UKVoting Statement: 2004 Committee Elections
Jon Ribbens
UKVoting have received a number of complaints relating to Richard Ashton's
postings in uk.net.news.config/management during the application phase of
the 2004 UK Usenet Committee elections. All of these complaints make the
same point: that Richard Ashton has breached UKVoting guidelines by making
partisan comments regarding election candidates.
Having considered the matter, UKVoting have agreed that Richard's comments
do breach the guidelines, and that it would be inappropriate for him to
continue to act as a votetaker in these elections.
Accordingly, Barry Salter will take over as primary votetaker, and Jim Hill
will now act as secondary votetaker. This change is effective from 17:30
BST on Thursday 21st October.
All official postings by Richard Ashton, including the CFA and
application/nomination announcements, are still valid. All applications
and nominations already received and acknowledged by Richard Ashton are
unaffected. Any further applications and nominations received by the
votetakers will be processed and acknowledged by the new primary and
secondary votetakers. The CFV will be prepared and posted by the new
primary votetaker.
As a matter of record, UKVoting wish to point out that Molly Mockford and
David Mahon, both of whom are standing as candidates in the election, took
no part this decision.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.2.4-(GNU/Linux)
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBQXpf4mOfGXkh8vHZAQFAjgQAgqzoF57ZACKMZuHXBi1vpurq9xGocFtE
uMMNw9NQ9lRNYA+bpW2ZykhKDiKz3Nay3t4vW9S//o3OX7SOmFqN5Mhh/Fccuqa6
Qzuyf/49SvAPnHsxrnYNjr6BeHXocBxORrLyFgbQuHfdeasSP/WGyCZgYssKinAw
p2Gro1qR520=
=qMLR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Harper
<j.ri...@ukvoting.org.uk> wrote:
>Having considered the matter, UKVoting have agreed that Richard's comments
>do breach the guidelines, and that it would be inappropriate for him to
>continue to act as a votetaker in these elections.
Good to see common sense in action. Well done.
>Accordingly, Barry Salter will take over as primary votetaker, and Jim Hill
>will now act as secondary votetaker. This change is effective from 17:30
>BST on Thursday 21st October.
Good luck Barry and Jim - thank you for taking over.
Paul (re-engaging killfilters now, thank Christ!)
--
. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
. JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."
. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.
Thomas Lee
Ribbens <j.ri...@ukvoting.org.uk> writes
>UKVoting have received a number of complaints relating to Richard
>Ashton's postings in uk.net.news.config/management during the
>application phase of the 2004 UK Usenet Committee elections. All of
>these complaints make the same point: that Richard Ashton has breached
>UKVoting guidelines by making partisan comments regarding election
>candidates.
>
>Having considered the matter, UKVoting have agreed that Richard's
>comments do breach the guidelines, and that it would be inappropriate
>for him to continue to act as a votetaker in these elections.
Thanks for this notice.
Now let's hope we can move on to a good election. And thanks very much
for Jim for agreeing to take part in this election.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Paul Cummins
(Tone) wrote:
> >Having considered the matter, UKVoting have agreed that Richard's
> comments
> >do breach the guidelines, and that it would be inappropriate for him to
> >continue to act as a votetaker in these elections.
> >
>
> Bloody right too
Doesnt go nearly far enough though - Steve Inglis was expelled for far
less.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Get off your a{R}se and vote for good manners
Can't be a{R}sed? Vote for me instead
Ebb Chernobyl
Ribbens <j.ri...@ukvoting.org.uk> spewed:
|Having considered the matter, UKVoting have agreed that Richard's comments
|do breach the guidelines, and that it would be inappropriate for him to
|continue to act as a votetaker in these elections.
Not good enough.
It would be inappropriate for him to act as a votetaker full stop.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>In article <jb87o0lg0hv9m5elv...@4ax.com>, to...@spamcop.net
>(Tone) wrote:
>
>> >Having considered the matter, UKVoting have agreed that Richard's
>> comments
>> >do breach the guidelines, and that it would be inappropriate for him to
>> >continue to act as a votetaker in these elections.
>> >
>>
>> Bloody right too
>
>Doesnt go nearly far enough though - Steve Inglis was expelled for far
>less.
I think you'll find that Steve Inglis was expelled for something more
serious, in fact. Unless, that is, you think that expresing a low
opinion of you is a more serious offence than causing a CFV to need to
be re-run from scratch.
http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/statements/notice-uk.politics...@usenet.org.uk.txt
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - see my world! <--
"Shake off your golden shackles, children of time no more"
Keith Lawrence
that the correct decision has been taken, that decision can only reinforce
the status of UKVoting and has further clarified the rules and guidelines
under which voting operates.
I have complete faith in the integrity of the chosen votetakers and I thank
them for taking on that role.
My complaint has been dealt with correctly and efficiently and I consider
your statement the end of the matter.
Kind Regards
Keith L
Paul Cummins
> I have complete faith in the integrity of the chosen votetakers and I
> thank them for taking on that role.
>
> My complaint has been dealt with correctly and efficiently and I
> consider your statement the end of the matter.
I support both of these statements and wish to confirm that
I consider this matter satisfactorily concluded.
Alex Holden
<memo.2004102...@paul.vlaad.co.uk>,
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote in
uk.net.news.management:
>In article <417a801d$0$94918$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>, fa...@nospam.com
>(Keith Lawrence) wrote:
>
>> I have complete faith in the integrity of the chosen votetakers and I
>> thank them for taking on that role.
>>
>> My complaint has been dealt with correctly and efficiently and I
>> consider your statement the end of the matter.
>
>I support both of these statements and wish to confirm that
>I consider this matter satisfactorily concluded.
So what has changed? Didn't you post this less than 2 hours beforehand?
M-ID <memo.2004102...@paul.vlaad.co.uk>
:Doesnt go nearly far enough though
That dosen' sound like somebody posting that they've seen a satisfactory
conclusion, and I see no retraction posts elsewhere.
Committee members (and candidates) should be able to stick to an opinion
or at least say that they're wrong instead of blatantly contradicting
themselves...
Dr Zoidberg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> UKVoting have received a number of complaints relating to Richard
> Ashton's postings in uk.net.news.config/management during the
> application phase of the 2004 UK Usenet Committee elections. All of
> these complaints make the same point: that Richard Ashton has
> breached UKVoting guidelines by making partisan comments regarding
> election candidates.
>
> Having considered the matter, UKVoting have agreed that Richard's
> comments do breach the guidelines, and that it would be inappropriate
> for him to continue to act as a votetaker in these elections.
>
--
Alex
"We are now up against live, hostile targets"
"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "
www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk
JBM
matter. In fact, my complaints concerned issues other than the
votetaker's partisan comments regarding election candidates, but I am
happy to regard the matter as settled.
Take care
Jon
--
Jon Beasley-Murray Latin American Studies
http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/jbmurray/ University of British Columbia
Thomas Lee
<2bjs...@eissen.ccm.ca.ku> writes
>Thanks to ukvoting for the prompt and thoughtful consideration of this
>matter. In fact, my complaints concerned issues other than the
>votetaker's partisan comments regarding election candidates, but I am
>happy to regard the matter as settled.
Your complaint regarded my posting responding to a troll post. I
assumed, from the way it was written (and his earlier admissions) that
it was from Richard. I was too quick to come to that conclusion, and can
not prove it anyway. As I said here, actually before I saw your mail to
committee. It was wrong of me to jump to conclusions I could not prove.
I could argue that the post looked like Richard's and it smelled the
same too, but that's not proof. I was wrong, and said so.
Whatever, this matter is concluded for now.
Thanks to UK Voting for what was not an easy decision.
Paul Harper
wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:00:29 +0100, "Keith Lawrence"
><fa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>I consider your statement the end of the matter.
>
>All we need to get over now is the imminent 'closing time'
>self-righteous gloat-frenzy, no doubt.
You will have to wait a long time because this, like all the other
Ashton failures, will be filed by people in the "just in case"
category for when Ashton starts bringing up all the irrelevant
failures from other people's pasts.
Whether it ever gets mentioned again is very much, in fact almost
totally, up to him.
Paul.
Ebb Chernobyl
{m} @"@101fc.net> spewed:
|On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:00:29 +0100, "Keith Lawrence"
|<fa...@nospam.com> wrote:
|
|>I consider your statement the end of the matter.
|
|All we need to get over now is the imminent 'closing time'
|self-righteous gloat-frenzy, no doubt.
Of course people are going to gloat. a{R}se fucked up yet again, but
this time, for a change, something was actually done about it.
Anyway, don't feel too sorry for him, I'm sure fred bastard will
console him somehow (blowjob maybe?).
Thomas Lee
@"@101fc.net> writes
>
>self-righteous gloat-frenzy, no doubt.
I find this comment disappointing. Speaking personally, there is no
gloat, and no frenzy. The whole incident is regrettable and I take no
pleasure in the problems or the resolution. I have a high regard for
Richard's technical skills, but he made some mistakes. We all do and
move on.
Keith Lawrence
"Mother" <"@ {m} @"@101fc.net> wrote ...
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:00:29 +0100, "Keith Lawrence"
> <fa...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >I consider your statement the end of the matter.
> All we need to get over now is the imminent 'closing time'
> self-righteous gloat-frenzy, no doubt.
FX : Cough!! I hope you weren't referring to me.
Now that a UKVoting statement has been made I just wish that the whole
subject would be dropped and we can get on with the election. The sn ratio
on these groups has been appalling of late.
Keith L
Paul Cummins
news...@alex-holden.co.uk (Alex Holden) wrote:
> That dosen' sound like somebody posting that they've seen a satisfactory
> conclusion, and I see no retraction posts elsewhere.
I don't see any contradiction between thinking AShton should be thrown out
and accepting that UK Voting have done what they could.
If Ashton had any respect for UK Voting, and any honour or decency at all,
he would resign. I'm still waiting for an apology from him for his
accusing my mail server of being borked when all along, it was his AVG
proxy. But then I'm not holding my breath.
If I am elected, I will do everything in my power to ensure that no
further RFDs and CFVs become personal attack grounds.
Paul Cummins
wrote:
> It was wrong of me to jump to conclusions I could not prove.
> I could argue that the post looked like Richard's and it smelled the
> same too, but that's not proof. I was wrong, and said so.
As Ashton pointed out, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Paul Harper
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>If I am elected, I will do everything in my power to ensure that no
>further RFDs and CFVs become personal attack grounds.
How, exactly?
Paul Cummins
(Paul Harper) wrote:
> >If I am elected, I will do everything in my power to ensure that no
> >further RFDs and CFVs become personal attack grounds.
>
> How, exactly?
1) I will ask the committee to look at the previously introduced RFDs
regarding vexatious proponents, and consider if there are any elements
which can be usefully introduced to prevent obvious (as noted by their
peers) troublemakers from disrupting the proper operation of the
hierarchy.
2) I will seek to review the role of UK Voting
3) I will put pressure on any votetaking organisation to remove rogue
elements to ensure impartiality, potentially introducing an RFD allowing
the committee to remove a votetaker in certain circumstancs.
4) I will introduce an RFD to create, and then accredit, a new votetaking
organisation. I hope to gain the support of Geoff Berrow and David Mahon
in that creation.
I'll also try my best to keep things professional. My best may not be good
enough, but I will have tried.
For the record, despite the opinion of some others, I don't see you as a
troublemaker. You are often a dissenting voice, but usefully so. Likewise
I don't see Ashton as a troublemaker, per-se. Now if only he could
remmeber to use English not Anglo-Jute.
fred
<memo.2004102...@paul.vlaad.co.uk>
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk "Paul Cummins" wrote:
> 1) I will ask the committee to look at the previously introduced RFDs
> regarding vexatious proponents, and consider if there are any elements
> which can be usefully introduced to prevent obvious (as noted by their
> peers) troublemakers from disrupting the proper operation of the
> hierarchy.
>
> 2) I will seek to review the role of UK Voting
>
> 3) I will put pressure on any votetaking organisation to remove rogue
> elements to ensure impartiality, potentially introducing an RFD allowing
> the committee to remove a votetaker in certain circumstancs.
>
> 4) I will introduce an RFD to create, and then accredit, a new votetaking
> organisation. I hope to gain the support of Geoff Berrow and David Mahon
> in that creation.
Now I've decided.
No chance.
--
ô
õçîd
Ebb Chernobyl
fr...@fredc.demon.co.uk (fred) spewed:
But of course, you'd hate to see your little bumchum a{R}se gone.
Alex Holden
<417aaa7a$0$233$bed6...@news.gradwell.net>, {R} <nos...@spam.nium.org>
wrote in uk.net.news.management:
>In uk.net.news.management on Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:52:30 +0000 (UTC),
>agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>
>}In article <jb87o0lg0hv9m5elv...@4ax.com>, to...@spamcop.net
>}(Tone) wrote:
>}
>}> >Having considered the matter, UKVoting have agreed that Richard's
>}> comments
>}> >do breach the guidelines, and that it would be inappropriate for him to
>}> >continue to act as a votetaker in these elections.
>}> >
>}>
>}> Bloody right too
>}
>}Doesnt go nearly far enough though - Steve Inglis was expelled for far
>}less.
>
>You are a liar, a fraud, a charlatan and a fuckwit, the only votes you
>get will be protest votes against me, nobody else is going to vote for
>you.
What the UKV statement did not say is that now Richard has been relieved
of votetaking duties for the Committee election, he is now free to
actively campaign for or against any candidate throughout the remainder
of the process.
Could be interesting...
Paul Cummins
> the only votes you
> get will be protest votes against me, nobody else is going to vote for
> you.
Since the {R} isn't talking the vote now, can I killfile him?
Paul Cummins
news...@alex-holden.co.uk (Alex Holden) wrote:
> he is now free to
> actively campaign for or against any candidate throughout the remainder
> of the process.
Yes, isn't democracy wonderful.
Paul Cummins
> Liar, Cheat, Fraud, Charlatan
>
> The Rev Dr Cummins found guilty of all of the above.
I don't remember going to court...
But then I did always get told not to argue with a fool - he will drag you
down to his level, then win by experience alone.
Paul Cummins
> Try not to misuse it as meaning something it doesn't, however given your
> lies, fraud, cheating and charlatanism there is little hope of you
> grasping the essential truth.
It's good to see Ashton showing his true colours.
A vote for me is a vote against all Ashton stands for.
Paul Cummins
> I am sure PC, PH
> and I would imagine TL would all glady nominate you,
I certainly will. All he need do is ask.
Paul Cummins
> If you have got the balls, stand against Cummins and let the electorate
> decide....fred give Ashton his
> balls back.
I'll even nominate him.
Paul Harper
>You are a liar, a fraud, a charlatan and a fuckwit, the only votes you
>get will be protest votes against me, nobody else is going to vote for
>you.
Don't flatter yourself, fuckwit. You're not that important.
Paul Harper
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>In article <417aaa7a$0$233$bed6...@news.gradwell.net>,
>nos...@spam.nium.org ({R}) wrote:
>
>> the only votes you
>> get will be protest votes against me, nobody else is going to vote for
>> you.
>
>Since the {R} isn't talking the vote now, can I killfile him?
Usually, it's considered bad form for candidates to operate
killfilters during the hustings. However, I very much doubt anyone
would hold it against you.
Paul Harper
> it would
>be far better that you stand for committee and I will gladly be one of your
>nominators. I am sure PC, PH
>and I would imagine TL would all glady nominate you, but I can't imagine you
>would ever dare take the
>risk of ranking lower than Cummins in a public vote
Yes, I would nominate a{R}sewipe.
Dick Gaughan
2004 20:14:46 +0000 (UTC), agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul
Cummins) wrote:
>In article <417aab15$0$233$bed6...@news.gradwell.net>,
>nos...@spam.nium.org ({R}) wrote:
>
>> Liar, Cheat, Fraud, Charlatan
>>
>> The Rev Dr Cummins found guilty of all of the above.
>
>I don't remember going to court...
Reverend, you were tried and found guilty on the following counts
in the only court that matters a fuck around here, the Court of
Public Opinion.
You claimed Doctorates you didn't have and only admitted so once
it had been proven beyond doubt publicly. After that, you stopped
calling yourself "Dr".
You claimed to have a DD bestowed upon you at an ordination
ceremony conducted in Liverpool Cathedral and only admitted to
being an imposter after being publicly pilloried as a liar and
fraud. After that, you stopped calling yourself "The Reverend".
You threw tantrum after tantrum at members of the Committee
accusing them of lying about emails sent until it was finally
proven publicly that the problem lay in the incompetent manner in
which you had set up your mail server. After that, you stopped
calling yourself "Internet Engineer".
Paul, you have a long record of being a proven liar, a would-be
con artist who hasn't a clue how to run a con, a self-confessed
charlatan.
You crave attention but unfortunately the only way you can think
of to get any is by acting the part of the village idiot. You seem
to believe that it's better to be a figure of almost universal
contempt and derision than to be ignored, which proves you to be
utterly devoid of any self-respect.
I wouldn't trust you to get a shovelful of shit on a dungheap let
alone be a member of a committee. *Any* committee.
--
DG
Cliff Hones
> ...
> Since the {R} isn't talking the vote now, can I killfile him?
You are free to killfile whomsoever you wish, at any time. To
partake in the forthcoming election, it would be wise not to
killfile posts to unnm. Also, if you wish to take part in
the hustings, and keep abreast of developments, you would
be foolish to killfile any of unnc and unna for the moment.
-- Cliff
Cliff Hones
> ...
> A vote for me is a vote against all Ashton stands for.
Don't talk rubbish, Paul - it's likely to backfire.
{R} and you have both made fools of yourselves in quite different
ways. I doubt you will benefit at all from the recent
UKVoting decision. In fact, with {R} free to campaign against
you, you may do worse. Remember, since you recently advised
us not to vote for you, you do at least agree with {R} on
something. Or is that what you meant?
-- Cliff
Alan LeHun
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk says...
> > the only votes you
> > get will be protest votes against me, nobody else is going to vote for
> > you.
>
> Since the {R} isn't talking the vote now, can I killfile him?
>
Please do not listen to the deliberately erroneous advice of others such
as Paul H and especially Cliff. They only want to see you humiliate
yourself in order that they may derive some cheap entertainment for
themselves.
