "Did you make the first Lou Knee post?" -
would you be allowed to say "no" if you in fact had made the post.
In this hypothetical situation - would you just not have to answer
the question rather than lie?
Would God be happy with that?
jms
>Dave J. wrote:
>> In
>> MsgID<dc84f2f7-7fa5-458a...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
>> on Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:25:21 -0700 (PDT), in uk.net.news.config, 'Nuxx
>> Bar' wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 30, 5:58 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>> <GUY.CHAP...@SPAMCOP.NET> wrote:
>>>> I am pretty sure that I also have evidence of Nuxx being TOSd,
>>> Funny that, since it doesn't happen. What is this "evidence"? There
>>> isn't any, is there? You just made it up, and said "pretty sure" so
>>> that your precious "God" doesn't strike you down for lying (even
>>> though it is still a lie).
>>
>> Yikes! He's god-squad? Talk about icing on cake.
>>
>> Dave J.
>
>
>The most interesting part of this is that the 'god will strike you down
>if you lie' is a common jms jibe.
Sorry sunshine - being a Christian is something that Chapman has
insisted on sharing with us.
No-one asked him his religion - he just told us - because he is proud
of it.
In exactly the same way he has told us he is a thought-leader in
various systems as far as major suppliers are concerned.
No-one asked him - he thought we wanted to know; we didn't.
If he refuses to answer a very specific but innocuous question -
because he would have to admit to lying - then that is a valid reason
to comment on (question?) his commitment to his religion.
If he wants to play games with me - he plays to my rules.
Nuxx Bar
wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:36:59 +0100, Marc
>
> >I could do with being struck by some lightening!
>
> I think judith could do with being struck by some /en/lightening. The
> people who believe in instant divine retribution are Fundamental
> Baptists I think but I could be wrong about that. Yer Fred Phelps,
> for example.
In that case, why won't you answer the question? Did you make the
first Lou Knee post?
Keitht
>
> You should not make accusations like that with no evidence - people
> may think that you are despicable.
>
Oh, we've done the 'Duck Dodgers of the 21st Century' already
Keitht
>
> I could do with being struck by some lightening!
Newsflash --
Cyclist run over/mown down in prime/removed from our tarmac by Tippex truck.