Table.
Marc
in another place, but I think I might have noticed an anomaly.
I posted an absolutely hilarious quip about MattB when I said "too many
words..." It was sidesplittingly funny and worthy of Oscar Wilde at his
best, and it was accepted! Showing that the moderators are men ( all
men, odd?) of great taste and discretion.
Flushed with my success, I used the same line (That sort of thing worked
for Bernard Manning for decades) again about 33.3, but it was rejected
for being "inflammatory" showing that either the moderators are men( No
women, odd?) with no taste whatsoever, or that they have different
standards depending on what sort of Troll is continuing to rattle on
without evidence, not listening to others, whilst stating that they (
and only they) have THE answer.
Ian Jackson
Marc <initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>I never did get to find out where I was on the table of rejected posters
>in another place, but I think I might have noticed an anomaly.
There will always be anomalies, unfortunately. But urc isn't the
right place to discuss them. I have crossposted to unnm and set
followups.
>Flushed with my success, I used the same line (That sort of thing worked
>for Bernard Manning for decades) again about 33.3, but it was rejected
Along these lines, we'll see whether the moderators approve my own
joke in response to 36's exciting and novel views about chain
maintenance.
--
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
Marc
> In article <StCdnUggS5nrNpTW...@bt.com>,
> Marc <initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>> I never did get to find out where I was on the table of rejected posters
>> in another place, but I think I might have noticed an anomaly.
>
> There will always be anomalies, unfortunately. But urc isn't the
> right place to discuss them.
are cyclists, URCM is a cycling NG , URC is a NG where cyclists discuss
things of interest to cyclists, URCM is of interest to me, I'm a
cyclist, and we are back to the start.
I have crossposted to unnm and set
> followups.
And I have changed them back, I don't subscribe to unnm, and I think
it's arrogant in the extreme to alter the followup in that way. URCM is
your bailiwick , you set it up so that you could set the rules. This is
a different place, it doesn't play to your rules.
>
>> Flushed with my success, I used the same line (That sort of thing worked
>> for Bernard Manning for decades) again about 33.3, but it was rejected
>
> Along these lines, we'll see whether the moderators approve my own
> joke in response to 36's exciting and novel views about chain
> maintenance.
To be honest, now that I have stopped reading his bullshit in URCM I
find him hilarious, what's less so is the fact that he's allowed to
perpetuate the bullshit, that isn't behaviour that you would accept from
the other trolls ( making assertions without basis, demanding evidence
from other whilst not providing himself) and I'm amazed that you have
let him get away with it for so long.
Happi Monday
> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In article <StCdnUggS5nrNpTW...@bt.com>,
>> Marc <initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>>> I never did get to find out where I was on the table of rejected
>>> posters in another place, but I think I might have noticed an anomaly.
>>
>> There will always be anomalies, unfortunately. But urc isn't the
>> right place to discuss them.
> I disagree, I'm a cyclist, you're a cyclist, the moderators of URCM are
> cyclists, URCM is a cycling NG , URC is a NG where cyclists discuss
> things of interest to cyclists, URCM is of interest to me, I'm a
> cyclist, and we are back to the start.
I say it's got fuck all to do with URC.
Marc
Happi Monday
Including you, by the look of it :-)
Keitht
Which is why our resident sub-bridge resident is encouraging others go
and have a look at a non-event.
--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle