Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
RFD: Delete newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation
21 views
Skip to first unread message
phil...@hotmail.co.uk
Jan 31, 2013, 2:02:09 PM1/31/13
to
The uk.* hierarchy has been suffering for many years at the hands of
trolls. Among other problems, uk.rec.cycling.moderated has been under
constant attack since its inception by trolls who hate cyclists, are
waging personal hate campaigns against one or more of URCM's
moderators, and/or are bitter about the fact that the initial vote to
create URCM went against these wishes.
These sad no-life trolls have for years been posting deliberately
inflammatory posts to URCM, waiting for them to be rightly rejected,
and then starting threads in UNNM complaining about the rejections.
These threads are then obligingly answered and taken seriously as
genuine complaints (rather than trolling shit) by a whole series of
Committee Members, "Control", moderators of other newsgroups, and
others who claim to "care about the hierarchy". (By so often giving
the trolls what they want, these people are GROSSLY neglecting their
duties and abusing their positions, and we will be issuing a separate
RFD soon which will deal with removing these bastards who should know
better from their unjustified positions of power, starting with the
disgraceful Molly Mockford and Kat.)
It has been pointed out by several of the more rational posters that
the problem here is not the perfectly proper rejection of the trolls'
breaching experiments on URCM, but the fact that they then complain on
UNNM and have their complaints taken seriously. While in some ways it
would be desirable to retain UNNM for genuine moderation-related
complaints, and eliminate replies to trolling threads, there are so
many idiots who do reply that this does not seem feasible in the short-
to-medium term.
So instead we propose the deletion of uk.net.news.moderation, and that
the one or two genuine moderation-related discussions that take place
each year be moved elsewhere (e.g. to email). The existence of UNNM
has greatly encouraged the trolling of URCM, and the disgraceful
threads that have appeared in UNNM (and the worrying habit of
"Committee" members of supporting blatant anti-Usenet trolling) have
hastened the demise of uk.* by at least 3-4 years. It is still
possible to reverse some of this decline, but only if these trolling
threads are eliminated, and sadly the only apparent way to do that is
to delete uk.net.news.moderation.
Yes, the trolls may just start their threads in uk.net.news.config,
but hopefully even our useless Committee members etc will refuse to
indulge the trolls there, telling them that it is not the appropriate
newsgroup. If they do still reply (which sadly they may, because they
apparently can't resist sticking the knife into Usenet whenever they
can), then we will issue a new RFD to make uk.net.news.config
moderated itself. We must keep meeting the trolls' efforts with
unbending and stern resistance. That's the only way to make them give
up.
WAKE UP! The uk.* hierarchy is under SEVERE threat, and the only way
that we can arrest (or at least slow) the decline is by NO LONGER
TOLERATING TROLLS. uk.rec.cycling.moderated is working perfectly well:
trolling, inflammatory, anti-cyclist viewpoints are kept out by our
hardworking team of volunteer moderators, and they do an excellent job
of this (mistakes are made sometimes, obviously, but usually these are
mistaken approvals rather than mistaken rejections, and at any rate,
rejecting trolling posts is never a "mistake").
If we can just make it clear to the trolls that they no longer have a
forum where they can complain about the justified rejections of their
crap, then they will eventually get bored and finally stop with their
breaching experiments. That solution will work perfectly well, unlike
the "solution" being proposed by some (who should know better), who
apparently think that approving clearly trolling posts to URCM will
make the trolls go away. OF COURSE IT WON'T! If they know their
provocative crap will be approved then they will post more and more of
it, and the group will become unusable like URC. Trolls posting their
opinions is NOT the "good thing" or "fair thing" it's all too often
made out to be. It ruins newsgroups. They're trolls for a reason:
their "opinions" are inflammatory bollocks, which (as they're aware,
despite the faux innocence of their posts) has been completely refuted
thousands of times, and which they want us to go the trouble of
refuting all over again.
The choice is simple and stark. If you care about Usenet and the uk.*
then you MUST SUPPORT US IN GETTING RID OF THESE CORROSIVE TROLLS, and
the ONLY way to do that is to vote in favour of this proposal. If you
refuse to do that then you are not only troll-enabling, you are
DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO, AND HASTENING, THE DEATH OF UK.*. Please
make the correct decision, whatever you may think about cyclists. It's
crystal clear that the way to deal with these trolls is not to approve
their crap on URCM (which is what they want, despite the claims of
some), it's to carry on rejecting them then ignore trolling complaints
about the rejections.
URCM itself has no problem: the moderation is sensible, cyclist-hating
trolls are kept out (which was always the stated rationale for the
group's creation), and the group's posters and readers consistently
show that they are quite happy. The ONLY problem is the noise that the
trolls make on UNNM, and the DISGRACEFUL sympathetic replying to this
noise by those who claim to be anti-trolling but clearly aren't. Since
the only problem we have is on UNNM, and URCM itself is working fine,
it seems very clear to us that we should leave URCM exactly as it is,
and address the noise problem on UNNM, by shutting it down (if the
bastards in the peanut gallery won't do as they're told and ignore the
trolling threads, then they must have UNNM taken away from them, since
they obviously can't be trusted to use it for its proper intended
purpose).
Comments from constructive posters who agree with the proposal (except
maybe for wanting to tweak it) are most welcome. Other, trolling,
hostile, LYING comments will be ignored. Enough with this shit about
"considering all views" when so many views are trolling bullshit
designed to waste reasonable people's time and bully them. It's time
that we got tough, took our newsgroups back, and gave the trolls and
their supporters the heave-ho, once and for all, starting with this
thread, and moving onwards and upwards. Enough is enough. Trolls are
not a "persecuted minority" who deserve protection from posters who
want to be "nice" or "tolerant": they are a vile scourge, their
behaviour towards the cyclists who use URC/URCM has been deplorable
and often against the law, and we should do whatever it takes to get
rid of these fucking waste-of-space bastards and give uk.* back to
those who wish to use it civilly. ARE YOU WITH US OR AGAINST US? DO
YOU CARE ABOUT THE HIERARCHY OR DO YOU JUST WANT TO ENABLE ULTIMATELY
CATASTROPHIC TROLLING? It's strictly one or the other, and it's come
to the time when EVERYONE must decide.
trolls. Among other problems, uk.rec.cycling.moderated has been under
constant attack since its inception by trolls who hate cyclists, are
waging personal hate campaigns against one or more of URCM's
moderators, and/or are bitter about the fact that the initial vote to
create URCM went against these wishes.
These sad no-life trolls have for years been posting deliberately
inflammatory posts to URCM, waiting for them to be rightly rejected,
and then starting threads in UNNM complaining about the rejections.
These threads are then obligingly answered and taken seriously as
genuine complaints (rather than trolling shit) by a whole series of
Committee Members, "Control", moderators of other newsgroups, and
others who claim to "care about the hierarchy". (By so often giving
the trolls what they want, these people are GROSSLY neglecting their
duties and abusing their positions, and we will be issuing a separate
RFD soon which will deal with removing these bastards who should know
better from their unjustified positions of power, starting with the
disgraceful Molly Mockford and Kat.)
It has been pointed out by several of the more rational posters that
the problem here is not the perfectly proper rejection of the trolls'
breaching experiments on URCM, but the fact that they then complain on
UNNM and have their complaints taken seriously. While in some ways it
would be desirable to retain UNNM for genuine moderation-related
complaints, and eliminate replies to trolling threads, there are so
many idiots who do reply that this does not seem feasible in the short-
to-medium term.
So instead we propose the deletion of uk.net.news.moderation, and that
the one or two genuine moderation-related discussions that take place
each year be moved elsewhere (e.g. to email). The existence of UNNM
has greatly encouraged the trolling of URCM, and the disgraceful
threads that have appeared in UNNM (and the worrying habit of
"Committee" members of supporting blatant anti-Usenet trolling) have
hastened the demise of uk.* by at least 3-4 years. It is still
possible to reverse some of this decline, but only if these trolling
threads are eliminated, and sadly the only apparent way to do that is
to delete uk.net.news.moderation.
Yes, the trolls may just start their threads in uk.net.news.config,
but hopefully even our useless Committee members etc will refuse to
indulge the trolls there, telling them that it is not the appropriate
newsgroup. If they do still reply (which sadly they may, because they
apparently can't resist sticking the knife into Usenet whenever they
can), then we will issue a new RFD to make uk.net.news.config
moderated itself. We must keep meeting the trolls' efforts with
unbending and stern resistance. That's the only way to make them give
up.
WAKE UP! The uk.* hierarchy is under SEVERE threat, and the only way
that we can arrest (or at least slow) the decline is by NO LONGER
TOLERATING TROLLS. uk.rec.cycling.moderated is working perfectly well:
trolling, inflammatory, anti-cyclist viewpoints are kept out by our
hardworking team of volunteer moderators, and they do an excellent job
of this (mistakes are made sometimes, obviously, but usually these are
mistaken approvals rather than mistaken rejections, and at any rate,
rejecting trolling posts is never a "mistake").
If we can just make it clear to the trolls that they no longer have a
forum where they can complain about the justified rejections of their
crap, then they will eventually get bored and finally stop with their
breaching experiments. That solution will work perfectly well, unlike
the "solution" being proposed by some (who should know better), who
apparently think that approving clearly trolling posts to URCM will
make the trolls go away. OF COURSE IT WON'T! If they know their
provocative crap will be approved then they will post more and more of
it, and the group will become unusable like URC. Trolls posting their
opinions is NOT the "good thing" or "fair thing" it's all too often
made out to be. It ruins newsgroups. They're trolls for a reason:
their "opinions" are inflammatory bollocks, which (as they're aware,
despite the faux innocence of their posts) has been completely refuted
thousands of times, and which they want us to go the trouble of
refuting all over again.
The choice is simple and stark. If you care about Usenet and the uk.*
then you MUST SUPPORT US IN GETTING RID OF THESE CORROSIVE TROLLS, and
the ONLY way to do that is to vote in favour of this proposal. If you
refuse to do that then you are not only troll-enabling, you are
DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO, AND HASTENING, THE DEATH OF UK.*. Please
make the correct decision, whatever you may think about cyclists. It's
crystal clear that the way to deal with these trolls is not to approve
their crap on URCM (which is what they want, despite the claims of
some), it's to carry on rejecting them then ignore trolling complaints
about the rejections.
URCM itself has no problem: the moderation is sensible, cyclist-hating
trolls are kept out (which was always the stated rationale for the
group's creation), and the group's posters and readers consistently
show that they are quite happy. The ONLY problem is the noise that the
trolls make on UNNM, and the DISGRACEFUL sympathetic replying to this
noise by those who claim to be anti-trolling but clearly aren't. Since
the only problem we have is on UNNM, and URCM itself is working fine,
it seems very clear to us that we should leave URCM exactly as it is,
and address the noise problem on UNNM, by shutting it down (if the
bastards in the peanut gallery won't do as they're told and ignore the
trolling threads, then they must have UNNM taken away from them, since
they obviously can't be trusted to use it for its proper intended
purpose).
Comments from constructive posters who agree with the proposal (except
maybe for wanting to tweak it) are most welcome. Other, trolling,
hostile, LYING comments will be ignored. Enough with this shit about
"considering all views" when so many views are trolling bullshit
designed to waste reasonable people's time and bully them. It's time
that we got tough, took our newsgroups back, and gave the trolls and
their supporters the heave-ho, once and for all, starting with this
thread, and moving onwards and upwards. Enough is enough. Trolls are
not a "persecuted minority" who deserve protection from posters who
want to be "nice" or "tolerant": they are a vile scourge, their
behaviour towards the cyclists who use URC/URCM has been deplorable
and often against the law, and we should do whatever it takes to get
rid of these fucking waste-of-space bastards and give uk.* back to
those who wish to use it civilly. ARE YOU WITH US OR AGAINST US? DO
YOU CARE ABOUT THE HIERARCHY OR DO YOU JUST WANT TO ENABLE ULTIMATELY
CATASTROPHIC TROLLING? It's strictly one or the other, and it's come
to the time when EVERYONE must decide.
Percy Picacity
Jan 31, 2013, 2:17:33 PM1/31/13
to
On 2013-01-31 19:02:09 +0000, phil...@hotmail.co.uk said:
snip proposal
I don't think we actually want the whole of uk.* to be *civil*: as you
amply demonstrate. Just some of the moderated groups.
--
Percy Picacity
snip proposal
I don't think we actually want the whole of uk.* to be *civil*: as you
amply demonstrate. Just some of the moderated groups.
--
Percy Picacity
Tony
Jan 31, 2013, 2:34:52 PM1/31/13
to
In uk.net.news.config, phil...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
<some stuff>
but Phil W Lee didn't.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
<some stuff>
but Phil W Lee didn't.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
Dr Zoidberg
Feb 1, 2013, 2:45:36 AM2/1/13
to
<phil...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:abddede9-6a63-4ca4...@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> The uk.* hierarchy has been suffering for many years at the hands of
> trolls. <snip>
You wasted a lot of time typing that.....
--
Alex
Ian Clifton
Feb 1, 2013, 6:22:58 AM2/1/13
to
just to see who has the most overblown rhetoric, most operatic gestures,
most absurd argument…
--
Ian ◎
Anonymous
Jan 31, 2013, 2:31:56 PM1/31/13
to
In article <abddede9-6a63-4ca4...@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
phil...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> The uk.* hierarchy has been suffering for many years at the hands of
> trolls. Among other problems, uk.rec.cycling.moderated has been under
> constant attack since its inception by trolls who hate cyclists, are
> waging personal hate campaigns against one or more of URCM's
> moderators, and/or are bitter about the fact that the initial vote to
> create URCM went against these wishes.
Idea good, viability zero
>
> The uk.* hierarchy has been suffering for many years at the hands of
> trolls. Among other problems, uk.rec.cycling.moderated has been under
> constant attack since its inception by trolls who hate cyclists, are
> waging personal hate campaigns against one or more of URCM's
> moderators, and/or are bitter about the fact that the initial vote to
> create URCM went against these wishes.
phil...@hotmail.co.uk
Feb 1, 2013, 1:51:12 PM2/1/13
to
On Jan 31, 7:34 pm, Tony <t...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
I beg your pardon? How on EARTH do you know that? Can you present a
SHRED of hard evidence that I am not Phil W Lee? You're actually being
quite offensive.
Besides, have you ever posted as Toe Knee? Ha! Weren't expecting that,
were you? That knocked you off your high horse, where (let's face it)
you spend a fair amount of time, at least while posting to UNN*. You
seem to look down on almost everyone here. You think URCM's moderators
are mostly useless, yet you also seem to think that pretty much all of
URCM's critics have the "wrong" motivation for doing so. Most of the
others probably "aren't active enough in helping the hierarchy" or
something similar. Overall, few people are up to the mark as far as
you're concerned.
BTW you're not Tony Evans, ner ner ne-ner ner... See how silly and
ultimately pointless (on Usenet) it is to accuse someone of not having
the name they post under? By not accepting that I really have this
name, you are being as bad as the "calling Judith a man" lot.
So I look forward to your retraction and apology. Thanks, Tony. I knew
we could sort this together.
I beg your pardon? How on EARTH do you know that? Can you present a
SHRED of hard evidence that I am not Phil W Lee? You're actually being
quite offensive.
Besides, have you ever posted as Toe Knee? Ha! Weren't expecting that,
were you? That knocked you off your high horse, where (let's face it)
you spend a fair amount of time, at least while posting to UNN*. You
seem to look down on almost everyone here. You think URCM's moderators
are mostly useless, yet you also seem to think that pretty much all of
URCM's critics have the "wrong" motivation for doing so. Most of the
others probably "aren't active enough in helping the hierarchy" or
something similar. Overall, few people are up to the mark as far as
you're concerned.
BTW you're not Tony Evans, ner ner ne-ner ner... See how silly and
ultimately pointless (on Usenet) it is to accuse someone of not having
the name they post under? By not accepting that I really have this
name, you are being as bad as the "calling Judith a man" lot.
So I look forward to your retraction and apology. Thanks, Tony. I knew
we could sort this together.
phil...@hotmail.co.uk
Feb 1, 2013, 2:01:24 PM2/1/13
to
On Feb 1, 7:45 am, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk>
wrote:
> <philw...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
Fine. It'll go down in indelible history that you contributed to the
downfall of UK Usenet because you DON'T CARE ABOUT TROLLS.
Some posters seem to think it's fashionable to be "tolerant" towards
trolls. it's not. It's inane. INFORM YOURSELF MAN, for god's sake!
Before it's too late! All of you! You're all fucking bastards!
wrote:
> <philw...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
downfall of UK Usenet because you DON'T CARE ABOUT TROLLS.
Some posters seem to think it's fashionable to be "tolerant" towards
trolls. it's not. It's inane. INFORM YOURSELF MAN, for god's sake!
Before it's too late! All of you! You're all fucking bastards!
phil...@hotmail.co.uk
Feb 1, 2013, 2:01:39 PM2/1/13
to
On Feb 1, 11:22 am, Ian Clifton <ian.clif...@chem.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> writes:
> > <philw...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> writes:
> > <philw...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:abddede9-6a63-4ca4...@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> >> The uk.* hierarchy has been suffering for many years at the hands of
> >> trolls. <snip>
>
> > You wasted a lot of time typing that.....
>
> Oh, I don’t know about that. Some people enjoy going to Hyde Park Corner
> just to see who has the most overblown rhetoric, most operatic gestures,
> most absurd argument…
So if the OP was int
> >> The uk.* hierarchy has been suffering for many years at the hands of
> >> trolls. <snip>
>
> > You wasted a lot of time typing that.....
>
> Oh, I don’t know about that. Some people enjoy going to Hyde Park Corner
> just to see who has the most overblown rhetoric, most operatic gestures,
> most absurd argument…
Percy Picacity
Feb 1, 2013, 3:12:44 PM2/1/13
to
Lee whom we know and love. And it would be a fair bet you don't hold
that name in real life very often, unlike our usual Phil W Lee. We
don't really know you don't though probablities are sometimes worth
betting on.
--
Percy Picacity
Dr Zoidberg
Feb 1, 2013, 3:44:41 PM2/1/13
to
<phil...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7864c707-16b6-44bc...@s8g2000pbw.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 1, 7:45 am, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> <philw...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:abddede9-6a63-4ca4...@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > The uk.* hierarchy has been suffering for many years at the hands of
>> > trolls. <snip>
>>
>> You wasted a lot of time typing that.....
>
> Fine. It'll go down in indelible history that you contributed to the
> downfall of UK Usenet because you DON'T CARE ABOUT TROLLS.
>
Usenet has always had trolls, and always will.
> wrote:
>> <philw...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:abddede9-6a63-4ca4...@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > The uk.* hierarchy has been suffering for many years at the hands of
>> > trolls. <snip>
>>
>> You wasted a lot of time typing that.....
>
> Fine. It'll go down in indelible history that you contributed to the
> downfall of UK Usenet because you DON'T CARE ABOUT TROLLS.
>
It's dying because it's old technology.
--
Alex
Percy Picacity
Feb 1, 2013, 5:43:55 PM2/1/13
to
such obvious advantages that usenet and plain text email are quite
likely to be re-invented within the next ten years. Unfortunately, the
forum part is likely to use new, proprietary protocols fro commercial
reasons, but might just go back to a distributed, interoperable system
as it matures.
--
Percy Picacity
Ian Clifton
Feb 1, 2013, 6:11:45 PM2/1/13
to
--
Ian ◎
Dr Zoidberg
Feb 2, 2013, 6:12:58 AM2/2/13
to
"Percy Picacity" <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote in message
news:6ae60c....@news.alt.net...
> On 2013-02-01 20:44:41 +0000, Dr Zoidberg said:
>
>> <phil...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:7864c707-16b6-44bc...@s8g2000pbw.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 1, 7:45 am, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> <philw...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:abddede9-6a63-4ca4...@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> The uk.* hierarchy has been suffering for many years at the hands of
>>>>> trolls. <snip>
>>>>
>>>> You wasted a lot of time typing that.....
>>>
>>> Fine. It'll go down in indelible history that you contributed to the
>>> downfall of UK Usenet because you DON'T CARE ABOUT TROLLS.
>>>
>> Usenet has always had trolls, and always will.
>>
>> It's dying because it's old technology.
>
> I suspect a new, lean link and graphics free communications system has
> such obvious advantages that usenet and plain text email are quite likely
> to be re-invented within the next ten years.
What advantages are there?
>
>> <phil...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:7864c707-16b6-44bc...@s8g2000pbw.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 1, 7:45 am, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> <philw...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:abddede9-6a63-4ca4...@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> The uk.* hierarchy has been suffering for many years at the hands of
>>>>> trolls. <snip>
>>>>
>>>> You wasted a lot of time typing that.....
>>>
>>> Fine. It'll go down in indelible history that you contributed to the
>>> downfall of UK Usenet because you DON'T CARE ABOUT TROLLS.
>>>
>> Usenet has always had trolls, and always will.
>>
>> It's dying because it's old technology.
>
> I suspect a new, lean link and graphics free communications system has
> such obvious advantages that usenet and plain text email are quite likely
> to be re-invented within the next ten years.
The main one was always efficient data use - when I first started using
newsgroups I used to dial-up, sync all my newsgroups and disconnect, then
compose replies offline and repeat the processes. Paying for calls, this was
a great way of saving money, but it's no longer needed given the abundance
of bandwidth we have now
Emails are declining in popularity as people move to social networks to
connect.
Twitter is your closest modern equivalent to a plain text system
> Unfortunately, the forum part is likely to use new, proprietary protocols
> fro commercial reasons, but might just go back to a distributed,
> interoperable system as it matures.
>
proprietary platforms, hosted on cloud based services sat in a data centre
somewhere.
--
Alex
Rob Morley
Feb 2, 2013, 4:52:59 PM2/2/13
to
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 22:43:55 +0000
Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> I suspect a new, lean link and graphics free communications system
> has such obvious advantages that usenet and plain text email are
> quite likely to be re-invented within the next ten years.
>
It's already happened, and it's called Twitter. ;-)
Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> I suspect a new, lean link and graphics free communications system
> has such obvious advantages that usenet and plain text email are
> quite likely to be re-invented within the next ten years.
>
Message has been deleted
Anonymous
Feb 6, 2013, 9:31:47 AM2/6/13
to
In article <keg8ii$41a$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>
Ian Clifton <ian.c...@chem.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> writes:
>
> > <phil...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:abddede9-6a63-4ca4...@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> >> The uk.* hierarchy has been suffering for many years at the hands of
> >> trolls. <snip>
> >
> > You wasted a lot of time typing that.....
>
> Oh, I don[character]t know about that. Some people enjoy going to Hyde Park Corner
>
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> writes:
>
> > <phil...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:abddede9-6a63-4ca4...@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> >> The uk.* hierarchy has been suffering for many years at the hands of
> >> trolls. <snip>
> >
> > You wasted a lot of time typing that.....
>
> just to see who has the most overblown rhetoric, most operatic gestures,
> most absurd argument…
Hyde Park Corner was like that. Have you been there recently?
> most absurd argument…
Ian Clifton
Feb 8, 2013, 11:14:15 AM2/8/13
to
--
Ian ◎
Anonymous
Feb 9, 2013, 5:22:51 AM2/9/13
to
In article <kf388n$ikj$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>
Not so much declined as different. There used to be a web cam that
we enjoyed waving at but that is gone now too.
I don't think someone blowing a vuvuzella to drown out what someone
is saying adds much to debate, YMMV.
Maybe it is us that are getting older but we tend to pass Hyde Park
Corner by these days whereas before it was a compulsory part of a
Sunday walk.
we enjoyed waving at but that is gone now too.
I don't think someone blowing a vuvuzella to drown out what someone
is saying adds much to debate, YMMV.
Maybe it is us that are getting older but we tend to pass Hyde Park
Corner by these days whereas before it was a compulsory part of a
Sunday walk.
0 new messages