On the basis that the use of a killfilter would seriously limit the
number of posts that you see, and therefore the number of reply's that
you make to those posts, I advise that you killfilter everyone in order
to get the maximum benefit that a killfilter can provide for your
campaign.
good luck.
;)
--
Alan LeHun
Keith Lawrence
> > How, exactly?
>
> 1) I will ask the committee to look at the previously introduced RFDs
> regarding vexatious proponents, and consider if there are any elements
> which can be usefully introduced to prevent obvious (as noted by their
> peers) troublemakers from disrupting the proper operation of the
> hierarchy.
Well, on the basis that it takes one to know one then I guess that your
experience makes you ideally suited to that particular task. Obviously as a
committee member you would consider yourself a "peer" and thus decide who
could and couldn't stand against you. Neat!
> 2) I will seek to review the role of UK Voting
Errr... UKVoting are an independent votetaking organisation. Just exactly
what is it you wish to review?
> 3) I will put pressure on any votetaking organisation to remove rogue
> elements to ensure impartiality, potentially introducing an RFD allowing
> the committee to remove a votetaker in certain circumstances.
How will such pressure be applied? An RFD to give you influence over an
organisation that you have nothing to do with should give us all a laugh
anyway. Are you power crazy or something?
> 4) I will introduce an RFD to create, and then accredit, a new votetaking
> organisation. I hope to gain the support of Geoff Berrow and David Mahon
> in that creation.
... and then if you don't like the way votes go you create your own voting
organisation to give you just the result you want! Are you actually a sock
puppet of Peter Mandleson?
So - vote for Cummings! He will try to stop people he doesn't like standing
for election, he'll review things that are not within his remit, meddle in
the affairs that are none of his business and if he doesn't get his way
create a voting mechanism that he can control!
That's not a bad manifesto actually Paul, at least it will save us all the
hassle of elections every year.
> I'll also try my best to keep things professional.
That's your weak point in all honesty, the one thing that could put people
off from such a superb range of policies on which you are standing. Please
give us some indication as to when you intend to start acting in a
professional manner, it's the thing that nobody has ever seen you do and I
don't think that anybody believes that you are capable of it.
Go on, give it a try. You will find it an interesting experience as you've
never done it before. It might even give you a vague clue as to what
committee work is all about.
Good luck Paul.
Keith L
Cliff Hones
> ...
> Please do not listen to the deliberately erroneous advice of others such
> as Paul H and especially Cliff. They only want to see you humiliate
> yourself in order that they may derive some cheap entertainment for
> themselves.
I'm wondering whether to take comparison with Paul H as a compliment!
> On the basis that the use of a killfilter would seriously limit the
> number of posts that you see, and therefore the number of reply's that
> you make to those posts, I advise that you killfilter everyone in order
> to get the maximum benefit that a killfilter can provide for your
> campaign.
Awww, spoilsport :-).
Actually, my advice was meant to be useful and honest, but yours is
much more fun, and I do hope it is heeded.
-- Cliff
Paul Cummins
di...@dickalba.demon.co.uk (Dick Gaughan) wrote:
> You claimed Doctorates you didn't have and only admitted so once
> it had been proven beyond doubt publicly.
You can cite the proof, I assume? Clue - I have a doctorate in my hand...
> After that, you stopped calling yourself "The Reverend".
I have an ordination certificate in my other hand.
Iam perfectly entitled to claim these doctorates, as long as I am not
doing to to gain a financial advantage by deception.
Poeple here may not like 'vanity' doctorate and similar, they may also
think that people holding them are charlatans and frauds, but nonetheless,
vanity or not, no-one can dispute that I do indeed hold them.
> After that, you stopped
> calling yourself "Internet Engineer".
No, I have never stopped calling myself an Internet Engineer. I have been
employed as an Internet *Support* Engineer previously, for such various
companies as Cix, Telewest and Cheapernames. I'm currently training people
in IT (their ECDL) and 'soft skills' for the New Deal programme.
> Paul, you have a long record of being a proven liar, a would-be
> con artist who hasn't a clue how to run a con, a self-confessed
> charlatan.
Actually, lets try that again. I have a long history of Ashton calling me
a liar, of Ashton calling me a conman, and Ashton calling me a charlatan.
I have admitted the errer of my ways as regards the Liverpool Metropolitan
Cathedral claim, and hopefully mot people will have seen that my return to
usenet in December 2002, I have been substantially more credible. Without
intending to gloat, this recent incident has demonstrated that fact.
Unlike others, I have alo apologised when I have fucked up. ON this
occasion, I was able to demonstrate beyond the balance of probabilities
that my system was working, and on previous occasions have accepted the
advice of others, including Thomas Lee, Jim Hill and David Mahon in
resolving issues.
I've seen speculation as to why I was offline for a period in 2002. It has
been suggested that I was in Prison, or Sectioned. In fact the reason was
much simpler. I was lacking in funds, for various reasons including
unemployment, and had my BT line cut off, and relied on my mobile phone
for 6 months.
I'm actually happy to answer reasonable questions about my background from
anyone who actually genuinely wants to know my background, although
anything prejudicial or clearly argumentative will be disregarded.
Cliff Hones
> ...
> You can cite the proof, I assume? Clue - I have a doctorate in my hand...
> I have an ordination certificate in my other hand.
Err, what were you using to do the typing?
-- Cliff
Paul Cummins
Hones) wrote:
> > I have an ordination certificate in my other hand.
>
> Err, what were you using to do the typing?
peach recognisance salt Wales :-)
Julie Brandon
> In message, <notice-general-20041023134223$02...@gradwell.net>, Jon
> Ribbens <j.ri...@ukvoting.org.uk> spewed:
>
>|Having considered the matter, UKVoting have agreed that Richard's comments
>|do breach the guidelines, and that it would be inappropriate for him to
>|continue to act as a votetaker in these elections.
>
> Not good enough.
>
> It would be inappropriate for him to act as a votetaker full stop.
I would have to say that, as someone who hasn't otherwise been reading
u.n.n.(m|c), since seeing this announcement has been browsing through the
relevant threads, I would have to agree with you.
I would really like to see much more professional behaviour from those
representing the UK Usenet Voting & Committee when it comes to posts in
these newsgroups. But I guess it is unlikely to happen, so back I go to
unsubscribing from the groups again. :(
--
Julie Brandon http://www.computergeeks.co.uk/
_______________________________________________________________________________
Julie Brandon
> If you have got the balls, stand against Cummins and let the electorate
> decide....fred give Ashton his
> balls back.
That I would be a more appropriate, democratic, positive, less offensive,
and rather more productive way for Richard to deal with his difference of
opinions with Paul.
I'd be most happy to be a nominee for {R} if he wished to stand.
Julie Brandon
> Now that a UKVoting statement has been made I just wish that the whole
> subject would be dropped and we can get on with the election. The sn ratio
> on these groups has been appalling of late.
Unfortunately, it's been appalling on *.config for bloody years. :(
Pedt
>In article <2p2ln01qeh7cuquoj...@4ax.com>,
>news...@alex-holden.co.uk (Alex Holden) wrote:
>
>> That dosen' sound like somebody posting that they've seen a satisfactory
>> conclusion, and I see no retraction posts elsewhere.
>
>I don't see any contradiction between thinking AShton should be thrown out
>and accepting that UK Voting have done what they could.
Then it would have been better to have said that you were satisfied at
the time rather than tacking it on a few hours later.
--
Pedt
I don't speak for UKVoting, personal opinion(s) only.
Pedt
>In article <2u0908F...@uni-berlin.de>, cl...@aonix.co.uk (Cliff
>Hones) wrote:
>
>> > I have an ordination certificate in my other hand.
>>
>> Err, what were you using to do the typing?
>
>peach recognisance salt Wales :-)
>
Pedt
>In article <athln0hep781vhctt...@4ax.com>,
>di...@dickalba.demon.co.uk (Dick Gaughan) wrote:
>
>> You claimed Doctorates you didn't have and only admitted so once
>> it had been proven beyond doubt publicly.
>
>You can cite the proof, I assume? Clue - I have a doctorate in my hand...
>
>> After that, you stopped calling yourself "The Reverend".
>
>I have an ordination certificate in my other hand.
>
Paul Harper
>Please do not listen to the deliberately erroneous advice of others such
>as Paul H and especially Cliff. They only want to see you humiliate
>yourself in order that they may derive some cheap entertainment for
>themselves.
Entertainment is never cheap.
... and the advice both Cliff and I have given echoes that given a
year or two back on that very topic.
Paul Harper
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>In article <athln0hep781vhctt...@4ax.com>,
>di...@dickalba.demon.co.uk (Dick Gaughan) wrote:
>
>> You claimed Doctorates you didn't have and only admitted so once
>> it had been proven beyond doubt publicly.
>
>You can cite the proof, I assume? Clue - I have a doctorate in my hand...
>
>> After that, you stopped calling yourself "The Reverend".
>
>I have an ordination certificate in my other hand.
What are you using to type with?
No, I take that back. I really *really* don't want to know...
Chris Croughton
<pa...@harper.net> wrote:
> Usually, it's considered bad form for candidates to operate
> killfilters during the hustings. However, I very much doubt anyone
> would hold it against you.
How would anyone know, unless the candidate says? A major attribute of
killfiles, 'scoring' etc. is that they are personal and changeable by
the reader at will.
Chris C
Chris Croughton
<news...@alex-holden.co.uk> wrote:
> What the UKV statement did not say is that now Richard has been relieved
> of votetaking duties for the Committee election, he is now free to
> actively campaign for or against any candidate throughout the remainder
> of the process.
He seemed 'free' to do that anyway. What the UKV statement means is
that the rest of us are free to put him back in our killfiles, knowing
that he can't say anything official that we need to know...
Chris C
fred
<MPG.1be4ec60a...@news.clara.net> t...@reply.to
"Alan LeHun" wrote:
> Please do not listen to the deliberately erroneous advice of others such
> as Paul H and especially Cliff. They only want to see you humiliate
> yourself in order that they may derive some cheap entertainment for
> themselves.
Don't worry, I have a feeling that this Paul will have enough brains to
withdraw from the election *before* he is humiliated.
--
ô
õçîd
fred
<slrncnm0b7...@pepperami.computergeeks.me.uk>
nos...@honeypot.computergeeks.me.uk.invalid "Julie Brandon"
wrote:
> I would really like to see much more professional behaviour from those
> representing the UK Usenet Voting & Committee when it comes to posts in
> these newsgroups. But I guess it is unlikely to happen, so back I go to
> unsubscribing from the groups again. :(
If you want professionals you have to pay them.
--
ô
õçîd
Mark Goodge
typed:
>On 23 Oct 2004 12:46:49 -0700, Sed Fred (m...@privacy.net) said:
>> If you have got the balls, stand against Cummins and let the electorate
>> decide....fred give Ashton his
>> balls back.
>
>That I would be a more appropriate, democratic, positive, less offensive,
>and rather more productive way for Richard to deal with his difference of
>opinions with Paul.
While I'm sure that Richard would easily get far more votes than Mr
Cummins, I don't think this is an appropriate use of the election
process. If people aren't genuinely committed to the idea of joining
the committee in order to serve the uk.* community, and prepared to
work together with the other committee members in doing so, then they
shouldn't put themselves forward for election. Standing for election
to the committee shouldn't be about settling personal scores by means
of a public willy-waving contest.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, games and ringtones! <--
"I let the melody shine, let it cleanse my mind, I feel free now"
Mike Stanton
"Paul Cummins" <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2004102...@paul.vlaad.co.uk...
> In article <417aabfd$0$233$bed6...@news.gradwell.net>,
> nos...@spam.nium.org ({R}) wrote:
>
>> Try not to misuse it as meaning something it doesn't, however given your
>> lies, fraud, cheating and charlatanism there is little hope of you
>> grasping the essential truth.
>
> It's good to see Ashton showing his true colours.
>
> A vote for me is a vote against all Ashton stands for.
>
No. A vote for you is a vote for you. I do not choose to vote for you. If
Ashton stood I would not vote for him either. You should not try to turn
this election into a referendum on Ashton's conduct.
It is my opinion that, leaving aside all the dross and porn and warez,
Usenet is a vastly underused resource. A well ordered uk hierarchy can grow,
both in range and stature. To that end we ought to clean up the unn* groups.
They should be open and welcoming places for new users who see the internet
as a tool to enhance their everyday lives. At present these groups seem to
the outsider to belong to netheads and usenet hardnuts with testosterone
fuelled keyboards intent only on settling old scores that are of no interest
to most of us.
The fact that they conduct these feuds in the language of the gutter does a
grave disservice to the uk hierarchy. I would like to know what the
committee intends to do
1. to champion our hierarchy amongst uk computer users;
2. to maintain standards of decency within the hierarchy;
3. to ensure that as internet use expands the uk hierarchy shares in that
expansion.
--
mike stanton
Mike Stanton
"Julie Brandon" <nos...@honeypot.computergeeks.me.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:slrncnm1rp...@pepperami.computergeeks.me.uk...
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:09:30 +0100, Keith Lawrence (fa...@hotmail.com)
> said:
>> Now that a UKVoting statement has been made I just wish that the whole
>> subject would be dropped and we can get on with the election. The sn
>> ratio
>> on these groups has been appalling of late.
>
> Unfortunately, it's been appalling on *.config for bloody years. :(
>
I agree. The question is, What is to be Done?
--
mike stanton
Julie Brandon
>> Unfortunately, it's been appalling on *.config for bloody years. :(
>
> I agree. The question is, What is to be Done?
Can anything be done? Turkeys won't vote for Christmas, so I guess the
playground will stay a playground.
(I hate migraines! Got a lot to do today as well. Grrrrr)
Molly Mockford
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in
<vaumn0981gnk26g9u...@news.markshouse.net>:
>On 24 Oct 2004 01:31:10 GMT, Julie Brandon put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>On 23 Oct 2004 12:46:49 -0700, Sed Fred (m...@privacy.net) said:
>>> If you have got the balls, stand against Cummins and let the electorate
>>> decide....fred give Ashton his
>>> balls back.
>>
>>That I would be a more appropriate, democratic, positive, less offensive,
>>and rather more productive way for Richard to deal with his difference of
>>opinions with Paul.
>
>While I'm sure that Richard would easily get far more votes than Mr
>Cummins, I don't think this is an appropriate use of the election
>process. If people aren't genuinely committed to the idea of joining
>the committee in order to serve the uk.* community, and prepared to
>work together with the other committee members in doing so, then they
>shouldn't put themselves forward for election. Standing for election
>to the committee shouldn't be about settling personal scores by means
>of a public willy-waving contest.
One of Geoff's polls would be more appropriate. "If you were required
to vote for one, and only one, of the following two people, which would
it be?"
--
Molly
I don't speak for UKVoting. Hey, half the time I don't even speak for myself.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
Paul Cummins
use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) wrote:
> Standing for election
> to the committee shouldn't be about settling personal scores by means
> of a public willy-waving contest.
This is true, however, it's never stopped people in the past.
I am standing on a genuine platform of change and improvement, and will
succeed or fall on that basis.
Paul Cummins
mike.s...@dsl.pipex.com (Mike Stanton) wrote:
> I would like to know what the
> committee intends to do
> 1. to champion our hierarchy amongst uk computer users;
What can we do? IN your opinion?
> 2. to maintain standards of decency within the hierarchy;
Who sets these standards?
> 3. to ensure that as internet use expands the uk hierarchy shares in
> that expansion.
This is a valid question for the 'permanent' members...
Paul Cummins
nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk (Molly Mockford) wrote:
> One of Geoff's polls would be more appropriate. "If you were required
> to vote for one, and only one, of the following two people, which would
> it be?"
that's a good idea - Geff, can you set it up please?
Molly Mockford
<mike.s...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in
<417b806e$0$1158$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com>:
>I would like to know what the
>committee intends to do
>1. to champion our hierarchy amongst uk computer users;
>2. to maintain standards of decency within the hierarchy;
>3. to ensure that as internet use expands the uk hierarchy shares in that
>expansion.
What would you *expect* the committee to do, with reference to your no.
2?
The committee cannot censor or cancel posts in unnc/unnm any more than
you can. Unless you would like to see these groups changed to moderated
status, there is absolutely nothing which can be done to control the
words which individuals choose to type. People can deprecate, but they
can't prevent anything appearing (with the sole exception, of course, of
cancellable spam).
And, before anyone gets tempted by the idea, moderated status would be
totally inappropriate for the config group of a hierarchy, and only
marginally less so for the management group of that hierarchy. These
groups have to be fully accessible without filtering, white-listing or
whatever, and that means that it is up to each individual to operate his
or her own killfilter if s/he is offended by seeing certain combinations
of letters on the monitor.
Thomas Lee
<pa...@harper.net> writes
>
>What are you using to type with?
>
>No, I take that back. I really *really* don't want to know...
To change the tack a bit, my wife and I got a batch of sample Christmas
cards (and the catalogue to buy more) from an organisation I think is
called the Foot and Mouth Artists (or something like that), basically
people who paint with either their feet or their mouth. While most of
the card were the normal, run of the mill scenes, done OK, some were
really good. And one is so well done, at first I thought it was a
photograph.
I return you to this regularly scheduled bash session...
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Mike Stanton
"Paul Cummins" <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2004102...@paul.vlaad.co.uk...
> mike.s...@dsl.pipex.com (Mike Stanton) wrote:
>
>> I would like to know what the
>> committee intends to do
>> 1. to champion our hierarchy amongst uk computer users;
>
> What can we do? IN your opinion?
I do not know. That is why I asked. But if you look at how people use the
internet; email, chat, ebay and file sharing are probably up there near the
top. There is a plethora of web based forums and communities run by the
likes of Yahoo and MSN. People use the internet to communicate. P2P in all
its forms is the driving force. Attempts to push channels and content at
passive users has been an expensive failure.
Within this framework of P2P communication UseNet should be better known and
the uk hierarchy should be better promoted, perhaps with a user friendly web
site for newcomers.
>> 2. to maintain standards of decency within the hierarchy;
>
> Who sets these standards?
We do. It is a two step process. We vote on the formation of groups etc. So
uk.rec.kiddyporn etc are confined to oblivion. That is easy. We can also
raise the level of participation in unn* by recognizing that good
governance, which is what we are about, requires common standards of
behaviour that preclude abuse, invective and ad hominem attacks. We cannot
enforce this but we can stop letting the tail wag the dog. Democracy can
deliver.
>> 3. to ensure that as internet use expands the uk hierarchy shares in
>> that expansion.
>
> This is a valid question for the 'permanent' members...
For 'all' members I would think. But I take your point. My point is why
should they want to promote the hierarchy given the current standards of
behaviour within unn*?
--
mike stanton
Paul Harper
Oh that's dead easy. All you need to do is RFD to moderate the .config
and .management groups, collect a group of moderators and succeed in
the voting processes that set them up.
Or in other words, you're going to do nothing whatsoever about it.
So stop whingeing.
Paul Harper
<nos...@honeypot.computergeeks.me.uk.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:24:52 +0100, Mike Stanton (mike.s...@dsl.pipex.com) said:
>>> Unfortunately, it's been appalling on *.config for bloody years. :(
>>
>> I agree. The question is, What is to be Done?
>
>Can anything be done? Turkeys won't vote for Christmas, so I guess the
>playground will stay a playground.
>
>(I hate migraines! Got a lot to do today as well. Grrrrr)
Stay offline until it gets better. The screen will only make a
migraine worse and people telling you that you are talking a load of
shite tends to upset you more than it should. It's not worth it.
Paul Cummins
mike.s...@dsl.pipex.com (Mike Stanton) wrote:
> We can also
> raise the level of participation in unn* by recognizing that good
> governance, which is what we are about, requires common standards of
> behaviour that preclude abuse, invective and ad hominem attacks.
Once my 'statement' is published, you will see that this is exactly what I
have said. My statement was sent to the votetaker 9 days ago and will not
be edited
Paul Harper
>Cummins brains? Never in a million years he will challenge Harper for
>all time bad luser award.
How'd you work that out? You have stood twice for election and lost
both times, you got censured in last year's election for shooting your
gob off and thrown out of the votetakers in this year's for the same
thing.
And yet despite being rejected by the electorate twice and bollocked
by your peers and betters twice, you still stomp around as though you
have some remaining credibility.
You epitomise Geoffrey Howe's "dead sheep". Remind me again, who's the
loser?
The mistake you are making is in your assumption that I wouldn't be
upset to see you six-feet under because of your behaviour in my
direction last year.
Wrong, sunshine, way wrong. I've felt that way for a *lot* longer than
that. How you feel about wanting to piss on Allen's grave? Same here
in your direction provided I can stop laughing long enough. Live with
Alex Holden
<5$WxTKKh7...@iwannabe.spamless.org.uk>, Pedt <"\"@
@\""@iwannabe.spamless.org.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
>Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> said:
>>In article <athln0hep781vhctt...@4ax.com>,
>>di...@dickalba.demon.co.uk (Dick Gaughan) wrote:
>>
>>> You claimed Doctorates you didn't have and only admitted so once
>>> it had been proven beyond doubt publicly.
>>
>>You can cite the proof, I assume? Clue - I have a doctorate in my hand...
>>
>>> After that, you stopped calling yourself "The Reverend".
>>
>>I have an ordination certificate in my other hand.
>>
>I'd really suggest that you stop digging holes Paul.
Actually, I'm going to call this one a truth, but the value of that
truth may need some further examination:
Paul Cummins was caught out about supposedly having a Doctorate of
Divinity at Liverpool (RC) Cathedral - "before he lost his faith." A
good resident of these parts contacted the Cathedral and asked if this
was true and was rebutted. But if I remember the end of the episode
correctly, he does admit to having had purchased or had purchased for
him (and therefore acknowledged,) a Doctorate of Divinity obtained from
the Universal Life Church, an organisation that also provides free
ordinations (and therefore ordination certificates either in black and
white or colour depending on the printer that one has) on demand. The
Late Lying Cunt Allen was involved somewhere along the line.
So his statement about having an ordination certificate (whether it was
in hand or not at the time of typing which would, of course make the
statement a lie) is technically true, but it's not something that I
would want to shout from the rooftops.
Cheers,
--
I don't speak for anybody but myself.
Alex Holden
<DtWy3WC6...@mail.psp.co.uk>, Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote in
uk.net.news.management:
>To change the tack a bit, my wife and I got a batch of sample Christmas
>cards (and the catalogue to buy more) from an organisation I think is
>called the Foot and Mouth Artists (or something like that), basically
>people who paint with either their feet or their mouth. While most of
>the card were the normal, run of the mill scenes, done OK, some were
>really good. And one is so well done, at first I thought it was a
>photograph.
Is there a URL?
Paul Harper
>In message <35mmn0t1g5e54h3il...@4ax.com>, Paul Harper
><pa...@harper.net> writes
>>
>>What are you using to type with?
>>
>>No, I take that back. I really *really* don't want to know...
>
>To change the tack a bit, my wife and I got a batch of sample Christmas
>cards (and the catalogue to buy more) from an organisation I think is
>called the Foot and Mouth Artists (or something like that), basically
>people who paint with either their feet or their mouth. While most of
>the card were the normal, run of the mill scenes, done OK, some were
>really good. And one is so well done, at first I thought it was a
>photograph.
There's a similar group of disabled artists suppoted by the company I
work for - we have dozens of their originals around the building.
We used to have more until their subject matter was re-interpreted
after comments from staff, and the degree of sexual explicitness
deemed unsuitable for a corporate headquarters wall! <g>
Dick Gaughan
2004 23:35:36 +0000 (UTC), agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul
Cummins) wrote:
<waffle and much "creative" snipping snipped>
>> After that, you stopped calling yourself "The Reverend".
>
>I have an ordination certificate in my other hand.
Your pathetic attempts to distort/manipulate by selective snipping
are contemptible.
I made no comment on what you do or don't have in your hand. I was
discussing your claim, made here in public, that you had been
given a DD in an ordination service in Liverpool Catholic
Cathedral, a claim which was utterly and self-evidently false.
When called on it, you did as you always do and whined that people
were being cruel to you until you finally admitted you were lying.
You are one of those loathsome self-deceptive clots who believes
that saying "sorry" when caught wipes the slate clean for you to
repeat exactly the same behaviour ad nauseum. That incident and
the way you handled it, on its own without all the other examples,
was enough to brand you a compulsive liar, a fantasist and
entirely untrustworthy.
