info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: MFJ Antennae analysers? VNWA?
10 views
Skip to first unread message
gareth
Dec 27, 2015, 5:27:46 PM12/27/15
to
Once again, someone has taken verbatim something that I poster to URA anddid
not
post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
I hereby formally warn the moderators that if they continue to conspire with
the miscreant
to post forgeries purporting to have come from me, then I will seek
the full force of the criminal law against them. The moderators need to be
aware that it is them, and no-one else
who is injecting the forgery into UKRAM.
The moderators will have sufficient information in the original post to
track down
the miscreant. I strongly suggest to them that they do so.
"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:n5m0pu$nt$1...@dont-email.me...
> Anyone have an inkling of what you get for your £350-odd?
>
> Is it a simple matter of a VFO together with a VSWR bridge
> to assess the difference between the forward and reverse waves?
>
> Despite its high price and snazzy interface, does it provide any more
> useful information then the tried-and-trusted (transistorised!) GDO?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Also, is the DG8SAQ VNWA pretty much the same principle, or will it also
> assess transfer functions?
>
> These questions are raised by the possibility of resurrecting a project
> with
> a former colleague from uni 43 years ago, now that we are both retired,
> although it will be dismissed cynically as vapourware by some nasty
> individual,
> to produce a speccy covering up to 10GHz together with tracking genny
> but based aroind COTS components that feature more and more
> in domestic white goods.
>
> As I said, at the moment, it's just a feasibility investigation, but the
> target is
> to equal the persformance of HP, Agilent, and R&S instruments of, say, 20
> years
> ago, but coming in at of the order of £200.
>
> Obviously, all the intelligence will be based around the ubiquitous PC
> (which
> will have a hidden cost of £200+ extra), so all that needs to be
> considered in reality
> is the signal paths.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
not
post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
I hereby formally warn the moderators that if they continue to conspire with
the miscreant
to post forgeries purporting to have come from me, then I will seek
the full force of the criminal law against them. The moderators need to be
aware that it is them, and no-one else
who is injecting the forgery into UKRAM.
The moderators will have sufficient information in the original post to
track down
the miscreant. I strongly suggest to them that they do so.
"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:n5m0pu$nt$1...@dont-email.me...
> Anyone have an inkling of what you get for your £350-odd?
>
> Is it a simple matter of a VFO together with a VSWR bridge
> to assess the difference between the forward and reverse waves?
>
> Despite its high price and snazzy interface, does it provide any more
> useful information then the tried-and-trusted (transistorised!) GDO?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Also, is the DG8SAQ VNWA pretty much the same principle, or will it also
> assess transfer functions?
>
> These questions are raised by the possibility of resurrecting a project
> with
> a former colleague from uni 43 years ago, now that we are both retired,
> although it will be dismissed cynically as vapourware by some nasty
> individual,
> to produce a speccy covering up to 10GHz together with tracking genny
> but based aroind COTS components that feature more and more
> in domestic white goods.
>
> As I said, at the moment, it's just a feasibility investigation, but the
> target is
> to equal the persformance of HP, Agilent, and R&S instruments of, say, 20
> years
> ago, but coming in at of the order of £200.
>
> Obviously, all the intelligence will be based around the ubiquitous PC
> (which
> will have a hidden cost of £200+ extra), so all that needs to be
> considered in reality
> is the signal paths.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Brian Reay
Dec 27, 2015, 5:34:29 PM12/27/15
to
On 27/12/2015 22:27, gareth wrote:
> Once again, someone has taken verbatim something that I poster to URA anddid
> not
> post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
>
> I hereby formally warn the moderators that if they continue to conspire with
> the miscreant
> to post forgeries purporting to have come from me, then I will seek
> the full force of the criminal law against them. The moderators need to be
> aware that it is them, and no-one else
> who is injecting the forgery into UKRAM.
>
> The moderators will have sufficient information in the original post to
> track down
> the miscreant. I strongly suggest to them that they do so.
All we need, another idiot making empty threats.
> Once again, someone has taken verbatim something that I poster to URA anddid
> not
> post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
>
> I hereby formally warn the moderators that if they continue to conspire with
> the miscreant
> to post forgeries purporting to have come from me, then I will seek
> the full force of the criminal law against them. The moderators need to be
> aware that it is them, and no-one else
> who is injecting the forgery into UKRAM.
>
> The moderators will have sufficient information in the original post to
> track down
> the miscreant. I strongly suggest to them that they do so.
Evans, Cummins has snatched the 'empty threat' hat.
Bernie
Dec 27, 2015, 5:49:34 PM12/27/15
to
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 22:27:41 -0000
"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> Once again, someone has taken verbatim something that I poster to URA
> anddid not
> post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
What?
"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> Once again, someone has taken verbatim something that I poster to URA
> anddid not
> post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI
Dec 27, 2015, 6:30:54 PM12/27/15
to
"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:n5pog6$dsj$1...@dont-email.me...
> Once again, someone has taken verbatim something that I poster to URA and
> did not post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
>
> I hereby formally warn the moderators that if they continue to conspire
> with the miscreant
> to post forgeries purporting to have come from me, then I will seek
> the full force of the criminal law against them. The moderators need to be
> aware that it is them, and no-one else
> who is injecting the forgery into UKRAM.
>
> The moderators will have sufficient information in the original post to
> track down the miscreant. I strongly suggest to them that they do so.
>
>
Cor! I bet that scared them, ... NOT
> did not post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
>
> I hereby formally warn the moderators that if they continue to conspire
> with the miscreant
> to post forgeries purporting to have come from me, then I will seek
> the full force of the criminal law against them. The moderators need to be
> aware that it is them, and no-one else
> who is injecting the forgery into UKRAM.
>
> The moderators will have sufficient information in the original post to
> track down the miscreant. I strongly suggest to them that they do so.
>
>
--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.uk
Jim GM4DHJ ...
Dec 28, 2015, 2:59:19 AM12/28/15
to
"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message
> Once again, someone has taken verbatim something that I poster to URA
> anddid not
> post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
>
> I hereby formally warn the moderators that if they continue to conspire
> with the miscreant
> to post forgeries purporting to have come from me, then I will seek
> the full force of the criminal law against them. The moderators need to be
> aware that it is them, and no-one else
> who is injecting the forgery into UKRAM.
>
> The moderators will have sufficient information in the original post to
> track down
> the miscreant. I strongly suggest to them that they do so.
>
>
you go for it Gareth ...stick it to the bastards ...
> anddid not
> post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
>
> I hereby formally warn the moderators that if they continue to conspire
> with the miscreant
> to post forgeries purporting to have come from me, then I will seek
> the full force of the criminal law against them. The moderators need to be
> aware that it is them, and no-one else
> who is injecting the forgery into UKRAM.
>
> The moderators will have sufficient information in the original post to
> track down
> the miscreant. I strongly suggest to them that they do so.
>
>
Jim GM4DHJ ...
Dec 28, 2015, 3:48:06 AM12/28/15
to
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:qZ5gy.211475$J75.1...@fx36.am4...
Mike Fleming
Dec 28, 2015, 4:36:51 AM12/28/15
to
In article <n5pog6$dsj$1...@dont-email.me>, "gareth"
complaints to them about your malicious cross-posts to unnc as anybody
will of your fucking whinging. Get out of unnc, you useless cunt.
FU set.
--
Mike Fleming
<no....@thank.you.invalid> writes:
> Once again, someone has taken verbatim something that I poster to URA anddid
> not
> post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
>
> I hereby formally warn the moderators that if they continue to conspire with
> the miscreant
> to post forgeries purporting to have come from me, then I will seek
> the full force of the criminal law against them. The moderators need to be
> aware that it is them, and no-one else
> who is injecting the forgery into UKRAM.
>
> The moderators will have sufficient information in the original post to
> track down
> the miscreant. I strongly suggest to them that they do so.
It's a shame that Eternal-September are taking as much notice of my
> Once again, someone has taken verbatim something that I poster to URA anddid
> not
> post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
>
> I hereby formally warn the moderators that if they continue to conspire with
> the miscreant
> to post forgeries purporting to have come from me, then I will seek
> the full force of the criminal law against them. The moderators need to be
> aware that it is them, and no-one else
> who is injecting the forgery into UKRAM.
>
> The moderators will have sufficient information in the original post to
> track down
> the miscreant. I strongly suggest to them that they do so.
complaints to them about your malicious cross-posts to unnc as anybody
will of your fucking whinging. Get out of unnc, you useless cunt.
FU set.
--
Mike Fleming
Paul Cummins
Dec 28, 2015, 7:42:01 AM12/28/15
to
In article <n5q27m$d9n$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
> It is almost as laughable as a Cummins' claim that legal action is
> in hand.
How could you possibly know whether it is or it isn't?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
> It is almost as laughable as a Cummins' claim that legal action is
> in hand.
How could you possibly know whether it is or it isn't?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
Brian Reay
Dec 28, 2015, 7:53:17 AM12/28/15
to
Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <n5q27m$d9n$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
>> It is almost as laughable as a Cummins' claim that legal action is
>> in hand.
>
> How could you possibly know whether it is or it isn't?
>
Well, even if I was to ignore the empty threats stretching back years,
> In article <n5q27m$d9n$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
>> It is almost as laughable as a Cummins' claim that legal action is
>> in hand.
>
> How could you possibly know whether it is or it isn't?
>
there are other ways.
Dec 15, what a shame, Dec 16 is only a year away. Bad news for some poor
dog I expect.
Judith
Dec 28, 2015, 8:00:42 AM12/28/15
to
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 01:11:18 -0000 (UTC), Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI <g3...@turner-smith.uK> wrote:
>> "gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:n5pog6$dsj$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Once again, someone has taken verbatim something that I poster to URA and
>>> did not post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
>>>
>>> I hereby formally warn the moderators that if they continue to conspire
>>> with the miscreant
>>> to post forgeries purporting to have come from me, then I will seek
>>> the full force of the criminal law against them. The moderators need to be
>>> aware that it is them, and no-one else
>>> who is injecting the forgery into UKRAM.
>>>
>>> The moderators will have sufficient information in the original post to
>>> track down the miscreant. I strongly suggest to them that they do so.
>>>
>>>
>> Cor! I bet that scared them, ... NOT
>
>
>
>Still, nearly the end of 2015, so then end of 2016 is only just over 12
>months away. Bad news for some poor dog I expect.
>
>
Does the poor dog have a name?
>FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI <g3...@turner-smith.uK> wrote:
>> "gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:n5pog6$dsj$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Once again, someone has taken verbatim something that I poster to URA and
>>> did not post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
>>>
>>> I hereby formally warn the moderators that if they continue to conspire
>>> with the miscreant
>>> to post forgeries purporting to have come from me, then I will seek
>>> the full force of the criminal law against them. The moderators need to be
>>> aware that it is them, and no-one else
>>> who is injecting the forgery into UKRAM.
>>>
>>> The moderators will have sufficient information in the original post to
>>> track down the miscreant. I strongly suggest to them that they do so.
>>>
>>>
>> Cor! I bet that scared them, ... NOT
>
>It is almost as laughable as a Cummins' claim that legal action is in hand.
>
>
>The pair should threaten each other and see who gets tired first.
>
>
>
>
>Still, nearly the end of 2015, so then end of 2016 is only just over 12
>months away. Bad news for some poor dog I expect.
>
>
Does the poor dog have a name?
Fred Roberts
Dec 28, 2015, 8:05:15 AM12/28/15
to
On 28/12/2015 13:00, Judith wrote:
>> Still, nearly the end of 2015, so then end of 2016 is only just
>> over 12 months away. Bad news for some poor dog I expect.
>>
>>
>
>
> Does the poor dog have a name?
Mrs Reay?
>> Still, nearly the end of 2015, so then end of 2016 is only just
>> over 12 months away. Bad news for some poor dog I expect.
>>
>>
>
>
> Does the poor dog have a name?
--
Extend twats law - make 'em wear a cheat sheet 24/7
Paul Cummins
Dec 28, 2015, 9:34:18 AM12/28/15
to
In article <n5rb70$nfo$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
> Dec 15, what a shame, Dec 16 is only a year away. Bad news for some
> poor dog I expect.
I think you should stop recycling your toilet paper.
> Dec 15, what a shame, Dec 16 is only a year away. Bad news for some
> poor dog I expect.
Brian Howie
Dec 28, 2015, 9:39:44 AM12/28/15
to
In message <n5pog6$dsj$1...@dont-email.me>, gareth
<no....@thank.you.invalid> writes
I refer you to our posting of the 17th December.
The policy is to accept all postings on content only. If a forger
creates a perfectly acceptable posting, which spawns a sensible
discussion, there is no problem.
A blacklist is impossible to implement, as is deciding who originated a
particular post if they choose to hide their identity.
If you spot any other forgeries, again our advice is just to ignore
them.
"Do not feed the trolls"
Regards
Brian Howie
obo uram moderation team
--
Brian Howie
<no....@thank.you.invalid> writes
>Once again, someone has taken verbatim something that I poster to URA anddid
>not
>post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
>
>I hereby formally warn the moderators that if they continue to conspire with
>the miscreant
>to post forgeries purporting to have come from me, then I will seek
>the full force of the criminal law against them. The moderators need to be
>aware that it is them, and no-one else
>who is injecting the forgery into UKRAM.
>
>The moderators will have sufficient information in the original post to
>track down
>the miscreant. I strongly suggest to them that they do so.
>
Gareth,
>not
>post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
>
>I hereby formally warn the moderators that if they continue to conspire with
>the miscreant
>to post forgeries purporting to have come from me, then I will seek
>the full force of the criminal law against them. The moderators need to be
>aware that it is them, and no-one else
>who is injecting the forgery into UKRAM.
>
>The moderators will have sufficient information in the original post to
>track down
>the miscreant. I strongly suggest to them that they do so.
>
I refer you to our posting of the 17th December.
The policy is to accept all postings on content only. If a forger
creates a perfectly acceptable posting, which spawns a sensible
discussion, there is no problem.
A blacklist is impossible to implement, as is deciding who originated a
particular post if they choose to hide their identity.
If you spot any other forgeries, again our advice is just to ignore
them.
"Do not feed the trolls"
Regards
Brian Howie
obo uram moderation team
--
Brian Howie
Brian Reay
Dec 28, 2015, 9:59:23 AM12/28/15
to
featured in two, supposedly, unconnected instances where the owners had the
same name.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Dec 28, 2015, 10:07:49 AM12/28/15
to
Gareth needs to pay close attention to this particular point. Going into
meltdown and ludicrously threatening criminal sanctions will not encourage
the anonymous and untraceable troll to quit forging him. Quite the
opposite.
--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur
meltdown and ludicrously threatening criminal sanctions will not encourage
the anonymous and untraceable troll to quit forging him. Quite the
opposite.
--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur
A. non Eyemouse
Dec 28, 2015, 10:14:59 AM12/28/15
to
On 28/12/2015 15:05, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> Brian Howie <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Do not feed the trolls"
>>
>
> Gareth needs to pay close attention to this particular point. Going into
> meltdown and ludicrously threatening criminal sanctions will not encourage
> the anonymous and untraceable troll to quit forging him. Quite the
> opposite.
>
He's not the only one being forged. My news provider doesn't carry the
> Brian Howie <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Do not feed the trolls"
>>
>
> Gareth needs to pay close attention to this particular point. Going into
> meltdown and ludicrously threatening criminal sanctions will not encourage
> the anonymous and untraceable troll to quit forging him. Quite the
> opposite.
>
group yet my reply to the SDR dongle thread appeared there and
conversely, David Taylor's response got re-posted over in uk.r.a.
--
Mouse.
Where Morse meets House.
Paul Cummins
Dec 28, 2015, 10:16:46 AM12/28/15
to
In article <n5rijd$j9d$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
> Strangely, if you look up the most common dog's name it isn't the
> one which featured in two, supposedly, unconnected instances where the
> owners had the same name.
Strangely, if you look up the article Reay is alluding to, it refers to
> Strangely, if you look up the most common dog's name it isn't the
> one which featured in two, supposedly, unconnected instances where the
> owners had the same name.
an address I don't live at.
It also states the guy appeared in court on a day I was provably in work,
in a different part of the country.
Reay, as usual, demonstrates why he was dismissed as a maths teacher,
since he thinks 2+2= 17 googolplex.
He also seems to think I lived in Basingstoke until 2015, and then moved
to Wolverhampton. He claims to know the addresses I lived at in 2007,
2009, 2010 and 2011. He doesn't and I haven't lived anywhere in West
Midlands since 1990. Nor do I intend to move there anytime soon.
c...@post.netunix.com
Dec 28, 2015, 10:18:52 AM12/28/15
to
In uk.net.news.config Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
> Brian Howie <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Do not feed the trolls"
>
> Gareth needs to pay close attention to this particular point. Going into
> meltdown and ludicrously threatening criminal sanctions will not encourage
> the anonymous and untraceable troll to quit forging him. Quite the
> opposite.
The troll is most likely one of his own sock puppets.
> Brian Howie <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Do not feed the trolls"
>
> Gareth needs to pay close attention to this particular point. Going into
> meltdown and ludicrously threatening criminal sanctions will not encourage
> the anonymous and untraceable troll to quit forging him. Quite the
> opposite.
Alvin Fenton
Dec 28, 2015, 10:26:58 AM12/28/15
to
And have you given up with trn4?
Stephen Thomas Cole
Dec 28, 2015, 10:43:58 AM12/28/15
to
Sn!pe <sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>
>> Brian Howie <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Do not feed the trolls"
>>>
>>
>> Gareth needs to pay close attention to this particular point. Going into
>> meltdown and ludicrously threatening criminal sanctions will not encourage
>> the anonymous and untraceable troll to quit forging him. Quite the
>> opposite.
>>
>
> Untraceable? I think not.
> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>
>> Brian Howie <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Do not feed the trolls"
>>>
>>
>> Gareth needs to pay close attention to this particular point. Going into
>> meltdown and ludicrously threatening criminal sanctions will not encourage
>> the anonymous and untraceable troll to quit forging him. Quite the
>> opposite.
>>
>
If you can help Gareth identify his imposter, I'm sure he would be very
grateful.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Dec 28, 2015, 10:43:58 AM12/28/15
to
Stephen Thomas Cole
Dec 28, 2015, 10:43:58 AM12/28/15
to
splattered across several groups, and all these follow-ups is going to be a
rich reward for his efforts.
Brian Reay
Dec 28, 2015, 10:51:12 AM12/28/15
to
On 28/12/15 15:05, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> Brian Howie <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Do not feed the trolls"
>>
>
> Gareth needs to pay close attention to this particular point. Going into
> meltdown and ludicrously threatening criminal sanctions will not encourage
> the anonymous and untraceable troll to quit forging him. Quite the
> opposite.
>
But it is entertaining. Just as it is entertaining watching Cummins
> Brian Howie <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Do not feed the trolls"
>>
>
> Gareth needs to pay close attention to this particular point. Going into
> meltdown and ludicrously threatening criminal sanctions will not encourage
> the anonymous and untraceable troll to quit forging him. Quite the
> opposite.
>
weave another tissue of lies.
--
Why you should not ignore animal neglect and cruelty:
http://www.caar-uk.org/why.html
Fred Roberts
Dec 28, 2015, 10:56:16 AM12/28/15
to
On 28/12/2015 15:14, A. non Eyemouse wrote:
> He's not the only one being forged. My news provider doesn't carry
> the group yet my reply to the SDR dongle thread appeared there and
> conversely, David Taylor's response got re-posted over in uk.r.a.
Obviously Sideband is desperate for traffic, any traffic on his new group.
> He's not the only one being forged. My news provider doesn't carry
> the group yet my reply to the SDR dongle thread appeared there and
> conversely, David Taylor's response got re-posted over in uk.r.a.
gareth
Dec 28, 2015, 10:56:51 AM12/28/15
to
"Brian Howie" <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:w403B0VW...@b-howie.demon.co.uk...
Very well, if the situation continues and it becomes necessary to involve
the police, I will
present yout post above as your intention to continue to post forgeries in
conspiration
with the original miscreant.
Moderation teams are not above the law.
news:w403B0VW...@b-howie.demon.co.uk...
the police, I will
present yout post above as your intention to continue to post forgeries in
conspiration
with the original miscreant.
Moderation teams are not above the law.
Alvin Fenton
Dec 28, 2015, 11:56:58 AM12/28/15
to
In article <n5rope$bei$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>I'm sure the local police will be delighted to see you, yet again, with yet
>another bogus complaint. Just think, when they ignore it, you can complain,
>yet again.
To save valuable police resources I think he should ask for advice in
uk.legal.moderated.
>another bogus complaint. Just think, when they ignore it, you can complain,
>yet again.
To save valuable police resources I think he should ask for advice in
uk.legal.moderated.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Dec 28, 2015, 12:23:23 PM12/28/15
to
prosecuted in relation to?
Jimbo in the Borders ...
Dec 28, 2015, 12:47:15 PM12/28/15
to
Jimbo in the Borders ...
Dec 28, 2015, 1:14:28 PM12/28/15
to
"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:n5rsiv$qgp$2...@dont-email.me...
> including looking for advice on imaginary cases.
>
>
>
get judge judy or judge rinder ....
Spike
Dec 28, 2015, 1:59:08 PM12/28/15
to
On 28/12/2015 14:56, Brian Reay wrote:
> Strangely, if you look up the most common dog's name it isn't the one which
> featured in two, supposedly, unconnected instances where the owners had the
> same name.
So what? It's merely an example of the Birthday Paradox.
> Strangely, if you look up the most common dog's name it isn't the one which
> featured in two, supposedly, unconnected instances where the owners had the
> same name.
--
Spike
"They thought that because they had power, they had wisdom"
- with apologies to Stephen Vincent Benet
mm0fmf
Dec 28, 2015, 2:59:50 PM12/28/15
to
gareth
Dec 28, 2015, 3:13:35 PM12/28/15
to
"Chronos" <use...@chronos.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20151228194...@chronos.eternal-september.org...
> If someone is
> forging someone's identity, that is a matter for those two people and
> their relevant NSPs.
You might wish it so, but once the moderators have been warned
of the forgeries, should they then continue to post them, then under
criminal law, they are jointly and severably liable.
news:20151228194...@chronos.eternal-september.org...
> If someone is
> forging someone's identity, that is a matter for those two people and
> their relevant NSPs.
You might wish it so, but once the moderators have been warned
of the forgeries, should they then continue to post them, then under
criminal law, they are jointly and severably liable.
gareth
Dec 28, 2015, 3:14:41 PM12/28/15
to
"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:n5s50i$soj$1...@dont-email.me...
Rambo
Dec 28, 2015, 4:04:21 PM12/28/15
to
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Brian Reay <no...@m.com>
Oh dear Brian..you need a social life.
FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI
Dec 28, 2015, 6:17:29 PM12/28/15
to
"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:n5rsiu$qgp$1...@dont-email.me...
> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>> "gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Brian Howie" <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:w403B0VW...@b-howie.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <n5pog6$dsj$1...@dont-email.me>, gareth
>>>> <no....@thank.you.invalid> writes
>>>>> Once again, someone has taken verbatim something that I poster to URA
>>>>> and did not
>>> "Brian Howie" <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:w403B0VW...@b-howie.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <n5pog6$dsj$1...@dont-email.me>, gareth
>>>> <no....@thank.you.invalid> writes
>>>>> Once again, someone has taken verbatim something that I poster to URA
>
>
What became of his £350 law book? Did he have to sell it to pay his last lot
of legal costs?
--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.uk
FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI
Dec 28, 2015, 6:19:27 PM12/28/15
to
"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:n5rlv6$a0$1...@dont-email.me...
> Very well, if the situation continues and it becomes necessary to involve
> the police, I will
> present yout post above as your intention to continue to post forgeries in
> conspiration
Eh? I thought the word was "conspiracy"
> the police, I will
> present yout post above as your intention to continue to post forgeries in
> conspiration
> with the original miscreant.
>
> Moderation teams are not above the law.
>
>
Paul Cummins
Dec 28, 2015, 9:57:00 PM12/28/15
to
In article <n5sl7s$qba$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
> Students on
> PROPER courses are issued with an update to date set, several are
> of no
> real value a year later, unless you have a very wobbly table.
Proof, if it was ever needed, that Reay knows nothing about higher
education.
Students in PROPER courses have to buy their own books, and are told,
regularly, that they do not need to spend £3-400 on the latest edition of
the White Book, as the course isn't up-to-date enough to cover, for
example, Cavendish Holdings v Makdessi.
> Students on
> PROPER courses are issued with an update to date set, several are
> of no
> real value a year later, unless you have a very wobbly table.
Proof, if it was ever needed, that Reay knows nothing about higher
education.
Students in PROPER courses have to buy their own books, and are told,
regularly, that they do not need to spend £3-400 on the latest edition of
the White Book, as the course isn't up-to-date enough to cover, for
example, Cavendish Holdings v Makdessi.
Judith
Dec 29, 2015, 3:39:11 AM12/29/15
to
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:39:18 +0000, Brian Howie <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>A blacklist is impossible to implement
How come URCM operate one?
wrote:
<snip>
>A blacklist is impossible to implement
Jimbo in the Borders ...
Dec 29, 2015, 4:59:49 AM12/29/15
to
> That video is interesting. It is good to see the Supreme Court came down
> against the free loading driver misguided and the misguided supporters who
> advised him. I hope it cost him and them a lot of money. Even better if it
> leads to the closing down of the shady companies who offer legal advice
> etc. to drivers who think they can park anywhere.
>
I have still not paid my parking fine for thr Govan centre...tee hee
Stephen Thomas Cole
Dec 29, 2015, 5:47:20 AM12/29/15
to
fuckwit. The King Of Fuckwits, in fact.
Paul Cummins
Dec 29, 2015, 5:54:17 AM12/29/15
to
In article <n5tius$2cn$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
> Oh dear, how wrong you are. Not only are the books supplied,
> sometimes even
> a wheelie suitcase to move them- at least in the top law schools.
Really? Well, the College of Law - number 1 in the country, certainly
doesn't.
Nor does UCL, Manchester, or indeed any of your favoured Russell Group.
> Even better if it
> leads to the closing down of the shady companies who offer legal
> advice
> etc.
I believe you'll find the final "shady" company closed down on 18
December.
> Oh dear, how wrong you are. Not only are the books supplied,
> sometimes even
> a wheelie suitcase to move them- at least in the top law schools.
Really? Well, the College of Law - number 1 in the country, certainly
doesn't.
Nor does UCL, Manchester, or indeed any of your favoured Russell Group.
> Even better if it
> leads to the closing down of the shady companies who offer legal
> advice
> etc.
December.
Paul Cummins
Dec 29, 2015, 5:54:17 AM12/29/15
to
In article <n5tmbv$cov$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
> What a pity they don't tow vehicles off drives of non-payers and
> crush them
> if they don't cough up after 48 hrs.
That would be illegal, but then you know this, as a polymath.
> What a pity they don't tow vehicles off drives of non-payers and
> crush them
> if they don't cough up after 48 hrs.
That would be illegal, but then you know this, as a polymath.
Clive George
Dec 29, 2015, 6:41:16 AM12/29/15
to
On 29/12/2015 10:54, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <n5tius$2cn$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
>> Oh dear, how wrong you are. Not only are the books supplied,
>> sometimes even
>> a wheelie suitcase to move them- at least in the top law schools.
>
> Really? Well, the College of Law - number 1 in the country, certainly
> doesn't.
>
> Nor does UCL, Manchester, or indeed any of your favoured Russell Group.
I don't remember Cambridge law students getting free books either. They
> In article <n5tius$2cn$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
>> Oh dear, how wrong you are. Not only are the books supplied,
>> sometimes even
>> a wheelie suitcase to move them- at least in the top law schools.
>
> Really? Well, the College of Law - number 1 in the country, certainly
> doesn't.
>
> Nor does UCL, Manchester, or indeed any of your favoured Russell Group.
were available in the library.
Jimbo in the Borders ...
Dec 29, 2015, 6:42:26 AM12/29/15
to
news:n5tmbv$cov$1...@dont-email.me...
> would still owe the towing fee etc. Next, go for the house.
>
they wouldn't be that stupid for a 17 minute overstay in a two hour free
shopping centre car park...just as well I'm not a doddering old fogy who
would have paid up when they got all the threatening letters...tee hee
europark a bunch of fly men ...
> What a pity they don't tow vehicles off drives of non-payers and crush
> them
> if they don't cough up after 48 hrs. That wouldn't clear the debt, they
> them
> would still owe the towing fee etc. Next, go for the house.
>
they wouldn't be that stupid for a 17 minute overstay in a two hour free
shopping centre car park...just as well I'm not a doddering old fogy who
would have paid up when they got all the threatening letters...tee hee
europark a bunch of fly men ...
Spike
Dec 29, 2015, 7:00:39 AM12/29/15
to
On 29/12/2015 11:33, Brian Reay wrote:
> He just ignores minor details like names,
> dates, places, etc. and cooks up some charade which doesn't fit the facts
> and he changes later.
You could always publish those facts. If you know what they were, of course.
> No wonder he wets himself.
Now that really is a stroke of bad luck.
> He just ignores minor details like names,
> dates, places, etc. and cooks up some charade which doesn't fit the facts
> and he changes later.
You could always publish those facts. If you know what they were, of course.
> No wonder he wets himself.
Now that really is a stroke of bad luck.
Paul Cummins
Dec 29, 2015, 7:31:01 AM12/29/15
to
In article <n5tqh9$q10$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
> That is a bold statement. So you claim there are no more shady
> companies trading at all?
>
> Have you investigated every company registered in the UK?
>
> What qualifies you to carry out such an investigation? Do you have
> any formal qualifications in Law or perhaps Accounting? In fact, any
> worthwhile formal qualifications? (Purchased degrees don't count.)
On what basis do you believe I'm required to answer any of these
question?
> That is a bold statement. So you claim there are no more shady
> companies trading at all?
>
> Have you investigated every company registered in the UK?
>
> What qualifies you to carry out such an investigation? Do you have
> any formal qualifications in Law or perhaps Accounting? In fact, any
> worthwhile formal qualifications? (Purchased degrees don't count.)
On what basis do you believe I'm required to answer any of these
question?
Jerry Stuckle
Dec 29, 2015, 8:14:34 AM12/29/15
to
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:02:31 +0000, Sn!pe wrote:
> [Subject tagged: Off Topic]
No thanks.
> Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> wrote:
>> Hey, Tweety has some mad tracking skillz that were taught to him by an
>> aboriginal tribal elder. He can navigate his way through the internets
>> using only his highly developed sense of self-importance.
>>
>>
> ------------------8<-------------------
> From: Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you>
> Newsgroups: eternal-september.support Subject: Re: Posts not getting to
> uk.radio.amateur.moderated Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 17:03:32 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID:
> <n542l3$m8n$1...@speranza.aioe.org> ----------------->8--------------------
>
> Subscribers to eternal-september.support may recognise this post.
> This forger (under several different IDs) and I have locked horns there
> and in a number of other groups on many subjects and many occasions.
I do so love your shrill alarm calls, Tweety. And they're so reliable,
too.
> Draw your own conclusions.
LOLz
> [Subject tagged: Off Topic]
No thanks.
> Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> wrote:
>> Hey, Tweety has some mad tracking skillz that were taught to him by an
>> aboriginal tribal elder. He can navigate his way through the internets
>> using only his highly developed sense of self-importance.
>>
>>
> ------------------8<-------------------
> From: Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you>
> Newsgroups: eternal-september.support Subject: Re: Posts not getting to
> uk.radio.amateur.moderated Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 17:03:32 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID:
> <n542l3$m8n$1...@speranza.aioe.org> ----------------->8--------------------
>
> Subscribers to eternal-september.support may recognise this post.
> This forger (under several different IDs) and I have locked horns there
> and in a number of other groups on many subjects and many occasions.
I do so love your shrill alarm calls, Tweety. And they're so reliable,
too.
> Draw your own conclusions.
LOLz
gareth
Dec 29, 2015, 8:25:28 AM12/29/15
to
"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:n5pog6$dsj$1...@dont-email.me...
> Once again, someone has taken verbatim something that I poster to URA
> anddid not
> post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
Some of those who have responded with somewhat spiteful and infantile
> anddid not
> post to UKRAM, into UKRAM, and purporting to have come from me.
remarks in response to this matter are perhaps themselves part of the
problem and not part of the solution, in particular those who expressed a
wish for
the moderated group in order to have a haven from rudeness; the very
rudeness
that they themselves continue to promulgate and to foment the cesspit that
they created ?
The behaviour of those sad individuals adds weight to the argument that
the case for having UKRAM has collapsed, even though it might have been
voted in.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Brian Reay
Dec 29, 2015, 8:37:17 AM12/29/15
to
The fees for the colleges I am referring to dwarf those of Universities.
Thankfully, the more able students often gain scholarships.
Brian Reay
Dec 29, 2015, 8:41:00 AM12/29/15
to
On 29/12/15 12:31, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <n5tqh9$q10$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
>> That is a bold statement. So you claim there are no more shady
>> companies trading at all?
>>
>> Have you investigated every company registered in the UK?
>>
>> What qualifies you to carry out such an investigation? Do you have
>> any formal qualifications in Law or perhaps Accounting? In fact, any
>> worthwhile formal qualifications? (Purchased degrees don't count.)
>
> On what basis do you believe I'm required to answer any of these
> question?
>
I don't expect you to, in fact I know you won't. The answers would,
> In article <n5tqh9$q10$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
>> That is a bold statement. So you claim there are no more shady
>> companies trading at all?
>>
>> Have you investigated every company registered in the UK?
>>
>> What qualifies you to carry out such an investigation? Do you have
>> any formal qualifications in Law or perhaps Accounting? In fact, any
>> worthwhile formal qualifications? (Purchased degrees don't count.)
>
> On what basis do you believe I'm required to answer any of these
> question?
>
however, be most amusing.
Paul Cummins
Dec 29, 2015, 8:49:29 AM12/29/15
to
In article <n5u2cf$ke3$2...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
> I don't expect you to, in fact I know you won't. The answers would,
> however, be most amusing.
If you believe that's the case, why don't you enlighten us all instead?
> I don't expect you to, in fact I know you won't. The answers would,
> however, be most amusing.
Tell me where I completed my articles, or just one piece of Continuing
Profession Development I have completed, for example.
Perhaps you can list my current directorships too? Or the business names
I own and/or trade under
Of course, you can't - because you don't know who I am, where I live(d),
who I work(ed) for, or indeed anything more than you already have.
And despite your numerous attempts, you haven't got anything that can't
be either found or inferred (wrongly, as maths is not your strong point)
from the public domain.
So please, do entertain us...
Judith
Dec 29, 2015, 9:16:53 AM12/29/15
to
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:24:25 -0000 (UTC), Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <n5tius$2cn$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>>
>>> Oh dear, how wrong you are. Not only are the books supplied,
>>> sometimes even
>>> a wheelie suitcase to move them- at least in the top law schools.
>>
>> Really? Well, the College of Law - number 1 in the country, certainly
>> doesn't.
>>
>> Nor does UCL, Manchester, or indeed any of your favoured Russell Group.
>
>You are referring to Universities.
>
>I wasn't. Plus, of course, you never attended University nor do you have a
>University degree, let alone several.
>
>Your knowledge of how you qualify to practice law is somewhat lacking.
What do you mean: he practices law?
>Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <n5tius$2cn$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>>
>>> Oh dear, how wrong you are. Not only are the books supplied,
>>> sometimes even
>>> a wheelie suitcase to move them- at least in the top law schools.
>>
>> Really? Well, the College of Law - number 1 in the country, certainly
>> doesn't.
>>
>> Nor does UCL, Manchester, or indeed any of your favoured Russell Group.
>
>
>I wasn't. Plus, of course, you never attended University nor do you have a
>University degree, let alone several.
>
>Your knowledge of how you qualify to practice law is somewhat lacking.
What do you mean: he practices law?
Jerry Stuckle
Dec 29, 2015, 9:44:22 AM12/29/15
to
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Brian Reay
Dec 29, 2015, 10:05:12 AM12/29/15
to
mw/3...@gggg-mail.com
Dec 29, 2015, 10:32:32 AM12/29/15
to
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:00:38 +0000, Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid>
wrote:
>[snip snip snip]
why is it that the howlers and whingers who couldnt wait to get uk.ram
created claiming personal attacks etc were ruining uk.ra got their wish
and uk.ram was created are still on uk.ra posting the usual rubbish?
if you look at the contents of recent messages - you'll see that some of
those who voted yes for moderation are still involved in posting the
type of messages that would fail the moderation test on uk.ram
so one has to ask, why were they howling and screaming for uk.ram if
theyre still on uk.ra posting the very stuff that they wished to get rid
of by creating uk.ram ?
i just hope that that those on u.n.n.c who also voted yes now realise
what really happened.
wrote:
>[snip snip snip]
why is it that the howlers and whingers who couldnt wait to get uk.ram
created claiming personal attacks etc were ruining uk.ra got their wish
and uk.ram was created are still on uk.ra posting the usual rubbish?
if you look at the contents of recent messages - you'll see that some of
those who voted yes for moderation are still involved in posting the
type of messages that would fail the moderation test on uk.ram
so one has to ask, why were they howling and screaming for uk.ram if
theyre still on uk.ra posting the very stuff that they wished to get rid
of by creating uk.ram ?
i just hope that that those on u.n.n.c who also voted yes now realise
what really happened.
Mike Fleming
Dec 29, 2015, 11:11:42 AM12/29/15
to
In article <5682a5ca....@news.albasani.net>,
take yourselves off once you achieved your hearts' desire. That was a
forlorn hope.
Now put your eight Xs over the "fuckwits" and make some whingy whiney
reply. I know you're going to do it.
--
Mike Fleming
mw/3/q...@gggg-mail.com writes:
> i just hope that that those on u.n.n.c who also voted yes now realise
> what really happened.
Some of them may have voted yes in the hope that you fuckwits would
> i just hope that that those on u.n.n.c who also voted yes now realise
> what really happened.
take yourselves off once you achieved your hearts' desire. That was a
forlorn hope.
Now put your eight Xs over the "fuckwits" and make some whingy whiney
reply. I know you're going to do it.
--
Mike Fleming
gareth
Dec 29, 2015, 11:56:44 AM12/29/15
to
gareth
Dec 29, 2015, 11:57:16 AM12/29/15
to
"Mike Fleming" <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> wrote in message
news:s0c58b1bggdg8tj4n...@4ax.com...
news:s0c58b1bggdg8tj4n...@4ax.com...
> Some of them may have voted yes in the hope that you fuckwits would
> take yourselves off once you achieved your hearts' desire. That was a
> forlorn hope.
> Now put your eight Xs over the "fuckwits" and make some whingy whiney
> reply. I know you're going to do it.
Grow up, child.
> take yourselves off once you achieved your hearts' desire. That was a
> forlorn hope.
> Now put your eight Xs over the "fuckwits" and make some whingy whiney
> reply. I know you're going to do it.
Spike
Dec 29, 2015, 12:06:49 PM12/29/15
to
On 29/12/2015 15:31, mw/3/q...@gggg-mail.com wrote:
> why is it that the howlers and whingers who couldn't wait to get uk.ram
> if you look at the contents of recent messages - you'll see that some of
> those who voted yes for moderation are still involved in posting the
> type of messages that would fail the moderation test on uk.ram
Well, that was always on the cards, wasn't it.
> So one has to ask, why were they howling and screaming for uk.ram if
> I just hope that that those on u.n.n.c who also voted yes now realise
> what really happened.
They just wanted to get the topic off their cosy little management
groups, as exemplified by someone who wailed "Some of them may have
should be surprised at how the appeasement policy has turned out.
An analysis of the first 193 postings from 43 individuals show that more
than half (102) come from six posters. In order they are Reay, Cole,
Jimbo, Howie, Stuckle, and Jackson. The most prolific day was 11 days
ago (the 19th) with 35 posts. from 14 posters.
UKRAM needs more posters and more posts. Six people aren't enough to
keep it going as a thriving entity, which in that happy event would
hopefully take posters off the management groups and leave the fuckwits
in peace.
> why is it that the howlers and whingers who couldn't wait to get uk.ram
> created claiming personal attacks etc were ruining uk.ra got their wish
> and uk.ram was created are still on uk.ra posting the usual rubbish?
Because creating UKRAM was only one part of the agenda?
> and uk.ram was created are still on uk.ra posting the usual rubbish?
> if you look at the contents of recent messages - you'll see that some of
> those who voted yes for moderation are still involved in posting the
> type of messages that would fail the moderation test on uk.ram
> So one has to ask, why were they howling and screaming for uk.ram if
> theyre still on uk.ra posting the very stuff that they wished to get rid
> of by creating uk.ram ?
You expect (redacted) to change their spots?
> of by creating uk.ram ?
> I just hope that that those on u.n.n.c who also voted yes now realise
> what really happened.
They just wanted to get the topic off their cosy little management
groups, as exemplified by someone who wailed "Some of them may have
voted yes in the hope that you fuckwits would take yourselves off once
you achieved your hearts' desire. That was a
forlorn hope". But warnings were made about this happening, no-one
you achieved your hearts' desire. That was a
should be surprised at how the appeasement policy has turned out.
An analysis of the first 193 postings from 43 individuals show that more
than half (102) come from six posters. In order they are Reay, Cole,
Jimbo, Howie, Stuckle, and Jackson. The most prolific day was 11 days
ago (the 19th) with 35 posts. from 14 posters.
UKRAM needs more posters and more posts. Six people aren't enough to
keep it going as a thriving entity, which in that happy event would
hopefully take posters off the management groups and leave the fuckwits
in peace.
mw/3...@gggg-mail.com
Dec 29, 2015, 12:14:30 PM12/29/15
to
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:11:36 +0000, Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article <5682a5ca....@news.albasani.net>,
>mw/3/q...@gggg-mail.com writes:
>
>> i just hope that that those on u.n.n.c who also voted yes now realise
>> what really happened.
>
>Some of them may have voted yes in the hope that you QQQQQQQQ would
Especially since messages from some of those who voted yes are still
polluting uk.ra and by doing so cast doubt on the published reasons for
the desire to have uk.ram in the first place.
I decided to vary it a bit - I chose Q this time - I hope you dont mind.
There is no reason for using such language when there are plenty of
other acceptable words which convey the same meaning without reverting
back to whatever root-language it is (German/Dutch etc).
wrote:
>In article <5682a5ca....@news.albasani.net>,
>mw/3/q...@gggg-mail.com writes:
>
>> i just hope that that those on u.n.n.c who also voted yes now realise
>> what really happened.
>
>take yourselves off once you achieved your hearts' desire. That was a
>forlorn hope.
And that is the wrong reason for voting yes for anything.
>forlorn hope.
Especially since messages from some of those who voted yes are still
polluting uk.ra and by doing so cast doubt on the published reasons for
the desire to have uk.ram in the first place.
I decided to vary it a bit - I chose Q this time - I hope you dont mind.
There is no reason for using such language when there are plenty of
other acceptable words which convey the same meaning without reverting
back to whatever root-language it is (German/Dutch etc).
Jerry Stuckle
Dec 29, 2015, 12:27:35 PM12/29/15
to
Stephen Thomas Cole
Dec 29, 2015, 2:29:02 PM12/29/15
to
Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> wrote:
> holiday period and a few technical glitches with routing of posts
> thrown in for good measure a little early to be having this discussion?
Not if you're a sore loser.
> If the same people are using ura, one of the main arguments against the
> creation of uram has been rebutted, that of dilution of an existing
> group. Are you now saying that isn't a positive outcome?
>
> I find it really difficult to understand why the simple existence of
> this group is such a thorn in people's sides. I can understand how
> being on someone's arbitrary blacklist of "troublemakers" could rankle
> and set one firmly against the idea of totalitarian moderation but
> that's not happening here, nor is uram a "reward" for one faction or a
> pretext for removal of the open group. It is just a newsgroup for people
> who prefer a moderated environment - a choice. The more of those we
> have the better, IMHO.
>
> What uram needs more than anything is a cooling-off period where it is
> left to its own devices to establish a userbase and regular traffic
> pattern without external interference.
>
Spike has already publicly set out his agenda; delete ukram. Expect much
more bitching and bellyaching.
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 17:06:48 +0000
> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> UKRAM needs more posters and more posts. Six people aren't enough to
>> keep it going as a thriving entity, which in that happy event would
>> hopefully take posters off the management groups and leave the
>> fuckwits in peace.
>
> Is not just over a fortnight after group creation during a busy family
> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> UKRAM needs more posters and more posts. Six people aren't enough to
>> keep it going as a thriving entity, which in that happy event would
>> hopefully take posters off the management groups and leave the
>> fuckwits in peace.
>
> holiday period and a few technical glitches with routing of posts
> thrown in for good measure a little early to be having this discussion?
Not if you're a sore loser.
> If the same people are using ura, one of the main arguments against the
> creation of uram has been rebutted, that of dilution of an existing
> group. Are you now saying that isn't a positive outcome?
>
> I find it really difficult to understand why the simple existence of
> this group is such a thorn in people's sides. I can understand how
> being on someone's arbitrary blacklist of "troublemakers" could rankle
> and set one firmly against the idea of totalitarian moderation but
> that's not happening here, nor is uram a "reward" for one faction or a
> pretext for removal of the open group. It is just a newsgroup for people
> who prefer a moderated environment - a choice. The more of those we
> have the better, IMHO.
>
> What uram needs more than anything is a cooling-off period where it is
> left to its own devices to establish a userbase and regular traffic
> pattern without external interference.
>
Spike has already publicly set out his agenda; delete ukram. Expect much
more bitching and bellyaching.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Dec 29, 2015, 2:32:52 PM12/29/15
to
Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> a standard that would allow these posts to pass moderation in ukram, but
> that is frequently not the case. At least one of the loudest voices in
> favour states that he posts as he does in ukra because that's what
> people there expect.
>
> I beg to differ...
Cesspits are for storing shit, OM.
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:52:03 +0000
> Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> If the same people are using ura, one of the main arguments against the
>> creation of uram has been rebutted, that of dilution of an existing
>> group. Are you now saying that isn't a positive outcome?
>
> Well it would be a positive outcome if their behaviour in ukra were of
> Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> If the same people are using ura, one of the main arguments against the
>> creation of uram has been rebutted, that of dilution of an existing
>> group. Are you now saying that isn't a positive outcome?
>
> a standard that would allow these posts to pass moderation in ukram, but
> that is frequently not the case. At least one of the loudest voices in
> favour states that he posts as he does in ukra because that's what
> people there expect.
>
> I beg to differ...
Cesspits are for storing shit, OM.
Paul Cummins
Dec 29, 2015, 2:48:26 PM12/29/15
to
In article <n5tqh9$q10$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
> Your knowledge of how you qualify to practice law is somewhat
> lacking.
I know exactly how you qualify to practice law, both in England and
> Your knowledge of how you qualify to practice law is somewhat
> lacking.
Scotland.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Dec 29, 2015, 3:16:41 PM12/29/15
to
Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> wrote:
> I think that just about verifies your argument, Brian. I'll be quiet
> now, having just been proved unequivocally wrong.
>
> That's actually quite embarrassing. Sorry, folks.
Matt, your current hand-wringing, pantie-wetting, "won't somebody think of
the children" persona is very cute and all but there was a time, quite
recently, when you took a great deal of joy in shitting all over ukra. So
forgive me for not caring one iota for your opinion.
> now, having just been proved unequivocally wrong.
>
> That's actually quite embarrassing. Sorry, folks.
Matt, your current hand-wringing, pantie-wetting, "won't somebody think of
the children" persona is very cute and all but there was a time, quite
recently, when you took a great deal of joy in shitting all over ukra. So
forgive me for not caring one iota for your opinion.
Roger Hayter
Dec 29, 2015, 3:36:59 PM12/29/15
to
Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:52:03 +0000
> Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > If the same people are using ura, one of the main arguments against the
> > creation of uram has been rebutted, that of dilution of an existing
> > group. Are you now saying that isn't a positive outcome?
>
> Well it would be a positive outcome if their behaviour in ukra were of
> a standard that would allow these posts to pass moderation in ukram, but
> that is frequently not the case. At least one of the loudest voices in
> favour states that he posts as he does in ukra because that's what
> people there expect.
>
> I beg to differ...
I understand what you mean. There is no place for the vicious personal
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:52:03 +0000
> Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > If the same people are using ura, one of the main arguments against the
> > creation of uram has been rebutted, that of dilution of an existing
> > group. Are you now saying that isn't a positive outcome?
>
> Well it would be a positive outcome if their behaviour in ukra were of
> a standard that would allow these posts to pass moderation in ukram, but
> that is frequently not the case. At least one of the loudest voices in
> favour states that he posts as he does in ukra because that's what
> people there expect.
>
> I beg to differ...
attacks and real-life stalking that goes on in and around ura. And
some posters seem to have no interest in the group except in pursuing
personal vendettas or trying to humiliate people who are perhaps not so
mentally agile as themselves. But I do think there is a place for
robust comment and debate, and perhaps occasional judicious rudeness, in
an unmoderated group. Which would probably be inhibited out of
existence in a moderated forum.
--
Roger Hayter
Robert Marshall
Dec 29, 2015, 4:00:02 PM12/29/15
to
On Tue, Dec 29 2015, Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> An analysis of the first 193 postings from 43 individuals show that
> more than half (102) come from six posters. In order they are Reay,
> Cole, Jimbo, Howie, Stuckle, and Jackson. The most prolific day was 11
> days ago (the 19th) with 35 posts. from 14 posters.
Though the spread matters too - looking at uk.religion.christian in the
>
> An analysis of the first 193 postings from 43 individuals show that
> more than half (102) come from six posters. In order they are Reay,
> Cole, Jimbo, Howie, Stuckle, and Jackson. The most prolific day was 11
> days ago (the 19th) with 35 posts. from 14 posters.
past 12 months, over 50% of the posts have come from just 3 posters -around
6000 out of 10,600 (and around 50 posters during the year).
>
> UKRAM needs more posters and more posts.
Robert (also removed the x-post)
--
La grenouille songe..dans son château d'eau
gareth
Dec 29, 2015, 5:16:47 PM12/29/15
to
"Brian Morrison" <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20151229192...@peterson.fenrir.org.uk...
possible by that child.
news:20151229192...@peterson.fenrir.org.uk...
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:52:03 +0000
> Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> wrote:
>> If the same people are using ura, one of the main arguments against the
>> creation of uram has been rebutted, that of dilution of an existing
>> group. Are you now saying that isn't a positive outcome?
> Well it would be a positive outcome if their behaviour in ukra were of
> a standard that would allow these posts to pass moderation in ukram, but
> that is frequently not the case. At least one of the loudest voices in
> favour states that he posts as he does in ukra because that's what
> people there expect.
>
> I beg to differ...
+1; it is the most blatant and hypocritical display of double standards
> Chronos <use...@chronos.org.uk> wrote:
>> If the same people are using ura, one of the main arguments against the
>> creation of uram has been rebutted, that of dilution of an existing
>> group. Are you now saying that isn't a positive outcome?
> Well it would be a positive outcome if their behaviour in ukra were of
> a standard that would allow these posts to pass moderation in ukram, but
> that is frequently not the case. At least one of the loudest voices in
> favour states that he posts as he does in ukra because that's what
> people there expect.
>
> I beg to differ...
possible by that child.
gareth
Dec 29, 2015, 5:18:01 PM12/29/15
to
"Chronos" <use...@chronos.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20151229194...@chronos.eternal-september.org...
> about that, although how it is the collective responsibility of uram's
> users rather than a select few who choose to behave in this manner is
> yet to be explained.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I don't read ura any more. It became too
> difficult to watch intelligent people hurling themselves against the
> rocks of bitterness and hatred so I have no idea to whom this applies.
FYI STC
news:20151229194...@chronos.eternal-september.org...
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:21:12 +0000
> Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Well it would be a positive outcome if their behaviour in ukra were of
>> a standard that would allow these posts to pass moderation in ukram,
>> but that is frequently not the case. At least one of the loudest
>> voices in favour states that he posts as he does in ukra because
>> that's what people there expect.
>
> Ah, double standards. Yes, I can understand people being a bit miffed
> Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Well it would be a positive outcome if their behaviour in ukra were of
>> a standard that would allow these posts to pass moderation in ukram,
>> but that is frequently not the case. At least one of the loudest
>> voices in favour states that he posts as he does in ukra because
>> that's what people there expect.
>
> about that, although how it is the collective responsibility of uram's
> users rather than a select few who choose to behave in this manner is
> yet to be explained.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I don't read ura any more. It became too
> difficult to watch intelligent people hurling themselves against the
> rocks of bitterness and hatred so I have no idea to whom this applies.
