Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Moderation Policy suspended in ulm?
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Norman Wells
Feb 21, 2024, 10:47:36 AM2/21/24
to
Below is a post that appeared in ulm today that seems to me to be
completely off-topic with no discernible legal content at all. There
have been several similar others in the same thread on the same topic in
the last few days, and I'm wondering therefore whether this means the
content is perfectly acceptable (if so, how please) or whether the
current moderation policy has been suspended.
Can we please be told so we all know the rules?
Anyway, here's the post in question:
"I respectfully refer you to Message-ID:
<l2uqb9...@mid.individual.net>, BBID: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 15:04:09
+0000 in which I said "What OE has is the ability to access another
program's dictionary to perform checks on spelling. [3]"
Footnote [3], referenced therein, said, "[3] See the final paragraph in
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/spelling-checker-does-not-run-on-message-in-outlook-express-5-35237572-6df2-dbd8-9ca5-33d323cae263
unless you're claiming you know better than Microsoft about how OE works?
Said, "final paragraph" stating: "Outlook Express is offered as a
downloadable product, and it does not include its own dictionary.
Outlook Express does can [sic] use another programs [sic] dictionary,
such as Microsoft Word, to check the spelling of text. Without another
program's dictionary to access, Outlook Express cannot use the spelling
checker."
I also added that "There was a known bug in OE where installing Office
2007 on a machine running OE forced the Spell Check language to French."
Unfortunately, much of this context was lost owing to the fact that in
your reply, (which is where the quoted text above starts), Message-ID:
<uqkq5v$399dv$1...@dont-email.me>, BB-ID: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 10:48:28 -0000,
you snipped everything except for a portion of footnote [3], namely:
"https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/spelling-checker-does-not-run-on-message-in-outlook-express-5-35237572-6df2-dbd8-9ca5-33d323cae263
unless you're claiming you know better than Microsoft about how OE
works?" to which you then replied:
<quote> (quote:)
Well as you yourself. if not Microsoft can bear witness to the
gibberish I occasionally post when *not* making use of the built in OE
spellchecker, (the source of the dictionary is an entirely different matter)
that claim is quite obviously specious and beyond merit. (If not totally
irrelevant in any case)
In addition surely shouldn't take the posthumous intercession of the
Late Professor Mandy Rice Davies to cause you to treat all such claims
from profit making organisations with caution.?
<end quote> (:quote)
I then demonstrated that there is no need to take what Microsoft says
"with caution" and it is easy to demonstrate that OE makes use of the
Microsoft Common Spell Check Utility although you declined the
opportunity to prove this to yourself.
I suggest that your second paragraph quoted above and making a reference
to "the Late Professor Mandy Rice Davies" was a response to my statement
"unless you're claiming you know better than Microsoft about how OE
works" and exists only to cast doubt on Microsoft's claim quoted in the
final paragraph of their support page quoted above.
If you agreed with everything stated in my original post, as you're now
claiming you did, why on earth didn't you simply say that in your reply
instead of attempting to cast aspersions on the text of Microsoft's I'd
referenced?
Unless, your intention all along was, to use your words, for "this
particular exchange" to descend "into arguing for its own sake" and that
your posts were not intended to further the discussion in any meaningful
way. That couldn't have been your intention, could it?
Regards
S.P."
completely off-topic with no discernible legal content at all. There
have been several similar others in the same thread on the same topic in
the last few days, and I'm wondering therefore whether this means the
content is perfectly acceptable (if so, how please) or whether the
current moderation policy has been suspended.
Can we please be told so we all know the rules?
Anyway, here's the post in question:
"I respectfully refer you to Message-ID:
<l2uqb9...@mid.individual.net>, BBID: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 15:04:09
+0000 in which I said "What OE has is the ability to access another
program's dictionary to perform checks on spelling. [3]"
Footnote [3], referenced therein, said, "[3] See the final paragraph in
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/spelling-checker-does-not-run-on-message-in-outlook-express-5-35237572-6df2-dbd8-9ca5-33d323cae263
unless you're claiming you know better than Microsoft about how OE works?
Said, "final paragraph" stating: "Outlook Express is offered as a
downloadable product, and it does not include its own dictionary.
Outlook Express does can [sic] use another programs [sic] dictionary,
such as Microsoft Word, to check the spelling of text. Without another
program's dictionary to access, Outlook Express cannot use the spelling
checker."
I also added that "There was a known bug in OE where installing Office
2007 on a machine running OE forced the Spell Check language to French."
Unfortunately, much of this context was lost owing to the fact that in
your reply, (which is where the quoted text above starts), Message-ID:
<uqkq5v$399dv$1...@dont-email.me>, BB-ID: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 10:48:28 -0000,
you snipped everything except for a portion of footnote [3], namely:
"https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/spelling-checker-does-not-run-on-message-in-outlook-express-5-35237572-6df2-dbd8-9ca5-33d323cae263
unless you're claiming you know better than Microsoft about how OE
works?" to which you then replied:
<quote> (quote:)
Well as you yourself. if not Microsoft can bear witness to the
gibberish I occasionally post when *not* making use of the built in OE
spellchecker, (the source of the dictionary is an entirely different matter)
that claim is quite obviously specious and beyond merit. (If not totally
irrelevant in any case)
In addition surely shouldn't take the posthumous intercession of the
Late Professor Mandy Rice Davies to cause you to treat all such claims
from profit making organisations with caution.?
<end quote> (:quote)
I then demonstrated that there is no need to take what Microsoft says
"with caution" and it is easy to demonstrate that OE makes use of the
Microsoft Common Spell Check Utility although you declined the
opportunity to prove this to yourself.
I suggest that your second paragraph quoted above and making a reference
to "the Late Professor Mandy Rice Davies" was a response to my statement
"unless you're claiming you know better than Microsoft about how OE
works" and exists only to cast doubt on Microsoft's claim quoted in the
final paragraph of their support page quoted above.
If you agreed with everything stated in my original post, as you're now
claiming you did, why on earth didn't you simply say that in your reply
instead of attempting to cast aspersions on the text of Microsoft's I'd
referenced?
Unless, your intention all along was, to use your words, for "this
particular exchange" to descend "into arguing for its own sake" and that
your posts were not intended to further the discussion in any meaningful
way. That couldn't have been your intention, could it?
Regards
S.P."
Roger Hayter
Feb 21, 2024, 11:04:00 AM2/21/24
to
On 21 Feb 2024 at 15:47:33 GMT, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> Below is a post that appeared in ulm today that seems to me to be
> completely off-topic with no discernible legal content at all. There
> have been several similar others in the same thread on the same topic in
> the last few days, and I'm wondering therefore whether this means the
> content is perfectly acceptable (if so, how please) or whether the
> current moderation policy has been suspended.
>
> Can we please be told so we all know the rules?
>
> Anyway, here's the post in question:
>
>
Quoted post deleted for brevity.
> Below is a post that appeared in ulm today that seems to me to be
> completely off-topic with no discernible legal content at all. There
> have been several similar others in the same thread on the same topic in
> the last few days, and I'm wondering therefore whether this means the
> content is perfectly acceptable (if so, how please) or whether the
> current moderation policy has been suspended.
>
> Can we please be told so we all know the rules?
>
> Anyway, here's the post in question:
>
>
I have no inside information, but I very much doubt that the moderation policy
has been suspended. For instance, if you were to attempt to post the above to
ulm I expect it would rejected either as meta, or not new, or both.
HTH
--
Roger Hayter
Norman Wells
Feb 21, 2024, 1:18:04 PM2/21/24
to
Which is rather the point.
GB
Feb 21, 2024, 3:47:46 PM2/21/24
to
Outlook Express is way, way off topic, and rather dull, so I muted that
thread a few days ago.
What surprises me is that you haven't.
Simon Parker
Feb 21, 2024, 5:36:55 PM2/21/24
to
On 21/02/2024 15:47, Norman Wells wrote:
> Below is a post that appeared in ulm today that seems to me to be
> completely off-topic with no discernible legal content at all. There
> have been several similar others in the same thread on the same topic in
> the last few days, and I'm wondering therefore whether this means the
> content is perfectly acceptable (if so, how please) or whether the
> current moderation policy has been suspended.
>
> Can we please be told so we all know the rules?
You were told "the rules" in the last few days in Message-ID:
> Below is a post that appeared in ulm today that seems to me to be
> completely off-topic with no discernible legal content at all. There
> have been several similar others in the same thread on the same topic in
> the last few days, and I'm wondering therefore whether this means the
> content is perfectly acceptable (if so, how please) or whether the
> current moderation policy has been suspended.
>
> Can we please be told so we all know the rules?
<l391m3F...@mid.individual.net> when you asked virtually the same
questions about another post to ULM.
As I have explained to you numerous times, repeating the question, even
if you phrase it slightly differently, will not yield a different answer.
However, as you seem keen on ensuring that the moderation policy is
followed at all times, I feel it prudent to bring section (f) thereof to
your attention.
Be advised that I consider your repeated asking of the same question
here to be a deliberate waste of the moderators time and an attempt to
disrupt the group.
I strongly recommend against testing my resolve much further on this matter.
Regards
S.P.
Simon Parker
Feb 21, 2024, 5:37:17 PM2/21/24
to
On 21/02/2024 16:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
are available to view where the following is made clear: The post in
question was made by a whitelisted posted and so did not need moderating
manually.
Had it appeared in the queue at a time I was moderating, I'd have had no
hesitation in approving the post. Other moderators may take a different
decision, but for that particular post, no manual decision was required.
That said, the sub-thread in question is becoming circular and I expect
it will shortly either die a natural death or be put out of its misery
by other means.
Regards
S.P.
Simon Parker
Feb 21, 2024, 5:38:17 PM2/21/24
to
On 21/02/2024 18:18, Norman Wells wrote:
contingent on the former.
> Which is rather the point.
whitelist despite it being explicitly provided for in the Charter.
Your chance for opposing the operation of a whitelist passed over a
decade ago. If you wish to change that, your only options have been
explained to you previously: You either need to issue a CFV or let it go.
Repeatedly wasting the time of the moderators by posting here about it,
particularly with no more than a few days between posts, is going to get
you banned. No, really! It is!
Regards
S.P.
Norman Wells
Feb 21, 2024, 5:59:11 PM2/21/24
to
The point is double standards, duplicity and hypocrisy.