I honestly find it difficult to accept that anyone could really,
genuinely, truly be so dense yet not have been drowned shortly
after birth.
--
DG
Molly Mockford
<k1ann0hcjs6ps1c9r...@4ax.com>:
>How'd you work that out? You have stood twice for election and lost
>both times, you got censured in last year's election for shooting your
>gob off and thrown out of the votetakers in this year's for the same
>thing.
"Thrown out of the votetakers"? Have you seen something I haven't? Or
is this (much more likely) just wishful thinking on your part?
Paul Harper
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>At 14:18:55 on Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Paul Harper <pa...@harper.net> wrote in
><k1ann0hcjs6ps1c9r...@4ax.com>:
>
>>How'd you work that out? You have stood twice for election and lost
>>both times, you got censured in last year's election for shooting your
>>gob off and thrown out of the votetakers in this year's for the same
>>thing.
>
>"Thrown out of the votetakers"? Have you seen something I haven't? Or
>is this (much more likely) just wishful thinking on your part?
You snippeth the context *and* the words.
"... thrown out of the votetakers in this year's".
He was a votetaker in this year's [election], he is no longer a
votetaker in this year's [election] because requests from complainants
that he be removed from the process were upheld. He got thrown off
this year's team.
What I said was both factually and syntactically correct, though as in
anything, removing words to illustrate an imagined context will change
both.
Don't worry about it - Pedt had the same context comprehension problem
when he took exception to my describing ludicrous extremes of a single
example as being a "fun game" as meaning the entire election and uk
hierarchy management process. A leap of imagination almost staggering
in its expansion.
To answer your implied question, do I think Ashton should be removed
from UKV totally? Yes, absolutely. Someone with his record of being
told off by UKVoting (twice in two elections is consistent) is a
severe liability and has no place in any organisation that takes
itself seriously.
... but that is *not* what I said or implied in my OP, though I am
quite happy to say it here.
fred
<qobnn014rk9hfcaku...@4ax.com> pa...@harper.net
"Paul Harper" wrote:
> There's a similar group of disabled artists suppoted by the company I
> work for - we have dozens of their originals around the building.
>
> We used to have more until their subject matter was re-interpreted
> after comments from staff, and the degree of sexual explicitness
> deemed unsuitable for a corporate headquarters wall! <g>
That reminds me of the one about the five insurance companies that
amalgamated and commissioned a famous sculptor to carve a mural
for the foyer of the new head office. When it was unveiled it was a
picture of four couples in beds with a stork flying over them.
So the Managing Director grabs the sculptor and asks him to explain.
"Well" says the sculptor "in the first bed is a man and his wife that's
Legal and General, next is a man and his secretary that's Employers
Liability, next is a man and his fiancee that's Mutual Trust and last
is a man and a prostitute that's Commercial Union."
"What about the stork?" asked the MD, "General Accident" replied the
sculptor.
--
ô
õçîd
Paul Harper
<grin> Okay, that one has the "keep message" button clicked on it :-)
Paul Cummins
news...@alex-holden.co.uk (Alex Holden) wrote:
> he does admit to having had purchased or had purchased for
> him (and therefore acknowledged,) a Doctorate of Divinity obtained from
> the Universal Life Church, an organisation that also provides free
> ordinations (and therefore ordination certificates either in black and
> white or colour depending on the printer that one has) on demand.
Indeed. Both of them are laser printed on pretty manuscript style paper.
Neither of them are cited on my CV, contrary to previous assertions.
Paul Cummins
> he will challenge Harper for
> all time bad luser award.
Pot-Kettle inversion error...
Paul Cummins
@"@101fc.net (Mother) wrote:
> Why did you buy them or otherwise want them?
Everyone at the CIX support desk went to the ULC site one day and got
Ordained.
The doctorate came later, when a friend of mine was lauding his Masters
degree in physics, but couldn't tune in an antenna himself, or switch on a
PC without needing assistance.
Initially the Doctorate was a Magic Mill certificate, since these are
free. Later, Allen Hughes purchased a Doctorate of Divinity for me.
> This isn't anything other than a vague matter of interest type
> question. Please do not take it any other way.
I did say that reasonable questions would be answered :-)
Beofre someone else comes in and says "why did I claim what I claimed" the
answer is because I was being stupid and immature.
Alex Holden
<memo.2004102...@paul.vlaad.co.uk>,
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote in
uk.net.news.management:
>In article <e5ann058j7hql1fni...@4ax.com>,
>news...@alex-holden.co.uk (Alex Holden) wrote:
>
>> he does admit to having had purchased or had purchased for
>> him (and therefore acknowledged,) a Doctorate of Divinity obtained from
>> the Universal Life Church, an organisation that also provides free
>> ordinations (and therefore ordination certificates either in black and
>> white or colour depending on the printer that one has) on demand.
>
>Indeed. Both of them are laser printed on pretty manuscript style paper.
>
>Neither of them are cited on my CV, contrary to previous assertions.
I hope that the pretty manuscript style paper wasn't tarnished too much
while you typed that you held your ordination certificate in your hand.
And what about your previous assertions here of having been awarded a DD
by the Roman Catholic Church, an assertion easily found to be untrue, an
assertion I mentioned in my post but an assertion that you have snipped.
Furthermore, you appear to have snipped the involvement of The Late
Lying Cunt Allen, who if I remember the incident was your sponsor for
that rigorous and demanding course, and funding the only requirement for
that qualification, that currently being the removal of $35 from one
account and deposited into the account of the ULC, and therefore
deserves, nay requires mentioning as the one who ensured that you did,
in actual fact and belated hold a Doctorate of Divinity after it was
found that you had lied. Again.
And is it not true that before that lie was exposed (and the above
Doctorate of Divinity purchased,) you referred to yourself as Dr. Paul
Cummins?
The Late Lying Cunt Allen funded your Doctorate of Divinity after it was
found that you had lied. Should we refer to you as TLDP, The Lying
Doctor Paul, or would you prefer to be referred as TLCP or TLCDP?
How anybody can rank you, somebody who stated on here that you don't
want to be elected during this year's nomination cycle, somebody who has
lied, lied and lied again, somebody who twists truths that are hardly
anything to be proud of as a preference at this year's election beggars
belief.