FYI STC
A. non Eyemouse
Dec 29, 2015, 5:33:58 PM12/29/15
to
On 29/12/2015 17:06, Spike wrote:
>
> They just wanted to get the topic off their cosy little management
> groups, as exemplified by someone who wailed "Some of them may have
> voted yes in the hope that you fuckwits would take yourselves off once
> you achieved your hearts' desire. That was a
> forlorn hope". But warnings were made about this happening, no-one
> should be surprised at how the appeasement policy has turned out.
>
It was mentioned on at least one occasion during the RFC/CFV that if the
>
> They just wanted to get the topic off their cosy little management
> groups, as exemplified by someone who wailed "Some of them may have
> voted yes in the hope that you fuckwits would take yourselves off once
> you achieved your hearts' desire. That was a
> forlorn hope". But warnings were made about this happening, no-one
> should be surprised at how the appeasement policy has turned out.
>
group was created then there would be traffic generated in
unn.moderation and other groups from people unhappy with moderation
decisions...
> UKRAM needs more posters and more posts. Six people aren't enough to
> keep it going as a thriving entity, which in that happy event would
> hopefully take posters off the management groups and leave the fuckwits
> in peace.
>
the group available then the ISPs that have outsourced their usenet
service to them such as BT will be able to provide it.
:-)
--
Mouse.
Where Morse meets House.
Mark Goodge
Dec 29, 2015, 6:04:53 PM12/29/15
to
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:33:53 +0000, A. non Eyemouse put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>On 29/12/2015 17:06, Spike wrote:
>>
>> They just wanted to get the topic off their cosy little management
>> groups, as exemplified by someone who wailed "Some of them may have
>> voted yes in the hope that you fuckwits would take yourselves off once
>> you achieved your hearts' desire. That was a
>> forlorn hope". But warnings were made about this happening, no-one
>> should be surprised at how the appeasement policy has turned out.
>>
>
>It was mentioned on at least one occasion during the RFC/CFV that if the
>group was created then there would be traffic generated in
>unn.moderation and other groups from people unhappy with moderation
>decisions...
That's fine, for unn.moderation. That's what it's there for. It's the
overspill into other groups where it's entirely off-topic that's the issue.
It certainly does seem to be the case that some of the trolls are doing a
very good job of demonstrating why the group was necessary.
Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com
and typed:
>On 29/12/2015 17:06, Spike wrote:
>>
>> They just wanted to get the topic off their cosy little management
>> groups, as exemplified by someone who wailed "Some of them may have
>> voted yes in the hope that you fuckwits would take yourselves off once
>> you achieved your hearts' desire. That was a
>> forlorn hope". But warnings were made about this happening, no-one
>> should be surprised at how the appeasement policy has turned out.
>>
>
>It was mentioned on at least one occasion during the RFC/CFV that if the
>group was created then there would be traffic generated in
>unn.moderation and other groups from people unhappy with moderation
>decisions...
overspill into other groups where it's entirely off-topic that's the issue.
It certainly does seem to be the case that some of the trolls are doing a
very good job of demonstrating why the group was necessary.
Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com
Spike
Dec 29, 2015, 6:05:30 PM12/29/15
to
On 29/12/2015 22:33, A. non Eyemouse wrote:
> Well we're just waiting for Giganews to get their act together and make
> the group available then the ISPs that have outsourced their usenet
> service to them such as BT will be able to provide it.
It would have been worth paying a few euro and taking out an account
> Well we're just waiting for Giganews to get their act together and make
> the group available then the ISPs that have outsourced their usenet
> service to them such as BT will be able to provide it.
with NIN -who carried the group immediately it received the message -
and avoiding all this frigging about.
Ian Jackson
Dec 29, 2015, 6:09:31 PM12/29/15
to
In message <CMSdnS9ivbPLlx7L...@giganews.com>, A. non
Eyemouse <some...@work.invalid> writes
>
>It was mentioned on at least one occasion during the RFC/CFV that if
>the group was created then there would be traffic generated in
>unn.moderation and other groups from people unhappy with moderation
>decisions...
>
I get the impression that there have been far, far more posts
complaining about uk.r.a.m (moderation and just about everything else)
than there have been actual posts IN uk.r.a.m. Methinks the ladies do
protest TOO much.
--
Ian
Eyemouse <some...@work.invalid> writes
>
>It was mentioned on at least one occasion during the RFC/CFV that if
>the group was created then there would be traffic generated in
>unn.moderation and other groups from people unhappy with moderation
>decisions...
>
complaining about uk.r.a.m (moderation and just about everything else)
than there have been actual posts IN uk.r.a.m. Methinks the ladies do
protest TOO much.
--
Ian
FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI
Dec 29, 2015, 6:59:00 PM12/29/15
to
"Jimbo in the Borders ..." <james.st...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:n5tre5$t6f$1...@dont-email.me...
> "Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
> news:n5tmbv$cov$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Jimbo in the Borders ... <james.st...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> That video is interesting. It is good to see the Supreme Court came
>>>> down
>>>> against the free loading driver misguided and the misguided supporters
>>>> who
>>>> advised him. I hope it cost him and them a lot of money. Even better if
>>>> it
>>>> leads to the closing down of the shady companies who offer legal advice
>>>> etc. to drivers who think they can park anywhere.
>>>
>>> I have still not paid my parking fine for thr Govan centre...tee hee
>>
>> What a pity they don't tow vehicles off drives of non-payers and crush
>> them
>> if they don't cough up after 48 hrs. That wouldn't clear the debt, they
>> would still owe the towing fee etc. Next, go for the house.
>>
> they wouldn't be that stupid for a 17 minute overstay in a two hour free
> shopping centre car park...just as well I'm not a doddering old fogy who
> would have paid up when they got all the threatening letters...tee hee
>
> europark a bunch of fly men ...
>
No different from any of the other scumbags. Hospitals are a popular target
for them.
--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.uk
news:n5tre5$t6f$1...@dont-email.me...
> "Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
> news:n5tmbv$cov$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Jimbo in the Borders ... <james.st...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> That video is interesting. It is good to see the Supreme Court came
>>>> down
>>>> against the free loading driver misguided and the misguided supporters
>>>> who
>>>> advised him. I hope it cost him and them a lot of money. Even better if
>>>> it
>>>> leads to the closing down of the shady companies who offer legal advice
>>>> etc. to drivers who think they can park anywhere.
>>>
>>> I have still not paid my parking fine for thr Govan centre...tee hee
>>
>> What a pity they don't tow vehicles off drives of non-payers and crush
>> them
>> if they don't cough up after 48 hrs. That wouldn't clear the debt, they
>> would still owe the towing fee etc. Next, go for the house.
>>
> they wouldn't be that stupid for a 17 minute overstay in a two hour free
> shopping centre car park...just as well I'm not a doddering old fogy who
> would have paid up when they got all the threatening letters...tee hee
>
> europark a bunch of fly men ...
>
No different from any of the other scumbags. Hospitals are a popular target
for them.
--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.uk
mw/3...@gggg-mail.com
Dec 30, 2015, 2:48:30 AM12/30/15
to
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:16:42 -0000, "gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid>
wrote:
Not to mention the huge increase in Yes votes but many of them havent
been seen since and certainly havent been seen on uk.ram .... and some
of them you have to look very hard to find them anywhere on usenet.
not forgetting the importing of yes votes from uk.rec.sheds as well.
wrote:
been seen since and certainly havent been seen on uk.ram .... and some
of them you have to look very hard to find them anywhere on usenet.
not forgetting the importing of yes votes from uk.rec.sheds as well.
mw/3...@gggg-mail.com
Dec 30, 2015, 2:52:51 AM12/30/15
to
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:33:53 +0000, "A. non Eyemouse"
<some...@work.invalid> wrote:
>On 29/12/2015 17:06, Spike wrote:
>>
>> They just wanted to get the topic off their cosy little management
>> groups, as exemplified by someone who wailed "Some of them may have
>> voted yes in the hope that you fuckwits would take yourselves off once
>> you achieved your hearts' desire. That was a
>> forlorn hope". But warnings were made about this happening, no-one
>> should be surprised at how the appeasement policy has turned out.
>>
>
>It was mentioned on at least one occasion during the RFC/CFV that if the
>group was created then there would be traffic generated in
>unn.moderation and other groups from people unhappy with moderation
>decisions...
ah but so far the only moderation problem raised was started during the
>On 29/12/2015 17:06, Spike wrote:
>>
>> They just wanted to get the topic off their cosy little management
>> groups, as exemplified by someone who wailed "Some of them may have
>> voted yes in the hope that you fuckwits would take yourselves off once
>> you achieved your hearts' desire. That was a
>> forlorn hope". But warnings were made about this happening, no-one
>> should be surprised at how the appeasement policy has turned out.
>>
>
>It was mentioned on at least one occasion during the RFC/CFV that if the
>group was created then there would be traffic generated in
>unn.moderation and other groups from people unhappy with moderation
>decisions...
RFD when someone said that he would vote NO if one named moderator
remained on the list.
That moderator remained on the list and guess what..the person saying he
would vote no voted YES !!!
>> UKRAM needs more posters and more posts. Six people aren't enough to
>> keep it going as a thriving entity, which in that happy event would
>> hopefully take posters off the management groups and leave the fuckwits
>> in peace.
least would be people just waiting to post onto the group...sadly no.
one wonders what the motivation was to vote yes then?
I can put forward the theory that has already been put forward that many
voted yes just to get rid of the 6-monthly RFD+CFV arguing that clogged
up unnc but to me that is not a valid reason to vote yes.
mw/3...@gggg-mail.com
Dec 30, 2015, 2:56:53 AM12/30/15
to
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 23:09:24 +0000, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I get the impression that there have been far, far more posts
>complaining about uk.r.a.m (moderation and just about everything else)
>than there have been actual posts IN uk.r.a.m. Methinks the ladies do
>protest TOO much.
And you'd think that those who were screaming and howling for it would
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I get the impression that there have been far, far more posts
>complaining about uk.r.a.m (moderation and just about everything else)
>than there have been actual posts IN uk.r.a.m. Methinks the ladies do
>protest TOO much.
spend their time on it more now but instead are still on uk.ra sending
the same types of messages as before with the usual personal attacks.
the only person that I'm aware of who has complained about the
moderation of uk.ram is a certain person from KENT!
Spike
Dec 30, 2015, 5:16:52 AM12/30/15
to
On 30/12/2015 07:52, mw/3/q...@gggg-mail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:33:53 +0000, "A. non Eyemouse"
> <some...@work.invalid> wrote:
>> On 29/12/2015 17:06, Spike wrote:
>>> They just wanted to get the topic off their cosy little management
>>> groups, as exemplified by someone who wailed "Some of them may have
>>> voted yes in the hope that you fuckwits would take yourselves off once
>>> you achieved your hearts' desire. That was a
>>> forlorn hope". But warnings were made about this happening, no-one
>>> should be surprised at how the appeasement policy has turned out.