If moderators apply the rules against anyone, as they do, surely it is
incumbent on them to abide by them themselves? Yet some appear totally
incapable of reining themselves in, and blatantly flout the very rules
it is their responsibility to uphold.
And when this obvious truth is pointed out to them, there is absolutely
no contrition, no apology, no self-awareness, just threats of retribution.
It's really quite shameful.
Norman Wells
Feb 21, 2024, 6:16:20 PM2/21/24
to
On 21/02/2024 22:38, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 21/02/2024 18:18, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 21/02/2024 16:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> On 21 Feb 2024 at 15:47:33 GMT, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Below is a post that appeared in ulm today that seems to me to be
>>>> completely off-topic with no discernible legal content at all. There
>>>> have been several similar others in the same thread on the same
>>>> topic in
>>>> the last few days, and I'm wondering therefore whether this means the
>>>> content is perfectly acceptable (if so, how please) or whether the
>>>> current moderation policy has been suspended.
>>>>
>>>> Can we please be told so we all know the rules?
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, here's the post in question:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quoted post deleted for brevity.
>>>
>>> I have no inside information, but I very much doubt that the
>>> moderation policy
>>> has been suspended. For instance, if you were to attempt to post the
>>> above to
>>> ulm I expect it would rejected either as meta, or not new, or both.
>>
>> Yes. I am not white-listed, nor am I a moderator.
>
> The former you can do something about whilst the latter is very much
> contingent on the former.
It's just a statement of fact, nothing more.
> On 21/02/2024 18:18, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 21/02/2024 16:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> On 21 Feb 2024 at 15:47:33 GMT, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Below is a post that appeared in ulm today that seems to me to be
>>>> completely off-topic with no discernible legal content at all. There
>>>> have been several similar others in the same thread on the same
>>>> topic in
>>>> the last few days, and I'm wondering therefore whether this means the
>>>> content is perfectly acceptable (if so, how please) or whether the
>>>> current moderation policy has been suspended.
>>>>
>>>> Can we please be told so we all know the rules?
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, here's the post in question:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quoted post deleted for brevity.
>>>
>>> I have no inside information, but I very much doubt that the
>>> moderation policy
>>> has been suspended. For instance, if you were to attempt to post the
>>> above to
>>> ulm I expect it would rejected either as meta, or not new, or both.
>>
>> Yes. I am not white-listed, nor am I a moderator.
>
> The former you can do something about whilst the latter is very much
> contingent on the former.
>> Which is rather the point.
>
> No. The point is that you object in principle to the operation of a
> whitelist despite it being explicitly provided for in the Charter.
being a moderator or on a whitelist should be carte blanche to flout the
moderation policy rules with no self-restraint. Do you?
Do you not think that moderators in particular have a serious
responsibility to abide by the rules they are supposed to uphold and
indeed apply against others? If not, it's blatant hypocrisy.
> Your chance for opposing the operation of a whitelist passed over a
> decade ago. If you wish to change that, your only options have been
> explained to you previously: You either need to issue a CFV or let it go.
on their own to the moderation policy rules so that they don't require
manual moderation.
Your totally off-topic posts have shown you can't be so trusted. And
since you flout the rules with no self-control you obviously can't be
trusted as a guardian of the moderation policy either.
> Repeatedly wasting the time of the moderators by posting here about it,
> particularly with no more than a few days between posts, is going to get
> you banned. No, really! It is!
I don't waste any of your time at all. You come here of your own free
> particularly with no more than a few days between posts, is going to get
> you banned. No, really! It is!
will, and spend as much time here as *you* choose. I have no control
over that, so have no responsibility for it.
The other moderators haven't spent any time at all in this thread. You
see? It's your choice entirely. Nothing to do with me.
Norman Wells
Feb 21, 2024, 6:21:44 PM2/21/24
to
On 21/02/2024 22:37, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 21/02/2024 16:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2024 at 15:47:33 GMT, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>>> Below is a post that appeared in ulm today that seems to me to be
>>> completely off-topic with no discernible legal content at all. There
>>> have been several similar others in the same thread on the same topic in
>>> the last few days, and I'm wondering therefore whether this means the
>>> content is perfectly acceptable (if so, how please) or whether the
>>> current moderation policy has been suspended.
>>>
>>> Can we please be told so we all know the rules?
>>>
>>> Anyway, here's the post in question:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Quoted post deleted for brevity.
>>
>> I have no inside information, but I very much doubt that the
>> moderation policy
>> has been suspended. For instance, if you were to attempt to post the
>> above to
>> ulm I expect it would rejected either as meta, or not new, or both.
>>
>> HTH
>
> As I'm sure both you and Norman know, and even if you didn't the logs
> are available to view where the following is made clear: The post in
> question was made by a whitelisted posted and so did not need moderating
> manually.
The post in question was made by *you*. And *you* should know better
> On 21/02/2024 16:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2024 at 15:47:33 GMT, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>>> Below is a post that appeared in ulm today that seems to me to be
>>> completely off-topic with no discernible legal content at all. There
>>> have been several similar others in the same thread on the same topic in
>>> the last few days, and I'm wondering therefore whether this means the
>>> content is perfectly acceptable (if so, how please) or whether the
>>> current moderation policy has been suspended.
>>>
>>> Can we please be told so we all know the rules?
>>>
>>> Anyway, here's the post in question:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Quoted post deleted for brevity.
>>
>> I have no inside information, but I very much doubt that the
>> moderation policy
>> has been suspended. For instance, if you were to attempt to post the
>> above to
>> ulm I expect it would rejected either as meta, or not new, or both.
>>
>> HTH
>
> As I'm sure both you and Norman know, and even if you didn't the logs
> are available to view where the following is made clear: The post in
> question was made by a whitelisted posted and so did not need moderating
> manually.
than to flout the moderation policy rules in the way you did.
You're a moderator for goodness sake, so there's no excuse.
> Had it appeared in the queue at a time I was moderating, I'd have had no
> hesitation in approving the post. Other moderators may take a different
> decision, but for that particular post, no manual decision was required.
thread, and not excused by being humorous, frivolous or a follow-up to
an on-topic discussion. Sorry, but they're the facts.
Roger Hayter
Feb 21, 2024, 6:23:48 PM2/21/24
to
On 21 Feb 2024 at 22:37:14 GMT, "Simon Parker" <simonpa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 21/02/2024 16:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2024 at 15:47:33 GMT, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>>> Below is a post that appeared in ulm today that seems to me to be
>>> completely off-topic with no discernible legal content at all. There
>>> have been several similar others in the same thread on the same topic in
>>> the last few days, and I'm wondering therefore whether this means the
>>> content is perfectly acceptable (if so, how please) or whether the
>>> current moderation policy has been suspended.
>>>
>>> Can we please be told so we all know the rules?
>>>
>>> Anyway, here's the post in question:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Quoted post deleted for brevity.
>>
>> I have no inside information, but I very much doubt that the moderation policy
>> has been suspended. For instance, if you were to attempt to post the above to
>> ulm I expect it would rejected either as meta, or not new, or both.
>>
>> HTH
>
> As I'm sure both you and Norman know, and even if you didn't the logs
> are available to view where the following is made clear: The post in
> question was made by a whitelisted posted and so did not need moderating
> manually.
Are you aware that the times of posting on the public listing are deliberately
obfuscated to conceal who is whitelisted, at least during times of prompt
moderation?
>
> Had it appeared in the queue at a time I was moderating, I'd have had no
> hesitation in approving the post. Other moderators may take a different
> decision, but for that particular post, no manual decision was required.
>
> That said, the sub-thread in question is becoming circular and I expect
> it will shortly either die a natural death or be put out of its misery
> by other means.
>
> Regards
>
> S.P.
--
Roger Hayter
wrote:
> On 21/02/2024 16:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2024 at 15:47:33 GMT, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>>> Below is a post that appeared in ulm today that seems to me to be
>>> completely off-topic with no discernible legal content at all. There
>>> have been several similar others in the same thread on the same topic in
>>> the last few days, and I'm wondering therefore whether this means the
>>> content is perfectly acceptable (if so, how please) or whether the
>>> current moderation policy has been suspended.
>>>
>>> Can we please be told so we all know the rules?
>>>
>>> Anyway, here's the post in question:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Quoted post deleted for brevity.
>>
>> I have no inside information, but I very much doubt that the moderation policy
>> has been suspended. For instance, if you were to attempt to post the above to
>> ulm I expect it would rejected either as meta, or not new, or both.
>>
>> HTH
>
> As I'm sure both you and Norman know, and even if you didn't the logs
> are available to view where the following is made clear: The post in
> question was made by a whitelisted posted and so did not need moderating
> manually.
obfuscated to conceal who is whitelisted, at least during times of prompt
moderation?
>
> Had it appeared in the queue at a time I was moderating, I'd have had no
> hesitation in approving the post. Other moderators may take a different
> decision, but for that particular post, no manual decision was required.
>
> That said, the sub-thread in question is becoming circular and I expect
> it will shortly either die a natural death or be put out of its misery
> by other means.
>
> Regards
>
> S.P.
Roger Hayter
Norman Wells
Feb 21, 2024, 6:28:51 PM2/21/24
to
You come *here* of your own free will, with no duties, and under no
obligation. You have to own the time you spend here yourself.
> I strongly recommend against testing my resolve much further on this
> matter.
nature. Don't you?
GB
Feb 22, 2024, 5:37:46 AM2/22/24
to
On 21/02/2024 22:59, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>> What surprises me is that you haven't.
>
> I shouldn't have to, nor should you.
>
> The point is double standards, duplicity and hypocrisy.
>
> If moderators apply the rules against anyone, as they do, surely it is
> incumbent on them to abide by them themselves? Yet some appear totally
> incapable of reining themselves in, and blatantly flout the very rules
> it is their responsibility to uphold.
>
> And when this obvious truth is pointed out to them, there is absolutely
> no contrition, no apology, no self-awareness, just threats of retribution.
>
> It's really quite shameful.
>
I read all that, Norman, and I wondered what on earth you would say if
>>
>> What surprises me is that you haven't.
>
> I shouldn't have to, nor should you.
>
> The point is double standards, duplicity and hypocrisy.
>
> If moderators apply the rules against anyone, as they do, surely it is
> incumbent on them to abide by them themselves? Yet some appear totally
> incapable of reining themselves in, and blatantly flout the very rules
> it is their responsibility to uphold.
>
> And when this obvious truth is pointed out to them, there is absolutely
> no contrition, no apology, no self-awareness, just threats of retribution.
>
> It's really quite shameful.
>
something actually bad happened to you?
The amount of effort you put into complaining about the most minor
conceivable injustice!
Kerr-Mudd, John
Feb 22, 2024, 5:40:14 AM2/22/24
to
of jealously.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
Adam Funk
Feb 22, 2024, 5:45:06 AM2/22/24
to
On 2024-02-21, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 21/02/2024 22:38, Simon Parker wrote:
...
> On 21/02/2024 22:38, Simon Parker wrote:
>> No. The point is that you object in principle to the operation of a
>> whitelist despite it being explicitly provided for in the Charter.
>
> The objection is to *how* it is operated. I don't personally think
> being a moderator or on a whitelist should be carte blanche to flout the
> moderation policy rules with no self-restraint. Do you?
From previous threads here, I'm fairly sure the moderators have
>> whitelist despite it being explicitly provided for in the Charter.
>
> The objection is to *how* it is operated. I don't personally think
> being a moderator or on a whitelist should be carte blanche to flout the
> moderation policy rules with no self-restraint. Do you?
removed people from the whitelist for violations.
I do think the moderators should give you a full refund of your ULM
subscription, however.
GB
Feb 22, 2024, 5:54:42 AM2/22/24
to
On 21/02/2024 22:38, Simon Parker wrote:
> Repeatedly wasting the time of the moderators by posting here about it,
> particularly with no more than a few days between posts, is going to get
> you banned. No, really! It is!
I assume you would ban under the moderation policy:
> particularly with no more than a few days between posts, is going to get
> you banned. No, really! It is!
"f) The moderators may at their discretion ban contributors who try to
disrupt the group by wasting the moderators time. The moderators should
confirm the decision of any one moderator by a majority of all
moderators within 72 hours and should attempt to inform such
contributors of their action. The moderators will use their best
endeavours to avoid banning anyone and to persuade disruptive
contributors to modify their posting style."
I think that you'd be stretching that beyond breaking point if the ban
is based on posts to an entirely different newsgroup. Still, I suppose
that the moderators ought to be the experts on what they mean by their
own policy.
I am surprised that you don't simply put Norman on ignore. I'm amazed at
the number of times moderators have entered into a lively debate with
trolls on unnn, so I always assumed that you enjoy it.
If that is indeed your motivation, then you are responsible for wasting
your own time. If you are doing it through some sense of duty, then I
suggest that you do not allow yourselves to be drawn repeatedly into the
same futile arguments.
Norman Wells
Feb 22, 2024, 5:55:54 AM2/22/24
to
to matter to some who are puffed up with their own self-importance.
Norman Wells
Feb 22, 2024, 6:08:41 AM2/22/24
to
hypocritical rejections, baseless accusations, irrational prejudice,
potty-mouthed abuse, ad hom attacks, lies, and even threats, from the
moderators there.
Which must be nice.
Norman Wells
Feb 22, 2024, 6:10:59 AM2/22/24
to
On 22/02/2024 10:42, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2024-02-21, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> On 21/02/2024 22:38, Simon Parker wrote:
>
> ...
>>> No. The point is that you object in principle to the operation of a
>>> whitelist despite it being explicitly provided for in the Charter.
>>
>> The objection is to *how* it is operated. I don't personally think
>> being a moderator or on a whitelist should be carte blanche to flout the
>> moderation policy rules with no self-restraint. Do you?
>
> From previous threads here, I'm fairly sure the moderators have
> removed people from the whitelist for violations.
Do you think that should happen to the contributor of the post I quoted
> On 2024-02-21, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> On 21/02/2024 22:38, Simon Parker wrote:
>
> ...
>>> No. The point is that you object in principle to the operation of a
>>> whitelist despite it being explicitly provided for in the Charter.
>>
>> The objection is to *how* it is operated. I don't personally think
>> being a moderator or on a whitelist should be carte blanche to flout the
>> moderation policy rules with no self-restraint. Do you?
>
> From previous threads here, I'm fairly sure the moderators have
> removed people from the whitelist for violations.
in my original post?
Norman Wells
Feb 22, 2024, 6:58:35 AM2/22/24
to
On 22/02/2024 10:54, GB wrote:
> On 21/02/2024 22:38, Simon Parker wrote:
>
>> Repeatedly wasting the time of the moderators by posting here about
>> it, particularly with no more than a few days between posts, is going
>> to get you banned. No, really! It is!
>
> I assume you would ban under the moderation policy:
>
> "f) The moderators may at their discretion ban contributors who try to
> disrupt the group by wasting the moderators time. The moderators should
> confirm the decision of any one moderator by a majority of all
> moderators within 72 hours and should attempt to inform such
> contributors of their action. The moderators will use their best
> endeavours to avoid banning anyone and to persuade disruptive
> contributors to modify their posting style."
>
> I think that you'd be stretching that beyond breaking point if the ban
> is based on posts to an entirely different newsgroup.
I would just add 'especially one whose very purpose is the discussion of
> On 21/02/2024 22:38, Simon Parker wrote:
>
>> Repeatedly wasting the time of the moderators by posting here about
>> it, particularly with no more than a few days between posts, is going
>> to get you banned. No, really! It is!
>
> I assume you would ban under the moderation policy:
>
> "f) The moderators may at their discretion ban contributors who try to
> disrupt the group by wasting the moderators time. The moderators should
> confirm the decision of any one moderator by a majority of all
> moderators within 72 hours and should attempt to inform such
> contributors of their action. The moderators will use their best
> endeavours to avoid banning anyone and to persuade disruptive
> contributors to modify their posting style."
>
> I think that you'd be stretching that beyond breaking point if the ban
> is based on posts to an entirely different newsgroup.
moderation issues'.
And of course Mr Parker's definitive and contradictory comment in the
'Phone Book' thread on 28/11/2023 at 12:47:
"None of the posts about which you are complaining were made in a
moderated group so the content of the posts is not a moderation issue".
> Still, I suppose
> that the moderators ought to be the experts on what they mean by their
> own policy.
Instead, it's whatever they want it to mean regardless of what it
actually says.
> I am surprised that you don't simply put Norman on ignore. I'm amazed at
> the number of times moderators have entered into a lively debate with
> trolls on unnn, so I always assumed that you enjoy it.
forget them.
> If that is indeed your motivation, then you are responsible for wasting
> your own time. If you are doing it through some sense of duty, then I
> suggest that you do not allow yourselves to be drawn repeatedly into the
> same futile arguments.
I'm still hoping they may have some effect.
At least we have lip-service being paid this morning by Mr Parker in the
'To Catch a Copper' thread in ulm where he said:
"I know that this is what some claim. But that does not mean that I
accept the claim as valid much less relevant. However, this is not the
place for such discussions"
before inevitably and somewhat inconsistently going on of course to
discuss it in considerable depth.
Simon Parker
Feb 22, 2024, 8:39:22 AM2/22/24
to
On 22/02/2024 10:40, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
upon his 'erudite' words, eagerly awaiting the next post in which he
will bestow his 'erudition' upon his ever grateful audience.
Unfortunately for him, moderation gets in the way of those lofty aims
and so he will never be happy with any form of moderation which prevents
the 'erudite' words of the great and good Norman Wells raining down upon
the assembled throng whose sole aim is to drink deep from the Well of
Norman's Wisdom.
Regards
S.P.
Simon Parker
Feb 22, 2024, 8:42:17 AM2/22/24
to
On 21/02/2024 23:16, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 21/02/2024 22:38, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 21/02/2024 18:18, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> Yes. I am not white-listed, nor am I a moderator.
>>
>> The former you can do something about whilst the latter is very much
>> contingent on the former.
>
> It's just a statement of fact, nothing more.
The same is true of what I posted.
> On 21/02/2024 22:38, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 21/02/2024 18:18, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> Yes. I am not white-listed, nor am I a moderator.
>>
>> The former you can do something about whilst the latter is very much
>> contingent on the former.
>
> It's just a statement of fact, nothing more.
>>> Which is rather the point.
>>
>> No. The point is that you object in principle to the operation of a
>> whitelist despite it being explicitly provided for in the Charter.
>
> The objection is to *how* it is operated. I don't personally think
> being a moderator or on a whitelist should be carte blanche to flout the
> moderation policy rules with no self-restraint. Do you?
question had it fallen for manual moderation and I had seen it in the
queue. You are repeating questions which have already been asked and
answered and are, IMO, therefore deliberately wasting a moderator's
time. If you persist in this behaviour, there is an inevitable
consequence which has already been brought to your attention.
> Do you not think that moderators in particular have a serious
> responsibility to abide by the rules they are supposed to uphold and
> indeed apply against others? If not, it's blatant hypocrisy.
Charter and what the moderation policy say.
>> Your chance for opposing the operation of a whitelist passed over a
>> decade ago. If you wish to change that, your only options have been
>> explained to you previously: You either need to issue a CFV or let it go.
>
> The whitelist is supposed to be of posters who can be trusted to abide
> on their own to the moderation policy rules so that they don't require
> manual moderation.
I'm not looking to discuss this with you. You either have a quote from
the Charter or Moderation Policy that supports your claim above or you
don't. Which is it?
> Your totally off-topic posts have shown you can't be so trusted.
maintaining the whitelist, your opinion would matter. But you're not,
so it doesn't.
> And
> since you flout the rules with no self-control you obviously can't be
> trusted as a guardian of the moderation policy either.
my ceremonial sword to The Keeper of the Swords forthwith(!).
>> Repeatedly wasting the time of the moderators by posting here about
>> it, particularly with no more than a few days between posts, is going
>> to get you banned. No, really! It is!
>
> I don't waste any of your time at all. You come here of your own free
> will, and spend as much time here as *you* choose. I have no control
> over that, so have no responsibility for it.
the matter are of any relevance.
I respectfully draw to your attention, again, clause (f) of the
Moderation Policy which requires no input from you whatsoever, beyond
posts which are intended to disrupt the group by wasting the moderators
time and an inability to acquire clue when your disruptive behaviour is
brought to your attention.
> The other moderators haven't spent any time at all in this thread. You
> see? It's your choice entirely. Nothing to do with me.
around 60% of the posts made to ULM to date in February that required
manual moderation. I expect that stat to map onto responding to posts
here too.
Taking this thread as an example, you chose the subject "Moderation
Policy suspended in ulm?".
Whom, pray tell, other than a moderator of ULM do you expect to able
able to answer the question of whether or not the Moderation Policy in
ULM has been suspended?
Similarly, your post asked the question: "Can we please be told so we
all know the rules?"
Please clarify to whom your question was directed if not to the
moderators of ULM.
Regards
S.P.
Simon Parker
Feb 22, 2024, 8:43:55 AM2/22/24
to
On 22/02/2024 10:42, Adam Funk wrote:
several occasions and actively invited to take his custom to somewhere
more in tune with his precise requirements.
He has failed to do so on each occasion.
He is the Usenet equivalent of someone going into a charity shop to make
the occasional purchase but repeatedly berating the staff for the
position and pricing of clothing and other wares on offer, frequently
visiting the store for no other reason than to berate the volunteers
working there.
In such circumstances, the time would inevitably come when the
management of the charity shop would decide that the meagre custom from
that individual isn't worth the hassle and will simply ban them from the
shop.
IMO, Norman is dangerously close to that position in ULM.
As required by the Moderation Policy, I am using my "best endeavours to
avoid banning anyone and to persuade disruptive contributors to modify
their posting style" but Norman seems unwilling or unable to accept the
assistance he is being proffered.
Regards
S.P.
Simon Parker
Feb 22, 2024, 8:46:26 AM2/22/24
to
On 22/02/2024 10:54, GB wrote:
> On 21/02/2024 22:38, Simon Parker wrote:
>
>> Repeatedly wasting the time of the moderators by posting here about
>> it, particularly with no more than a few days between posts, is going
>> to get you banned. No, really! It is!
>
> I assume you would ban under the moderation policy:
>
> "f) The moderators may at their discretion ban contributors who try to
> disrupt the group by wasting the moderators time. The moderators should
> confirm the decision of any one moderator by a majority of all
> moderators within 72 hours and should attempt to inform such
> contributors of their action. The moderators will use their best
> endeavours to avoid banning anyone and to persuade disruptive
> contributors to modify their posting style."
Yes. At this stage, I am not proposing a permanent ban. More likely a
>
>> Repeatedly wasting the time of the moderators by posting here about
>> it, particularly with no more than a few days between posts, is going
>> to get you banned. No, really! It is!
>
> I assume you would ban under the moderation policy:
>
> "f) The moderators may at their discretion ban contributors who try to
> disrupt the group by wasting the moderators time. The moderators should
> confirm the decision of any one moderator by a majority of all
> moderators within 72 hours and should attempt to inform such
> contributors of their action. The moderators will use their best
> endeavours to avoid banning anyone and to persuade disruptive
> contributors to modify their posting style."
temporary ban of 24 hours initially, (which a single moderator can
implement immediately without the need for a vote).
Were Norman to fail to acquire clue, each successive ban would likely be
longer than the previous one. One the length of the ban was over 72
hours it would require a majority vote from all of the moderators, as
would a permanent ban, should it come to that. But I would hope that
this would not be necessary and could be avoided.
> I think that you'd be stretching that beyond breaking point if the ban
> is based on posts to an entirely different newsgroup. Still, I suppose
> that the moderators ought to be the experts on what they mean by their
> own policy.
on posts made here and it was not seen as an impediment.
The test to be applied is that the poster is "try[ing] to disrupt the
group by wasting the moderators time". It is at the discretion of the
moderators to determine the intent of the poster.
Similarly, a poster that repeatedly makes posts to ULM knowing that
there is a reasonable certainty they will be rejected so that they can
post here about the rejected post is undoubtedly "wasting the moderators
time" both in dealing with the initial post and in participating in the
ensuing discussion here.
> I am surprised that you don't simply put Norman on ignore. I'm amazed at
> the number of times moderators have entered into a lively debate with
> trolls on unnn, so I always assumed that you enjoy it.
>
> If that is indeed your motivation, then you are responsible for wasting
> your own time. If you are doing it through some sense of duty, then I
> suggest that you do not allow yourselves to be drawn repeatedly into the
> same futile arguments.
post within moderation guidelines".
Similarly, there is a requirement to respond to a "request... to assist
posters in rephrasing articles so that they can be approved", granted
with the caveat that there is no "commitment to entering into extended
correspondence with anybody".
So there's a line to be drawn between responding to requests regarding
moderation guidelines without entering into extended correspondence.
I've recently moved that line for my own responses significantly away
from the latter and much closer to the former.
It is my hope that posters realise this and accept it rather than
attempting to push the boundaries to see where the line now lies which
is likely to result in them being banned for trying to disrupt the group
by attempting to waste my time.
Regards
S.P.
Simon Parker
Feb 22, 2024, 8:47:41 AM2/22/24
to
time, reading with a view so as to comprehend and understand what was
written rather than to use it as a basis for criticism.
The post contained multiple points, some of which were relevant to
discussion elsewhere, and upon which I did not expand.
There were other points which I considered germane to the discussion in
ULM and therefore expanded upon.
I am sorry that this has confused you but do not believe there is
anything I can do to assist your comprehension and motives.
Regards
S.P.
Simon Parker
Feb 22, 2024, 8:48:58 AM2/22/24
to
On 21/02/2024 23:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2024 at 22:37:14 GMT, "Simon Parker" <simonpa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/02/2024 16:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> Quoted post deleted for brevity.
>>>
>>> I have no inside information, but I very much doubt that the moderation policy
>>> has been suspended. For instance, if you were to attempt to post the above to
>>> ulm I expect it would rejected either as meta, or not new, or both.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>
>> As I'm sure both you and Norman know, and even if you didn't the logs
>> are available to view where the following is made clear: The post in
>> question was made by a whitelisted posted and so did not need moderating
>> manually.
>
> Are you aware that the times of posting on the public listing are deliberately
> obfuscated to conceal who is whitelisted, at least during times of prompt
> moderation?
Look at the "Recent Activity" for ULM on Chiark, which is available to
> On 21 Feb 2024 at 22:37:14 GMT, "Simon Parker" <simonpa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/02/2024 16:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> Quoted post deleted for brevity.
>>>
>>> I have no inside information, but I very much doubt that the moderation policy
>>> has been suspended. For instance, if you were to attempt to post the above to
>>> ulm I expect it would rejected either as meta, or not new, or both.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>
>> As I'm sure both you and Norman know, and even if you didn't the logs
>> are available to view where the following is made clear: The post in
>> question was made by a whitelisted posted and so did not need moderating
>> manually.
>
> Are you aware that the times of posting on the public listing are deliberately
> obfuscated to conceal who is whitelisted, at least during times of prompt
> moderation?
all and is listed in strict chronological order. If an individual post
follows the pattern "Receive" --> "Enqueue" --> "Post" --> "Approve" in
immediate succession, it was likely that it did not require manual
moderation.
Conversely, if it has entries for "Receive" and "Enqueue" with later
entries for "Post" and "Approve" then it likely required manual moderation.
I assumed most regular posters would know this? It certainly isn't
information I gleaned from the "Moderator Welcome Pack". :-)
Regards
S.P.
Simon Parker
Feb 22, 2024, 8:49:41 AM2/22/24
to
On 21/02/2024 23:28, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 21/02/2024 22:36, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 21/02/2024 15:47, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> Below is a post that appeared in ulm today that seems to me to be
>>> completely off-topic with no discernible legal content at all. There
>>> have been several similar others in the same thread on the same topic
>>> in the last few days, and I'm wondering therefore whether this means
>>> the content is perfectly acceptable (if so, how please) or whether
>>> the current moderation policy has been suspended.
>>>
>>> Can we please be told so we all know the rules?
>>
>> You were told "the rules" in the last few days in Message-ID:
>> <l391m3F...@mid.individual.net> when you asked virtually the same
>> questions about another post to ULM.
>>
>> As I have explained to you numerous times, repeating the question,
>> even if you phrase it slightly differently, will not yield a different
>> answer.
>>
>> However, as you seem keen on ensuring that the moderation policy is
>> followed at all times, I feel it prudent to bring section (f) thereof
>> to your attention.
>>
>> Be advised that I consider your repeated asking of the same question
>> here to be a deliberate waste of the moderators time and an attempt to
>> disrupt the group.
>
> Not in this group it ain't.
You are very much mistaken.
> On 21/02/2024 22:36, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 21/02/2024 15:47, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> Below is a post that appeared in ulm today that seems to me to be
>>> completely off-topic with no discernible legal content at all. There
>>> have been several similar others in the same thread on the same topic
>>> in the last few days, and I'm wondering therefore whether this means
>>> the content is perfectly acceptable (if so, how please) or whether
>>> the current moderation policy has been suspended.
>>>
>>> Can we please be told so we all know the rules?
>>
>> You were told "the rules" in the last few days in Message-ID:
>> <l391m3F...@mid.individual.net> when you asked virtually the same
>> questions about another post to ULM.
>>
>> As I have explained to you numerous times, repeating the question,
>> even if you phrase it slightly differently, will not yield a different
>> answer.
>>
>> However, as you seem keen on ensuring that the moderation policy is
>> followed at all times, I feel it prudent to bring section (f) thereof
>> to your attention.
>>
>> Be advised that I consider your repeated asking of the same question
>> here to be a deliberate waste of the moderators time and an attempt to
>> disrupt the group.
>
> Not in this group it ain't.
> You come *here* of your own free will, with no duties, and under no
> obligation. You have to own the time you spend here yourself.
repeat the information here.
For the avoidance of doubt, be advised that I consider repeating the
same question within the same thread also to be "wasting the moderators
time".
>> I strongly recommend against testing my resolve much further on this
>> matter.
>
> I think that veiled threat is rather revealing of your patronising
> nature. Don't you?
The Moderation Policy requires that moderators "use their best
endeavours to avoid banning anyone and to persuade disruptive
contributors to modify their posting style."
I am therefore attempting "to persuade [you] to modify [your] posting
contributors to modify their posting style."
style". If you are unable or unwilling to do so, the Moderation Policy
details the inevitable consequence that arises therefrom.
Regards
S.P.
0 new messages