>> It was mentioned on at least one occasion during the RFC/CFV that if the
>> group was created then there would be traffic generated in
>> unn.moderation and other groups from people unhappy with moderation
>> decisions...
> Ah but so far the only moderation problem raised was started during the
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:33:53 +0000, "A. non Eyemouse"
> <some...@work.invalid> wrote:
>> On 29/12/2015 17:06, Spike wrote:
>>> They just wanted to get the topic off their cosy little management
>>> groups, as exemplified by someone who wailed "Some of them may have
>>> voted yes in the hope that you fuckwits would take yourselves off once
>>> you achieved your hearts' desire. That was a
>>> forlorn hope". But warnings were made about this happening, no-one
>>> should be surprised at how the appeasement policy has turned out.
>> It was mentioned on at least one occasion during the RFC/CFV that if the
>> group was created then there would be traffic generated in
>> unn.moderation and other groups from people unhappy with moderation
>> decisions...
> RFD when someone said that he would vote NO if one named moderator
> remained on the list.
> That moderator remained on the list and guess what... the person saying he
> remained on the list.
> would vote no voted YES !!!
Unsurprising.
>>> UKRAM needs more posters and more posts. Six people aren't enough to
>>> keep it going as a thriving entity, which in that happy event would
>>> hopefully take posters off the management groups and leave the fuckwits
>>> in peace.
> yes,,,you'd think with over 50 people voting yes that half of them at
> least would be people just waiting to post onto the group...sadly no.
> one wonders what the motivation was to vote yes then?
> I can put forward the theory that has already been put forward that many
> voted yes just to get rid of the 6-monthly RFD+CFV arguing that clogged
> up unnc but to me that is not a valid reason to vote yes.
unhappy. As a result, it's head-in-sand time while hoping all this blows
over.
UKRAM has just had its first 24-hour period of having no posts, exactly
two weeks after being formed. Apart from the lack of Schleck's
mechanically-recovered blogs, it's getting more like his other
tumbleweed-infested moderated group by the day.
What's the earliest we can RFD for its removal?
Spike
Dec 30, 2015, 5:17:18 AM12/30/15
to
On 29/12/2015 23:59, Brian Reay wrote:
> The are rather like the
> writers of the cheap soap operas who, on finding the viewing figures are
> falling, decide it is time for some unlikely 'drama' in the series- a plane
> crash, a fire, explosion, ......
Alternatively, the glass could be half full, with a wedding or a birth.
> The are rather like the
> writers of the cheap soap operas who, on finding the viewing figures are
> falling, decide it is time for some unlikely 'drama' in the series- a plane
> crash, a fire, explosion, ......
Alternatively, the glass could be half full, with a wedding or a birth.
Ian Jackson
Dec 30, 2015, 5:46:07 AM12/30/15
to
In message <dehp8i...@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero....@mail.invalid> writes
>
>UKRAM has just had its first 24-hour period of having no posts, exactly
>two weeks after being formed. Apart from the lack of Schleck's
>mechanically-recovered blogs, it's getting more like his other
>tumbleweed-infested moderated group by the day.
Well, it's just after Christmas, and I expect that many of the potential
uk.r.a.m posters are back at work. They could be too busy catching up
with the backlog created by the two-day break to bother much about
Usenet at the moment.
Those of us who are not at work are probably too busy laughing ourselves
silly at all the whinging and bitching in this NG and elsewhere.
>
>
--
Ian
<Aero....@mail.invalid> writes
>
>UKRAM has just had its first 24-hour period of having no posts, exactly
>two weeks after being formed. Apart from the lack of Schleck's
>mechanically-recovered blogs, it's getting more like his other
>tumbleweed-infested moderated group by the day.
uk.r.a.m posters are back at work. They could be too busy catching up
with the backlog created by the two-day break to bother much about
Usenet at the moment.
Those of us who are not at work are probably too busy laughing ourselves
silly at all the whinging and bitching in this NG and elsewhere.
>
>What's the earliest we can RFD for its removal?
On what grounds? One quiet day? Get a life!
>What's the earliest we can RFD for its removal?
>
>
--
Ian
Jim GM4DHJ ...
Dec 30, 2015, 6:30:25 AM12/30/15
to
"FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" <g3...@turner-smith.uK> wrote in message
news:67Fgy.347641$HS7....@fx43.am4...
without a permit...she got a ticket and was all worried and said she would
write to them ...I advised her not to and just ignore any follow up
letter...they never take the chance of taking anybody to court...they only
threaten and hope you will pay up ...
Spike
Dec 30, 2015, 6:45:48 AM12/30/15
to
On 30/12/2015 10:46, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <dehp8i...@mid.individual.net>, Spike
> <Aero....@mail.invalid> writes
>> UKRAM has just had its first 24-hour period of having no posts,
>> exactly two weeks after being formed. Apart from the lack of Schleck's
>> mechanically-recovered blogs, it's getting more like his other
>> tumbleweed-infested moderated group by the day.
> Well, it's just after Christmas, and I expect that many of the potential
> uk.r.a.m posters are back at work. They could be too busy catching up
> with the backlog created by the two-day break to bother much about
> Usenet at the moment.
A nice bout of wishful thinking, Ian.
> In message <dehp8i...@mid.individual.net>, Spike
> <Aero....@mail.invalid> writes
>> UKRAM has just had its first 24-hour period of having no posts,
>> exactly two weeks after being formed. Apart from the lack of Schleck's
>> mechanically-recovered blogs, it's getting more like his other
>> tumbleweed-infested moderated group by the day.
> Well, it's just after Christmas, and I expect that many of the potential
> uk.r.a.m posters are back at work. They could be too busy catching up
> with the backlog created by the two-day break to bother much about
> Usenet at the moment.
> Those of us who are not at work are probably too busy laughing ourselves
> silly at all the whinging and bitching in this NG and elsewhere.
posters was down to their going on holiday. Well, they must have liked
it so much they never returned.
>> What's the earliest we can RFD for its removal?
> On what grounds? One quiet day? Get a life!
The perpetuation of UKRAM has already been tried, by slipping it under
the radar in an RFD about something else. Perhaps it was time that was
tried again.
Sn!pe
Dec 30, 2015, 7:26:13 AM12/30/15
to
on this; hardly surprising when they understood that the shed was my home
group and the message was nothing like the one-sided harangue it was
portrayed to be. The vote is now history and you'll have to find some
other hook to hang your failure on.
Now if you'd ever been in the shed you'd also know they mostly don't give
a fig what you or anyone else says.
Including me.
FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI
Dec 30, 2015, 7:54:15 AM12/30/15
to
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:kfPgy.572177$vc4.5...@fx38.am4...
I say always appeal, even if you lose the scum still get quite a hefty bill
that reduces their profits. If enough people did that maybe we could force
them out of business.
news:kfPgy.572177$vc4.5...@fx38.am4...
that reduces their profits. If enough people did that maybe we could force
them out of business.
gareth
Dec 30, 2015, 8:27:01 AM12/30/15
to
"Sn!pe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:n60ic8$ael$1...@dont-email.me...
states prevent them from consideration of others' needs.
> Now if you'd ever been in the shed you'd also know they mostly don't give
> a fig what you or anyone else says.
That's because they are grown men usig baby talk, and babies' emotional
> a fig what you or anyone else says.
states prevent them from consideration of others' needs.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Dec 30, 2015, 9:32:13 AM12/30/15
to
Brian-Gaff
Dec 30, 2015, 10:44:22 AM12/30/15
to
Please if you want to crosspost at least make the subject line reflect the
subject matter. Why am I not surprised about all this mumbling?
Incidentally on the original subject MFJ always stood for
Made From Junk in my day.
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
subject matter. Why am I not surprised about all this mumbling?
Incidentally on the original subject MFJ always stood for
Made From Junk in my day.
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Sn!pe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:n60ic8$ael$1...@dont-email.me...
Jerry Stuckle
Dec 30, 2015, 11:21:55 AM12/30/15
to
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:16:50 +0000, Spike wrote:
> UKRAM has just had its first 24-hour period of having no posts, exactly
> two weeks after being formed.
It might be suffering from S20 syndrome; try posting something that's
> UKRAM has just had its first 24-hour period of having no posts, exactly
> two weeks after being formed.
obviously incorrect.
Spike
Dec 31, 2015, 4:02:10 AM12/31/15
to
On 31/12/2015 01:00, Brian Reay wrote:
> family, or just the mild weather etc. These are strange concepts to you,
> but not to those of us with a real life.
Oh, I don't know. Some poor sods were posting on Christmas Day! How sad
is that?
It's amusing to see one person's 68 posts in the group in the last seven
days; it says a lot about someone, especially as only one was relevant
to AR, and the vast majority of the rest were off-topic bitter jibes and
character assassinations.
>>> Those of us who are not at work are probably too busy laughing ourselves
>>> silly at all the whinging and bitching in this NG and elsewhere.
>> ISTR some moron or other in one of the RFDs claiming a fall in Usenet
>> posters was down to their going on holiday. Well, they must have liked
>> it so much they never returned.
> That sounds like one of your wild claims.
That sounds your slum chum. It's All In The Archives.
> You probably heard something similar and decided to use it, you lack the
> wit to compose something mildly amusing like that.
Some people, possibly of an unbalanced nature, are amused by the odd,
unpredictable behaviour of those that have autism It's All In The Archives.
> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> On 30/12/2015 10:46, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Well, it's just after Christmas, and I expect that many of the potential
>>> uk.r.a.m posters are back at work. They could be too busy catching up
>>> with the backlog created by the two-day break to bother much about
>>> Usenet at the moment.
>> A nice bout of wishful thinking, Ian.
> More likely people are making the most of the holiday, seeing friends,
>> On 30/12/2015 10:46, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Well, it's just after Christmas, and I expect that many of the potential
>>> uk.r.a.m posters are back at work. They could be too busy catching up
>>> with the backlog created by the two-day break to bother much about
>>> Usenet at the moment.
>> A nice bout of wishful thinking, Ian.
> family, or just the mild weather etc. These are strange concepts to you,
> but not to those of us with a real life.
Oh, I don't know. Some poor sods were posting on Christmas Day! How sad
is that?
It's amusing to see one person's 68 posts in the group in the last seven
days; it says a lot about someone, especially as only one was relevant
to AR, and the vast majority of the rest were off-topic bitter jibes and
character assassinations.
>>> Those of us who are not at work are probably too busy laughing ourselves
>>> silly at all the whinging and bitching in this NG and elsewhere.
>> ISTR some moron or other in one of the RFDs claiming a fall in Usenet
>> posters was down to their going on holiday. Well, they must have liked
>> it so much they never returned.
That sounds your slum chum. It's All In The Archives.
> You probably heard something similar and decided to use it, you lack the
> wit to compose something mildly amusing like that.
Some people, possibly of an unbalanced nature, are amused by the odd,
unpredictable behaviour of those that have autism It's All In The Archives.
Kerr Mudd-John
Dec 31, 2015, 5:47:34 AM12/31/15
to
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:24:25 -0000, Sn!pe <sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:
> Impersonator of Sn!pe <m...@privacy.net> forged:
>
>
[]
>>
>
> Forgery.
>
>
Cut the xpost, old bean
FU set.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
wrote:
> Impersonator of Sn!pe <m...@privacy.net> forged:
>
>
[]
>>
>
> Forgery.
>
>
Cut the xpost, old bean
FU set.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
Jimbo in the Borders ...
Dec 31, 2015, 11:01:55 AM12/31/15
to
"FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" <g3...@turner-smith.uK> wrote in message
Wm...
Dec 31, 2015, 5:26:20 PM12/31/15
to
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:16:50 <dehp8i...@mid.individual.net>
Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote...
[ff to uk.net.news.config in an attempt to slow this all down]
>UKRAM has just had its first 24-hour period of having no posts, exactly
>two weeks after being formed.
Some uk.* moderated groups haven't had any posts for months and in some
cases years. Start with those if you want to be a specific form of Dr
Death
>What's the earliest we can RFD for its removal?
Realistically next year or possibly the one after, you are unlikely to
succeed so, please, consider moving on.
Removing an unused uk.* ng is relatively easy, happens all the time.
Removing a uk.* group people consider useful, not so easy.
Removing a moderated uk.* ng when it is in use ... I'd suggest near
impossible.
Please, move on, if you don't like the new group, ignore it.
In the long term no-one has ever shown that the creation of a moderated
uk.* group has been detrimental to the hierarchy in any consistent
manner since, mainly, it is about avoiding nasty people.
The chosen mod bot for most uk.* groups is working rather well and has
been for a while now.
Happy new year, I don't see why this should continue.
--
Wm...
Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote...
[ff to uk.net.news.config in an attempt to slow this all down]
>UKRAM has just had its first 24-hour period of having no posts, exactly
>two weeks after being formed.
cases years. Start with those if you want to be a specific form of Dr
Death
>What's the earliest we can RFD for its removal?
succeed so, please, consider moving on.
Removing an unused uk.* ng is relatively easy, happens all the time.
Removing a uk.* group people consider useful, not so easy.
Removing a moderated uk.* ng when it is in use ... I'd suggest near
impossible.
Please, move on, if you don't like the new group, ignore it.
In the long term no-one has ever shown that the creation of a moderated
uk.* group has been detrimental to the hierarchy in any consistent
manner since, mainly, it is about avoiding nasty people.
The chosen mod bot for most uk.* groups is working rather well and has
been for a while now.
Happy new year, I don't see why this should continue.
--
Wm...
Brian Reay
Dec 31, 2015, 6:07:14 PM12/31/15
to
Jerry Stuckle
Dec 31, 2015, 8:01:45 PM12/31/15
to
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Spike
Jan 1, 2016, 4:17:50 AM1/1/16
to
On 31/12/2015 22:25, Wm... wrote:
>> UKRAM has just had its first 24-hour period of having no posts,
>> exactly two weeks after being formed.
> Some uk.* moderated groups haven't had any posts for months and in some
> cases years. Start with those if you want to be a specific form of Dr Death
>> What's the earliest we can RFD for its removal?
> Realistically next year or possibly the one after, you are unlikely to
> succeed so, please, consider moving on.
It doesn't matter whether I personally succeed or not, just like Cole's
>> exactly two weeks after being formed.
> Some uk.* moderated groups haven't had any posts for months and in some
> cases years. Start with those if you want to be a specific form of Dr Death
>> What's the earliest we can RFD for its removal?
> Realistically next year or possibly the one after, you are unlikely to
> succeed so, please, consider moving on.
multiple failed attempts to create the group finally caused him to shut
up and let someone else take that on a couple of times before succeeding.
> Removing an unused uk.* ng is relatively easy, happens all the time.
> Removing a uk.* group people consider useful, not so easy.
> Removing a moderated uk.* ng when it is in use ... I'd suggest near
> impossible.
is the most likely of the three? Only 6 posters account for 50 percent
of the traffic in the first 193 posts, meaning that the other 37 account
for a little over 1 percent each of that traffic. 15 of those have only
posted once. Many of the posts are mere confirmations of accessibility.
> Please, move on, if you don't like the new group, ignore it.
wishes of its users.
> In the long term no-one has ever shown that the creation of a moderated
> uk.* group has been detrimental to the hierarchy in any consistent
> manner since, mainly, it is about avoiding nasty people.
dismal record, you expect this one to continue.
> The chosen mod bot for most uk.* groups is working rather well and has
> been for a while now.
> Happy new year, I don't see why this should continue.
HNY to you too.
Spike
Jan 1, 2016, 4:40:01 AM1/1/16
to
On 31/12/2015 22:25, Wm... wrote:
[UKRA added back]
>> UKRAM has just had its first 24-hour period of having no posts,
>> exactly two weeks after being formed.
> Some uk.* moderated groups haven't had any posts for months and in some
> cases years. Start with those if you want to be a specific form of Dr
Death
>> What's the earliest we can RFD for its removal?
> Realistically next year or possibly the one after, you are unlikely to
> succeed so, please, consider moving on.
It doesn't matter whether I personally succeed or not, just like Cole's
multiple failed attempts to create the group finally caused him to shut
up and let someone else take that on a couple of times before succeeding.
multiple failed attempts to create the group finally caused him to shut
up and let someone else take that on a couple of times before succeeding.
> Removing an unused uk.* ng is relatively easy, happens all the time.
> Removing a uk.* group people consider useful, not so easy.
> Removing a moderated uk.* ng when it is in use ... I'd suggest near
> impossible.
> Removing a uk.* group people consider useful, not so easy.
> Removing a moderated uk.* ng when it is in use ... I'd suggest near
> impossible.
And, given its less than stellar support up to now, which do you think
is the most likely of the three? Only 6 posters account for 50 percent
of the traffic in the first 193 posts, meaning that the other 37 account
for a little over 1 percent each of that traffic. 15 of those have only
posted once. Many of the posts are mere confirmations of accessibility.
is the most likely of the three? Only 6 posters account for 50 percent
of the traffic in the first 193 posts, meaning that the other 37 account
for a little over 1 percent each of that traffic. 15 of those have only
posted once. Many of the posts are mere confirmations of accessibility.
> Please, move on, if you don't like the new group, ignore it.
And I thought that UK Usenet management was there to facilitate the
wishes of its users.
wishes of its users.
> In the long term no-one has ever shown that the creation of a moderated
> uk.* group has been detrimental to the hierarchy in any consistent
> manner since, mainly, it is about avoiding nasty people.
> uk.* group has been detrimental to the hierarchy in any consistent
> manner since, mainly, it is about avoiding nasty people.
It's just that most of them have failed, and I wonder why, with such a
dismal record, you expect this one to continue.
dismal record, you expect this one to continue.
> The chosen mod bot for most uk.* groups is working rather well and has
> been for a while now.
And?
> been for a while now.
> Happy new year, I don't see why this should continue.
I'll posts stats from time to time, just for the fun of it.
HNY to you too.
HNY to you too.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Jan 1, 2016, 5:23:09 AM1/1/16
to
Ian Jackson
Jan 1, 2016, 6:05:04 AM1/1/16
to
In message <demuhs...@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero....@mail.invalid> writes
While still I think the voting system is crazy, a majority of users
(plus 12) who voted, did so in favour of the creation of a new,
moderated newsgroup. They (and any other Newsnet user, regardless of
whether they voted or not) are now free to participate this newsgroup as
they feel fit, ie they can post in it, or they can simply read it, or
they can totally ignore it. Why is one of those three options not good
enough for you?
>
--
Ian
<Aero....@mail.invalid> writes
>On 31/12/2015 22:25, Wm... wrote:
>
>> Please, move on, if you don't like the new group, ignore it.
>
>And I thought that UK Usenet management was there to facilitate the
>wishes of its users.
>
In this instance, it HAS facilitated the wishes of its users.
>
>> Please, move on, if you don't like the new group, ignore it.
>
>And I thought that UK Usenet management was there to facilitate the
>wishes of its users.
>
While still I think the voting system is crazy, a majority of users
(plus 12) who voted, did so in favour of the creation of a new,
moderated newsgroup. They (and any other Newsnet user, regardless of
whether they voted or not) are now free to participate this newsgroup as
they feel fit, ie they can post in it, or they can simply read it, or
they can totally ignore it. Why is one of those three options not good
enough for you?
>
--
Ian
mw/3...@gggg-mail.com
Jan 1, 2016, 7:12:41 AM1/1/16
to
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 22:25:42 +0000, "Wm..."
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Realistically next year or possibly the one after, you are unlikely to
>succeed so, please, consider moving on.
WHY is that?
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Realistically next year or possibly the one after, you are unlikely to
>succeed so, please, consider moving on.
If 30-ish votes can be magically gathered from various people who have
yet to appear on uk.ram then 30-ish people who think uk.ram is a bad
case of bad whitewashing then uk.ram can be removed just as easily.
Ian Jackson
Jan 1, 2016, 7:36:15 AM1/1/16
to
In message <56866c2a....@news.albasani.net>,
mw/3/q...@gggg-mail.com writes
As I said at the time, the same rather crazy voting system would allow
me (if the situation arose) to vote for what someone in Australia had
for tea (or, if I didn't like Australians, even if they were even
allowed to have tea) - something which, in reality, I don't really care
a damn about.
However, I have little reason to doubt that most of those who voted YES
for uk.r.a.m did so for more-genuine reasons - one of which could simply
be that they could see the justification for it, and the benefit it
would be to UK radio amateurs. The fact that they haven't all instantly
flooded uk.r.a.m with posts has no relevance to result of the vote.
>
--
Ian
mw/3/q...@gggg-mail.com writes
me (if the situation arose) to vote for what someone in Australia had
for tea (or, if I didn't like Australians, even if they were even
allowed to have tea) - something which, in reality, I don't really care
a damn about.
However, I have little reason to doubt that most of those who voted YES
for uk.r.a.m did so for more-genuine reasons - one of which could simply
be that they could see the justification for it, and the benefit it
would be to UK radio amateurs. The fact that they haven't all instantly
flooded uk.r.a.m with posts has no relevance to result of the vote.
>
--
Ian
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages