urc and urcm; this be skewed stats territory, do not read if you are of a gentle nature
Wm...
before anyone asks, I haven't posted this to urcm because I know what
would happen if I did.
let us move on.
prompted by another posting in this group I checked how many people were
posting to urc and urcm [1]
[1] I keep about 3 months for both and have killed a few threads that
were too tedious for a person without a mono-maniacal attention span so
the numbers are indicative rather than absolute. I am about as certain
as I can be that this actually favours the people mentioned below. If I
hadn't killed those threads you'd be seeing even more of the same.
Perhaps we should start with how many posts there were in each group?
urc: 10961
urcm: 3798
ok, how many people made those posts?
urc: 371
urcm: 218
that surprised me a bit as it has been asserted that there were only
20-ish people posting to urcm. Mind you, getting JMS to add above three
is challenging. Please note, careful reader, that I have not said JMS
is unable to do sums, it is getting the entity to understand what it is
doing that is difficult. I think for most people this falls under the
general clause of "where does she find the time to say all this stuff?"
and "why is she saying it?"
Anyway, here are the top 20 posters in each group:
urcm:
227 From: thirty-six <thirt...@live.co.uk>
223 From: nm...@cam.ac.uk
146 From: Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com>
139 From: "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net>
137 From: Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk>
134 From: Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
106 From: Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
104 From: Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com>
97 From: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
90 From: Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com>
82 From: Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
76 From: Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs>
64 From: Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
64 From: David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
63 From: "Simon Mason" <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk>
61 From: Jim A <j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk>
61 From: Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
59 From: real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M.
Procida)
58 From: Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
58 From: ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins)
urc:
837 From: Doug <jag...@riseup.net>
803 From: "The Medway Handyman" <davi...@no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk>
569 From: JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk >
487 From: Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com>
473 From: JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com>
458 From: Derek C <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk>
388 From: Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
347 From: "Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com>
299 From: "Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk>
297 From: Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com>
274 From: Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
213 From: "mileburner" <mileb...@btinternet.com>
204 From: Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk>
196 From: Squashme <squa...@gmail.com>
192 From: ash <ash.f...@googlemail.com>
176 From: Jim A <j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk>
150 From: bolta...@boltar.world
144 From: thirty-six <thirt...@live.co.uk>
137 From: webreader <websit...@yahoo.co.uk>
131 From: "GT" <a@b.c>
I really can't be arsed to undo the urcm reject list at the moment to
see how many potential postings to urcm there were, etc.
Other people will see things differently but if I was a urcm mod the
people I'd be inclined to say "fuck off and don't come back" to is 36 or
nmm1 rather than JMS.
But, I suppose, ordinary people shouldn't be able to understand how odd
people behave.
I thought I was odd but then I saw the other people :)
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Mark Goodge
>urc:
>
> 837 From: Doug <jag...@riseup.net>
> 803 From: "The Medway Handyman" <davi...@no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk>
> 569 From: JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk >
> 487 From: Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com>
> 473 From: JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com>
All but one of that top five are there because of the propensity of one of
them to crosspost everything to urc and uk.transport, even when there's no
relevance to cycling or even to transport. The fact that they're not
present in the urcm list is actually evidence that at least one part of the
moderation policy is working properly.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Tosspot
Top three in URC, Duhg, the Medway Mentalman and Judy, that sums up URC
perfectly. By the time I've killed any thread started, or contributed to by
those three, it seems about 1% are left.
Clive George
> before anyone asks, I haven't posted this to urcm because I know what
> would happen if I did.
Well, it is more suitable for this group than there, so I'd not worry
about that.
> Other people will see things differently but if I was a urcm mod
> the people I'd be inclined to say "fuck off and don't come back"
> to is 36 or nmm1 rather than JMS.
Based on the stats you mention in you post, or something else you've not
mentioned?
Why should the URCM mods tell the most prolific posters to the group to
go away? (obviously if the reason you say that isn't based on your
stats, then that question doesn't apply).
JMS
>
>before anyone asks, I haven't posted this to urcm because I know what
>would happen if I did.
>
>let us move on.
>
>prompted by another posting in this group I checked how many people were
>posting to urc and urcm [1]
>
>[1] I keep about 3 months for both and have killed a few threads that
>were too tedious for a person without a mono-maniacal attention span so
>the numbers are indicative rather than absolute. I am about as certain
>as I can be that this actually favours the people mentioned below. If I
>hadn't killed those threads you'd be seeing even more of the same.
>
>Perhaps we should start with how many posts there were in each group?
>
>urc: 10961
>urcm: 3798
>
>ok, how many people made those posts?
>
>urc: 371
>urcm: 218
>
>that surprised me a bit as it has been asserted that there were only
>20-ish people posting to urcm.
I did not say that.
I realise that understanding simple sentences is not your strong point
- your understanding of figures seems to be worse.
Some clues: you have not taken in to account people who have posted
with multiple addresses - your 218 is way out.
What I said was :
"Given that there are only about 20 people post to URCM - ( once you
forget the moderators) more than every couple of days - they are not
going to be large numbers."
Now have a read of that and see what it says again - concentrate on
"every couple of days".
In a typical month there are about 130 different people posting to
URCM (note : different people - not different addresses)
In May there were 125 different people posted to URCM.
32 of those only made one post
Half of those (67) made less than 1 post a week.
There were only 9 people made more than one post a day
If you look at the regular posters - I stand by what I said.
Ignore the moderators and you will see that there about 20 people who
post more than every couple of days (ie more than 15 posts in the
month).
Similarly your analysis of URC is shite.
If you want a better explanation of those figures - then just ask,
Adam Funk
> Other people will see things differently but if I was a urcm mod the
> people I'd be inclined to say "fuck off and don't come back" to is 36 or
> nmm1 rather than JMS.
I don't see why. They write a lot of posts, but those posts seem (to
me) to be civil and relevant to cycling.
Wm...
<bYmdnexo6bH945fR...@brightview.co.uk>
uk.net.news.moderation Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
In the case of 36 I feel that he (I think it is a he) stifles
conversational flow. He has said his bit, people have read it, but he
needs to say it again and again. In that sense he is to me no different
to JMS or any other mission poster. If JMS is banned because she is on
a mission 36 should be too.
JMS has whacky ideas about bicycle hats, 36 has whacky ideas about
bicycles. Why is JMS banned and 36 isn't?
It is inconsistencies like this that result in people coming here to
moan.
Wm...
<ulsk06h5g7o7bgb9s...@news.markshouse.net>
uk.net.news.moderation Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:32:29 +0100, Wm... put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>>urc:
>>
>> 837 From: Doug <jag...@riseup.net>
>> 803 From: "The Medway Handyman" <davi...@no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk>
>> 569 From: JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk >
>> 487 From: Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com>
>> 473 From: JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com>
>
>All but one of that top five are there because of the propensity of one of
>them to crosspost everything to urc and uk.transport, even when there's no
>relevance to cycling or even to transport. The fact that they're not
>present in the urcm list is actually evidence that at least one part of the
>moderation policy is working properly.
Yup. Unless I recall incorrectly the original idea for urcm (wheels not
gods) was to allow crossposting. Good thing the other unnm managed to
talk them down from that precipice, IMO.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
36 doesn't post to urcm to discuss things; he wants to tell us stuff. If
we don't agree he will tell us again and again until we all agree. We
aren't all going to agree so he will tell us again and again what we
should believe. And again if necessary. And once more just in case.
Got it yet?
The repetition clause should be applied to 36 but for reasons I don't
know isn't. Why? Why is 36 allowed to repeat himself but another
poster is not? It is mod behaviour like this that brings questions to
people's minds.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk>
[x-post trimmed]
This from the person that thought their posts were being cancelled and
has admitted to nym shifting. I'm amused. I think JMS is trying to say
that many more people nym shift because she does so at times.
>What I said was :
>
>"Given that there are only about 20 people post to URCM - ( once you
>forget the moderators) more than every couple of days - they are not
>going to be large numbers."
>
>Now have a read of that and see what it says again - concentrate on
>"every couple of days".
I have read it more than once. It remains broken english, I see you
wrote "more than" even if you choose to ignore the fact that you said
that now.
>In a typical month there are about 130 different people posting to
>URCM (note : different people - not different addresses)
>
>In May there were 125 different people posted to URCM.
Sounds healthy to me.
>32 of those only made one post
They said their bit, it was read.
>Half of those (67) made less than 1 post a week.
Some people just say what they have to say and leave it at that, dear.
>There were only 9 people made more than one post a day
So?
>If you look at the regular posters - I stand by what I said.
I think you need to make your mind up about whether you are going to be
an authority on identification of nym shifting or a commentator.
>Ignore the moderators
Why?
>and you will see that there about 20 people who
>post more than every couple of days (ie more than 15 posts in the
>month).
You seem to have missed which 20 people that is. Is it the same 20 or a
different 20? It seems ordinary to me that Jane starts a thread and
posts some follow-ups one month and Fred does the same another month. Is
the group generally serving them? I'd say yes and expect you'd say no.
>Similarly your analysis of URC is shite.
Nope, just not to your liking.
>If you want a better explanation of those figures - then just ask,
I doubt many people here are interested but go for it.
Just for amusement here are the top 20 posters for this group (same
rules as before)
===
491 From: JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk >
228 From: Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
145 From: Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
124 From: "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
117 From: Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
86 From: Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com>
84 From: Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
80 From: %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
79 From: Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
66 From: "kat" <little...@hotmail.com>
54 From: "Iain" <sp...@smaps.net>
53 From: Dave J. <req...@freeuk.com>
53 From: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
53 From: 36 <thirt...@live.co.uk>
52 From: ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins)
49 From: "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net>
46 From: Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk>
46 From: bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
43 From: Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk>
===
notice that the most frequent poster has more than doubled the postings
of the second placed person. I wonder what she has been on about and
why it has been necessary for her not to realise her message isn't
getting across to other people no matter how often she says it.
Clive George
> Sat, 5 Jun 2010 17:41:18
> <bYmdnexo6bH945fR...@brightview.co.uk>
> uk.net.news.moderation Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
>
>> On 05/06/2010 15:32, Wm... wrote:
>
>>> Other people will see things differently but if I was a urcm mod
>>> the people I'd be inclined to say "fuck off and don't come back"
>>> to is 36 or nmm1 rather than JMS.
>>
>> Based on the stats you mention in you post, or something else you've
>> not mentioned?
>>
>> Why should the URCM mods tell the most prolific posters to the group
>> to go away? (obviously if the reason you say that isn't based on your
>> stats, then that question doesn't apply).
>
> In the case of 36 I feel that he (I think it is a he) stifles
> conversational flow. He has said his bit, people have read it, but he
> needs to say it again and again. In that sense he is to me no different
> to JMS or any other mission poster. If JMS is banned because she is on a
> mission 36 should be too.
>
> JMS has whacky ideas about bicycle hats, 36 has whacky ideas about
> bicycles. Why is JMS banned and 36 isn't?
It's reasonably easy to make a guess : Trevor/36 is nuts but genuinely
interested in bikes and the stuff he writes, JMS is malicious and only
chooses her conversation in order to annoy others.
There is a very real difference in their intentions, and pretending
otherwise doesn't help you.
Jon Ribbens
> Just for amusement here are the top 20 posters for this group (same
> rules as before)
>===
> 491 From: JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk >
> 228 From: Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
> 145 From: Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> 124 From: "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
> 117 From: Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
Wow, I didn't realise my killfile was quite so beneficial.
Wm...
<L6OdnanwRdBpkJbR...@brightview.co.uk>
uk.net.news.moderation Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
>It's reasonably easy to make a guess : Trevor/36 is nuts but genuinely
>interested in bikes and the stuff he writes, JMS is malicious and only
>chooses her conversation in order to annoy others.
I'm not sure that is true. Both JMS and 36 say things and don't listen
to what other people say. It is what JMS says vs what 36 says that
means one person's posts get through and the other's does not.
>There is a very real difference in their intentions, and pretending
>otherwise doesn't help you.
I'm arguing for fairness. If you think I like JMS or 36 as posters you
are wrong. I dislike both of them as posters, however, for all I know
they may each be nice people when met face to face.
I am saying an ordinary thing: if JMS is limited 36 should be too.
Otherwise it is reasonable and correct for people that don't cycle to
come along and say "your (our) group stinks of prejudice and
favouritism".
I don't like that. Do you?
Tom Crispin
Just for amusement, have you identified Judith's sock yet? I am fairly
certain I have.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk>
Tom is OK but possibly misguided (I think I know what he wants to
achieve);
Clive is OK when he sticks to what he knows about (I'm not sure what
Clive is trying to achieve and he will have to work on getting rid of
the wannabe status if he is to become reliable);
For me to be in the list is a little embarrassing but I consider PP to
be good company (it would have been dishonest for me to have excluded
myself).
I've no idea what JMS is trying to achieve apart from getting a lot of
people to dislike her and ramping that up.
So, in this group Tom and Clive are expressing an interest in cycling.
JMS? Your guess is as good as mine, maybe it wants to be mysterious and
wants people to look for the real person? Last time that happened the
entity didn't like it. Let us all hope the JMS doesn't have a weapon
licence because I think this entity is the sort that may go wrong in a
bad way.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Tom Crispin
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>Just for amusement, have you identified Judith's sock yet? I am fairly
>certain I have.
I haven't looked. If the sock is behaving well I'd let it be. It
should be about what people say rather than who they might be.
Percy Picacity
news:L6OdnanwRdBpkJbR...@brightview.co.uk:
I actually doubt if that is true. It is certainly not so obviously
true that it is grounds for action. In fact, when others tease her in
a somewhat troll-like way she often seems to be overtaken by an almost
autistic rage that prevents her replying effectively in the way a good
troll could (or indeed not replying at all which would often be her
best tactic).
--
Percy Picacity
Simon Brooke
> I'm arguing for fairness. If you think I like JMS or 36 as posters you
> are wrong. I dislike both of them as posters, however, for all I know
> they may each be nice people when met face to face.
There are four things which Judith does which '36' does not do:
(1) She games the system;
(2) She argues the toss;
(3) She wastes moderator time;
(4) She posts using other regular poster's identities
Judith has only been detected doing (4) since she was banned, so it isn't
why she was banned, but if she hadn't already been banned it would have
been sufficient reason in itself.
Furthermore '36', annoying though I find him, is rarely discourteous.
--
;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundam variat
Simon Brooke
> Sat, 5 Jun 2010 22:13:57 <l9rqd7x...@news.ducksburg.com>
> uk.net.news.moderation Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>
>>On 2010-06-05, Wm... wrote:
>>
>>> Other people will see things differently but if I was a urcm mod the
>>> people I'd be inclined to say "fuck off and don't come back" to is 36
>>> or nmm1 rather than JMS.
>>
>>I don't see why. They write a lot of posts, but those posts seem (to
>>me) to be civil and relevant to cycling.
>
> 36 doesn't post to urcm to discuss things; he wants to tell us stuff. If
> we don't agree he will tell us again and again until we all agree. We
> aren't all going to agree so he will tell us again and again what we
> should believe. And again if necessary. And once more just in case.
That's what the moderators are for.
> Got it yet?
>
> The repetition clause should be applied to 36 but for reasons I don't
> know isn't.
I think (I haven't checked) that you will find that '36' is the
contributor with the highest number of rejected posts of anyone. We
reject a considerable number of his posts, for precisely the reason you
give. But many commentators - you among others - urge us to use a light
touch, so we try to.
Just zis Guy, you know?
> I actually doubt if that is true. It is certainly not so obviously
> true that it is grounds for action. In fact, when others tease her in
> a somewhat troll-like way she often seems to be overtaken by an almost
> autistic rage that prevents her replying effectively in the way a good
> troll could (or indeed not replying at all which would often be her
> best tactic).
JMS' first personal attacks in URC were within an hour of first
posting there, long before people started goading her. The catalyst
for her spectacularly inappropriate reactions seems mainly to be
failure to agree with her.
--
Guy
Tom Crispin
<stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Furthermore '36', annoying though I find him, is rarely discourteous.
Was JMS 'discourteous' in her posts to urcm?
Rather like Saddam Hussein, most people find Judith Smith an odious
creature. And rather like Alastair Cambell's "45 minute" dodgy dossier
claim, used to oust Saddam Hussein from power, decent minded people
find Ian Jackson's "over 50%" dodgy dossier claim, used to block
Judith Smith, to be a gross abuse of power.
Just zis Guy, you know?
> 36 doesn't post to urcm to discuss things; he wants to tell us stuff. If
> we don't agree he will tell us again and again until we all agree. We
> aren't all going to agree so he will tell us again and again what we
> should believe. And again if necessary. And once more just in case.
The biggest difference between Trevor and JMS is that if you disagree
with JMS she immediately starts on the attack, whereas Trevor usually
does not. Aside from that they are, as you say, quite similar.
--
Guy
kat
Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> said
I always thought the best trolls started rows amongst the regulars and just
sat back and watched the fun. They don't join in, certainly not to reply to
attacks upon themselves.
--
kat
>^..^<
Clive George
> Clive is OK when he sticks to what he knows about (I'm not sure what
> Clive is trying to achieve and he will have to work on getting rid of
> the wannabe status if he is to become reliable);
One of us has just expressed the desire to join the URCM mod panel, and
it ain't me. That's astonishing hypocrisy on your part.
Clive George
> Sun, 6 Jun 2010 03:53:53
> <L6OdnanwRdBpkJbR...@brightview.co.uk>
> uk.net.news.moderation Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
>
>> It's reasonably easy to make a guess : Trevor/36 is nuts but genuinely
>> interested in bikes and the stuff he writes, JMS is malicious and only
>> chooses her conversation in order to annoy others.
>
> I'm not sure that is true. Both JMS and 36 say things and don't listen
> to what other people say. It is what JMS says vs what 36 says that means
> one person's posts get through and the other's does not.
Then there's not much point going on with this. JMS is clearly
malicious,36 is clearly just nuts.
Percy Picacity
news:34fe91cf-ff62-4dda...@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
m:
So why call that trolling? It seems more akin to a disability.
--
Percy Picacity
Clive George
I said malicious, not troll - I deliberately didn't use the latter word.
Think more kid with spray can than banksy.
Percy Picacity
36 is clearly in full control of his responses to criticism and insult,
JMS clearly has no ability to moderate or control her responses, which
are clearly strongly felt. I would come to almost the opposite opinion
to you.
--
Percy Picacity
Just zis Guy, you know?
> > JMS' first personal attacks in URC were within an hour of first
> > posting there, long before people started goading her. The
> > catalyst for her spectacularly inappropriate reactions seems
> > mainly to be failure to agree with her.
> So why call that trolling? It seems more akin to a disability.
That behaviour is not, in itself, trolling. Continually posting the
same thing over and over again after the flaws in the argument have
been pointed out by several different people, eventually moving it
into the .sig when everybody gives up on the thread, in the hope of re-
igniting the argument - *that* is trolling.
--
Guy
Tony
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
No it's not.
Trolling is about evoking an emotional response that compels someone to
respond, despite their better judgment. Posting the same stuff over and
over again is normal Usenet activity.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
Percy Picacity
@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com
:
On the contrary, it is a way to get oneself universally disliked,
and one's arguments ignored: which is counterproductive if one
believes in one's arguments. And failure to react differently to
personal attack and counter-argument is also counterproductive. I
just don't see it as trolling. Indeed, there are very few people
she gets a relevant response out of now, most of us are just
irritated and depressed by the sheer nastiness of it all. If it is
trolling, it is very poor trolling, and I think it is more an inept
attempt to further an agenda out of a sense of compulsion.
Moderation of repetition and rudeness seems to largely neutralise
any harm she could do.
--
Percy Picacity
Just zis Guy, you know?
> >That behaviour is not, in itself, trolling. Continually posting the
> >same thing over and over again after the flaws in the argument have
> >been pointed out by several different people, eventually moving it
> >into the .sig when everybody gives up on the thread, in the hope of re-
> >igniting the argument - *that* is trolling.
> No it's not.
> Trolling is about evoking an emotional response that compels someone to
> respond, despite their better judgment. Posting the same stuff over and
> over again is normal Usenet activity.
You didn't see the material of the argument. It was precisely designed
to evoke an emotional response, especialyl when moved to the sig. And
actually repeatedly posting common misconeptiopns as fact *is* a form
of trolling.
--
Guy
Just zis Guy, you know?
> > That behaviour is not, in itself, trolling. Continually posting
> > the same thing over and over again after the flaws in the argument
> > have been pointed out by several different people, eventually
> > moving it into the .sig when everybody gives up on the thread, in
> > the hope of re- igniting the argument - *that* is trolling.
>
> On the contrary, it is a way to get oneself universally disliked,
> and one's arguments ignored: which is counterproductive if one
> believes in one's arguments. And failure to react differently to
> personal attack and counter-argument is also counterproductive. I
> just don't see it as trolling. Indeed, there are very few people
> she gets a relevant response out of now, most of us are just
> irritated and depressed by the sheer nastiness of it all. If it is
> trolling, it is very poor trolling, and I think it is more an inept
> attempt to further an agenda out of a sense of compulsion.
> Moderation of repetition and rudeness seems to largely neutralise
> any harm she could do.
By that definition Mike Vandeman is not a troll. I disagree (while
fundamentally agreeing with everything else you said).
--
Guy
Tony
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
Only if you're doing it for the sake of it rather than because you believe
it to be so. If I say what I believe to be true, over and over, until the
people who don't believe me finally come around to my side of the fence,
it's not what I would consider trolling. If I say anything at all, without
care for whether I believe it to be the case, just to elicit a response,
then that is trolling.
If JMS believes what she writes to be true, then I don't consider it
trolling. I'm not suggesting it isn't disruptive, nor offensive, nor
annoying, nor misleading, but it's not trolling.
However, if she knows it's false (assuming it is) and just posts it to wind
people up, then it is trolling.
Just zis Guy, you know?
> >> Trolling is about evoking an emotional response that compels someone to
> >> respond, despite their better judgment. Posting the same stuff over and
> >> over again is normal Usenet activity.
> >You didn't see the material of the argument. It was precisely designed
> >to evoke an emotional response, especialyl when moved to the sig. And
> >actually repeatedly posting common misconeptiopns as fact *is* a form
> >of trolling.
> Only if you're doing it for the sake of it rather than because you believe
> it to be so. If I say what I believe to be true, over and over, until the
> people who don't believe me finally come around to my side of the fence,
> it's not what I would consider trolling. If I say anything at all, without
> care for whether I believe it to be the case, just to elicit a response,
> then that is trolling.
> If JMS believes what she writes to be true, then I don't consider it
> trolling. I'm not suggesting it isn't disruptive, nor offensive, nor
> annoying, nor misleading, but it's not trolling.
> However, if she knows it's false (assuming it is) and just posts it to wind
> people up, then it is trolling.
I have never seen any evidence that JMS actually believes a word it
posts but this may simply be a side effect of its total lack of any
apparent ability for self-criticism. There are plenty of occasions
when there is absolutely no room for doubt that it is wrong, for
example when it made a simple and obivous error unwrapping a link, but
it carried on for months anyway. So either it doesn'rt care whether
it's right or wrong, or it has the storngerst capacity for self-
delusion of anyone I've ever encountered.
--
Guy
Simon Brooke
>> However, if she knows it's false (assuming it is) and just posts it to
>> wind people up, then it is trolling.
>
> I have never seen any evidence that JMS actually believes a word it
Guy, every time you use the word 'it' to refer to a person, no matter how
much you dislike them, you fatally undermine your own argument. It's like
mentioning Hitler in a Usenet debate.
JMS
<stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>There are four things which Judith does which '36' does not do:
>(1) She games the system;
>(2) She argues the toss;
>(3) She wastes moderator time;
>(4) She posts using other regular poster's identities
>
>Judith has only been detected doing (4) since she was banned, so it isn't
>why she was banned, but if she hadn't already been banned it would have
>been sufficient reason in itself.
>
>Furthermore '36', annoying though I find him, is rarely discourteous.
1) - Please expand.
2) Yes I do
3) You mean by you having to read my posts in URCM.
4) I do not - that is an out right lie. Please supply what you think
is the evidence - or apologise for lying.
I really find this quite pathetic - you - acting as a moderator -
accuse me of posting using other regular posters identities when it
is categorically not true.
For the avoidance of doubt - I have never done that.
I wonder if some of the regulars are stitching you up and making posts
- using their identities - but making slips so they appear to be from
me.
Causing trouble - and of course making you look very silly.
So - let's be having the "evidence".
kat
Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com> said
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 07:37:14 -0700, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>> However, if she knows it's false (assuming it is) and just posts it
>>> to wind people up, then it is trolling.
>>
>> I have never seen any evidence that JMS actually believes a word it
>
> Guy, every time you use the word 'it' to refer to a person, no matter
> how much you dislike them, you fatally undermine your own argument.
> It's like mentioning Hitler in a Usenet debate.
Nicely said Simon.
--
kat
>^..^<
JMS
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>On 6 Jun 2010 07:53:53 GMT, Simon Brooke
><stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Furthermore '36', annoying though I find him, is rarely discourteous.
>
>Was JMS 'discourteous' in her posts to urcm?
>
>Rather like Saddam Hussein, most people find Judith Smith an odious
>creature.
Care to define "most" - and then perhaps explain how you know this.
(You really are quite naive - aren't you Crispin)
JMS
Now, now - we've told you that you do not have to prove that you are
an obnoxious twat in order to be asked to join the hand-picked team -
everyone knows that you are.
JMS
And I think that you are an obnoxious twat - I just don't have to go
on about it.
touché
JMS
Hello, hello, hello it's brain dead Chapman.
You've already told people this in the last day.
We know that you are a fuckwit - no need to keep trying to prove it.
I assume you are referring to the post which I made - and to which
Clive George immediately replied :
"Oh dear.
Mostly my view is you're extremely badly informed."
I must admit - I thought - this looks a jolly fine place to have a
decent discussion. Then you joined in and I knew exactly what I was
going to do.
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
True, but there is no instance of it in Guy's quoted section and the
use of 'it' in Tony's section is ambiguous.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
Tom Crispin
wrote:
More than half. It is an opinion based on reading replies to you. I am
happy to be proven wrong in my opinion.
JMS
Hello, hello hello - it's the fuckwit Chapman yet again - throwing
some stones, tossing shit up in the air, poking the wasps' nest.
You do NOT have to prove that what Ian Smith said about you was 100%
true - people know that it was.
--
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Geoff Berrow
<blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Nicely said Simon.
>
>True, but there is no instance of it in Guy's quoted section and the
>use of 'it' in Tony's section is ambiguous.
And as Tony had already used the pronoun 'she' I don't think he
intended to change to 'it'.
Just zis Guy, you know?
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 07:37:14 -0700, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >> However, if she knows it's false (assuming it is) and just posts it to
> >> wind people up, then it is trolling.
>
> > I have never seen any evidence that JMS actually believes a word it
>
> Guy, every time you use the word 'it' to refer to a person, no matter how
> much you dislike them, you fatally undermine your own argument. It's like
> mentioning Hitler in a Usenet debate.
No, it's simply a reflection of the fact that although it appears to
prefer a female name, its traits are largely male. we lack a good
English peronal pronoun for a person of unknown gender.
--
Guy
JMS
Hello - here's a wasp's nest - lets give it a poke.
(Look - *you* made the photographs available - all I did was point
them out to people : http://tinyurl.com/nl4w3r)
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip>
>I have never seen any evidence that JMS actually believes a word it
>posts
Try this : "Guy Chapman is a deluded self-important fuckwit"
(PS - like the use of "it" - makes you look really smart)
Recognise anyone:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He does it all with an apparent cast-iron faith in his hard-done-by
innocence. Apparently, if you throw shit up in the air then stand
around looking aggrieved, it's someone else's fault if it lands on
you.
He'd feel picked on if he got stung after giving a wasps nest a good
prodding with a pointy stick. He'd then go and find another wasps
nest to prod just to prove how blameless he is.
I can only assume there's something wrong with him - some fundamental
inability to recognise cause and effect, maybe. Some disjoint where
he thinks that being annoying proves he is important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip>
>By that definition Mike Vandeman is not a troll. I disagree (while
>fundamentally agreeing with everything else you said).
Here's a stick - give the wasp's nest a poke.
JMS
wrote:
>
>Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> said
>> Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:L6OdnanwRdBpkJbR...@brightview.co.uk:
>>
>>> On 06/06/2010 01:27, Wm... wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> JMS has whacky ideas about bicycle hats, 36 has whacky ideas
>>>> about bicycles. Why is JMS banned and 36 isn't?
>>>
>>> It's reasonably easy to make a guess : Trevor/36 is nuts but
>>> genuinely interested in bikes and the stuff he writes, JMS is
>>> malicious and only chooses her conversation in order to annoy
>>> others.
>>>
>>> There is a very real difference in their intentions, and
>>> pretending otherwise doesn't help you.
>>
>> I actually doubt if that is true. It is certainly not so obviously
>> true that it is grounds for action. In fact, when others tease her in
>> a somewhat troll-like way she often seems to be overtaken by an almost
>> autistic rage that prevents her replying effectively in the way a good
>> troll could (or indeed not replying at all which would often be her
>> best tactic).
>
>I always thought the best trolls started rows amongst the regulars and just
>sat back and watched the fun. They don't join in, certainly not to reply to
>attacks upon themselves.
Bugger - I have been commenting :-)
Alan Braggins
>On Jun 6, 3:58 pm, Simon Brooke <stillyet+n...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 07:37:14 -0700, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> >> However, if she knows it's false (assuming it is) and just posts it to
>> >> wind people up, then it is trolling.
>>
>> > I have never seen any evidence that JMS actually believes a word it
>>
>> Guy, every time you use the word 'it' to refer to a person, no matter how
>> much you dislike them, you fatally undermine your own argument. It's like
>> mentioning Hitler in a Usenet debate.
>
>No, it's simply a reflection of the fact that although it appears to
>prefer a female name, its traits are largely male.
Normal polite practice is that transgendered and intersex people get
referred to by the pronoun they choose. Personally I find the argument
that "the fairer sex" can't possibly be as obsessive and nasty as JMS
to be as demeaning as if it was "the weaker sex", and the argument that
statistically she's probably male to be irrelevent.
If you're that convinced, use "he" with the get out clause that it could
be a generic "he":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Generic_he
> we lack a good
>English peronal pronoun for a person of unknown gender.
That's a rubbish excuse. Lots of people use nyms of non-obvious gender,
and very few of them get called "it". It's insulting, and it's not just
insulting to JMS.
A lot of JMS's posts do have a mechanical quality to them, regurgitating
past material with little actual consideration of whatever she is responding
to beyond trigger words, but unless you actually want to distinguish between
JMS the real person and JMS the contructed persona, I don't see any use for
"it".
Wm...
<R72dnfyeG9bRF5bR...@brightview.co.uk>
uk.net.news.moderation Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
>On 06/06/2010 05:23, Wm... wrote:
>
>> Clive is OK when he sticks to what he knows about (I'm not sure what
>> Clive is trying to achieve and he will have to work on getting rid of
>> the wannabe status if he is to become reliable);
>
>One of us has just expressed the desire to join the URCM mod panel, and
>it ain't me. That's astonishing hypocrisy on your part.
Nope. It is a test for the urcm mod panel. Will they (after Sara for
example) allow a person with possibly controversial views to join them.
I'd be just as happy if TomC was invited so it isn't about me.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
kat
Just zis Guy, you know? <guy.c...@spamcop.net> said
How about you use the pronoun that matches the gender of the name? The
user of that name might be female, might be male, might be transvestite,
might be transgender, who cares? It really is just simpler to stick with
"she". Also it doesn't make you look so unnecessarily rude.
--
kat
>^..^<
Just zis Guy, you know?
> How about you use the pronoun that matches the gender of the name? The
> user of that name might be female, might be male, might be transvestite,
> might be transgender, who cares? It really is just simpler to stick with
> "she". Also it doesn't make you look so unnecessarily rude.
Whatever, really. The intent was not to insult the person behind the
persona but to reflect my uncertainty over their gender, that's all. I
think I've given this person rather more attention than they deserve
already, though, so perhaps it's better to drop it altogether.
--
Guy
kat
Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk> said
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 16:47:01 +0100, "kat" <little...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com> said
>>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 07:37:14 -0700, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>
>>>>> However, if she knows it's false (assuming it is) and just posts
>>>>> it to wind people up, then it is trolling.
>>>>
>>>> I have never seen any evidence that JMS actually believes a word it
>>>
>>> Guy, every time you use the word 'it' to refer to a person, no
>>> matter how much you dislike them, you fatally undermine your own
>>> argument. It's like mentioning Hitler in a Usenet debate.
>>
>> Nicely said Simon.
>
> True, but there is no instance of it in Guy's quoted section and the
> use of 'it' in Tony's section is ambiguous.
True, but Guy has been using "it" elsewhere.
--
kat
>^..^<
kat
JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk > said
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:16:02 +0100, "kat" <little...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I always thought the best trolls started rows amongst the regulars
>> and just sat back and watched the fun. They don't join in, certainly
>> not to reply to attacks upon themselves.
>
>
> Bugger - I have been commenting :-)
I know, maybe you should comment less - then you'll be a better troll, but
they will think you better behaved. ;-)
--
kat
>^..^<
Tony
He was unambiguously using 'it', it just didn't get quoted.
"There are plenty of occasions when there is absolutely no room for doubt
that it is wrong, for example when it made a simple and obivous error
unwrapping a link, but it carried on for months anyway."
I'm not sure what Geoff's post was trying to point out.
Clive George
Yes. I've never said I want to be on the mod panel, you have said you
want to be on the mod panel. I've never said I want to be on the komite,
you've said you want to be on the komite. I'm not the wannabe round
here, it's you.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<guy.c...@spamcop.net>
>JMS' first personal attacks in URC were within an hour of first
>posting there, long before people started goading her. The catalyst
>for her spectacularly inappropriate reactions seems mainly to be
>failure to agree with her.
Call me silly but I don't know what the JMS entity is expecting us to
agree with any more. I think cycling hats is a tool rather than an
ideal for it. What JMS is trying to achieve is beyond my ken if I
exclude plain nastiness.
Tosspot
Desperately seeking attention is my guess.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote in
>news:34fe91cf-ff62-4dda...@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
>m:
>
>> On Jun 6, 8:22�am, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>> I actually doubt if that is true. �It is certainly not so
>>> obviously true that it is grounds for action. �In fact, when
>>> others tease her in a somewhat troll-like way she often seems to
>>> be overtaken by an almost autistic rage that prevents her
>>> replying effectively in the way a good troll could (or indeed not
>>> replying at all which would often be her best tactic).
>>
>> JMS' first personal attacks in URC were within an hour of first
>> posting there, long before people started goading her. The
>> catalyst for her spectacularly inappropriate reactions seems
>> mainly to be failure to agree with her.
>
>So why call that trolling? It seems more akin to a disability.
As in JMS is actually a person with a lower than average IQ or possibly
in a wheelchair? We've heard all sorts of stuff from JMS, PP, some of
it is quite bizarre. Personally I think it is made up as necessary.
i.e. if JMS gets pushed hard a new ailment will appear.
Ace
wrote:
Or, as it's commonly known, "trolling".
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com>
>On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 07:37:14 -0700, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>> However, if she knows it's false (assuming it is) and just posts it to
>>> wind people up, then it is trolling.
>>
>> I have never seen any evidence that JMS actually believes a word it
>
>Guy, every time you use the word 'it' to refer to a person, no matter how
>much you dislike them, you fatally undermine your own argument. It's like
>mentioning Hitler in a Usenet debate.
I disagree, Simon. JMS is (unlike you, me and Guy) an unidentified
person. It is an entity and calling it it is appropriate.
P.S. I don't think we need this thread to be Hitler'd yet, conversation
seems to be flowing to me.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation kat <little...@hotmail.com>
>
>Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com> said
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 07:37:14 -0700, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>>>> However, if she knows it's false (assuming it is) and just posts it
>>>> to wind people up, then it is trolling.
>>>
>>> I have never seen any evidence that JMS actually believes a word it
>>
>> Guy, every time you use the word 'it' to refer to a person, no matter
>> how much you dislike them, you fatally undermine your own argument.
>> It's like mentioning Hitler in a Usenet debate.
>
>Nicely said Simon.
Blimey. Did you really mean that you agree with Simon that the
conversation should end?
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
>Only if you're doing it for the sake of it rather than because you believe
>it to be so. If I say what I believe to be true, over and over, until the
>people who don't believe me finally come around to my side of the fence,
>it's not what I would consider trolling. If I say anything at all, without
>care for whether I believe it to be the case, just to elicit a response,
>then that is trolling.
>
>If JMS believes what she writes to be true, then I don't consider it
>trolling. I'm not suggesting it isn't disruptive, nor offensive, nor
>annoying, nor misleading, but it's not trolling.
>
>However, if she knows it's false (assuming it is) and just posts it to wind
>people up, then it is trolling.
That is interesting. I don't think the JMS entity believes what it
says. It says what it says because it might get a response.
I think it is the response it wants and I think it'll say just about
anything necessary to keep on getting a response. Cycling hats seem to
get it the responses it wants at the moment.
Jim A
> On Jun 6, 5:57 pm, "kat"<littlelio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How about you use the pronoun that matches the gender of the name? The
>> user of that name might be female, might be male, might be transvestite,
>> might be transgender, who cares? It really is just simpler to stick with
>> "she". Also it doesn't make you look so unnecessarily rude.
>
> Whatever, really. The intent was not to insult the person behind the
> persona but to reflect my uncertainty over their gender, that's all.
A usenet poster's gender is usually irrelevant...
... unless you have amorous intentions of course!
--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride
Wm...
<fe394b6b-4bad-4431...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>
uk.net.news.moderation "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<guy.c...@spamcop.net>
What Guy said; I have tried to explain this too; we simply do not know
if JMS is male or female. I am about as certain as I can be that (say)
Guy is male (I've met him) and I am male (it'd be silly if I didn't know
that) and kat is female and Molly is female.
JMS doesn't want to be clearly defined as male or female as far as I can
tell. My instinct suggests male rather than female. Woman are often
proud to be women in a place like this and get enormous respect as a
result (from me at least). I think JMS can't say because the entity is
a man behaving as a woman.
JMS
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sat, 5 Jun 2010 17:46:08 <u0vk06t3n8mjutbl8...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.moderation JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk>
<snip the Maggot shit>
>>Some clues: you have not taken in to account people who have posted
>>with multiple addresses - your 218 is way out.
>
>This from the person that thought their posts were being cancelled and
>has admitted to nym shifting. I'm amused. I think JMS is trying to say
>that many more people nym shift because she does so at times.
Oh dear - I knew you were not bright - but I hadn't realised that you
were as bad as you are.
Have a look at the following examples and have a guess at how many
unique *people* there are. Then tell us how many your analysis will
have thought there were
Danny Colyer <news...@colyer.plus.com>
Danny Colyer <danny_...@hotmail.com>
Gwyn Oakley <gw...@gwyn-oakley.org.uk>
Gwyn Oakley <gw...@gwyn-oakley.org.uk.invalid>
>>What I said was :
>>
>>"Given that there are only about 20 people post to URCM - ( once you
>>forget the moderators) more than every couple of days - they are not
>>going to be large numbers."
>>
>>Now have a read of that and see what it says again - concentrate on
>>"every couple of days".
>
>I have read it more than once. It remains broken english, I see you
>wrote "more than" even if you choose to ignore the fact that you said
>that now.
I can explain - I cannot give you the brain to understand.
I can see it is quite a long sentence to actually understand - If you
struggle with a sentence - just ask - don't guess - you will most
likely get it wrong given that your English is not good - is it a
second language?
>You seem to have missed which 20 people that is. Is it the same 20 or a
>different 20? It seems ordinary to me that Jane starts a thread and
>posts some follow-ups one month and Fred does the same another month. Is
>the group generally serving them? I'd say yes and expect you'd say no.
Again - you have totally failed to comprehend what I said : I have not
mentioned whether someone makes the first post - or a follow-up. It
does not matter. There are a hard core of about twenty posters is all
that I am saying.
I am sorry that you cannot analyse the figures yourself
I was demonstrating that your analysis was flawed.
The vast majority of the posts to URCM are made by a small number of
people
There are over 100 people who have only ever posted in a single
month. Many post - get the bums rush from the regulars - and bugger
off smartish.
(60 of those made just a single post and then buggered off.)
Let's wait for Wacko to tell us that more than 50% of the posters made
more than 50% of the posts during 50% of the months for which URCM has
been running - and that more than 50% of the users are very happy.
JMS
You really are so good value for money.
JMS
Fascinating.
Don't you really think that most people here could not give a hoot
what my gender, sexuality, or preferred perversion is - and would
rather discuss moderation.
I have never seen so many fuckwits gather to comment on such trivial
matters for a long, long time.
I suggest that anyone reading this asks themselves the question - did
I really say that - have I made a worthwhile contribution to
discussion about moderation.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
[snip interesting and fair comment]
>A lot of JMS's posts do have a mechanical quality to them, regurgitating
>past material with little actual consideration of whatever she is responding
>to beyond trigger words, but unless you actually want to distinguish between
>JMS the real person and JMS the contructed persona, I don't see any use for
>"it".
The problem I have, Alan, is that JMS doesn't want to be known as a
person. Not a person with a gender at all. Not a person. Get it?
I, personally, am open to people being of mixed sexual orientation and
saying so. The JMS doesn't say that about itself. The JMS wants to
appear as a female but is unable to show that it is female. Should it
be him or her?
I agree entirely that if it was a man wanting to be seen as a woman and
looking at changing sex then she rather than he would be right,
appropriate and good manners.
Problem is JMS can't or won't do that.
If, for example, you call me "her" or "she" I am not bothered. Why?
Because I know who I am and you can ask me for my land address by
e-mail. I exist as an actual person. JMS does not.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com>
Nope. As has been previously mentioned trolling is a very specific
activity and involves placing a message in a group and seeing what
happens.
JMS doesn't do that so, call me old fashioned, it isn't a troll.
JMS
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>As in JMS is actually a person with a lower than average IQ or possibly
>in a wheelchair? We've heard all sorts of stuff from JMS, PP, some of
>it is quite bizarre. Personally I think it is made up as necessary.
>i.e. if JMS gets pushed hard a new ailment will appear.
I have never said that *I* have any particular ailments.
I *have* said that you are mentally retarded.
I really do wonder about your personal interest in other people and
their private lives. Asking Chapman about his "boys" - asking Crispin
about the kids he looks after - asking people to send you any personal
information they had about me.
Most odd - and even unhealthy
36
> Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:09:40 <hug6mk$at...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
> uk.net.news.moderation Tony <t...@darkstorm.invalid>
bobbles are best.
JMS
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>JMS? Your guess is as good as mine, maybe it wants to be mysterious and
>wants people to look for the real person? Last time that happened the
>entity didn't like it. Let us all hope the JMS doesn't have a weapon
>licence because I think this entity is the sort that may go wrong in a
>bad way.
You are a fool Maggot.
You asked people for personal information about me previously - where
I lived - where I worked - where I spent my social time. You even
warned me to look out on my way home from the pub.
You received some information about me which was correct - you
received some which was incorrect.
One result was that my identity was confused with that of another
Judith Smith. She had nothing to do with this whatsoever - but
contact with her was made.
I was not happy about that at all.
That is the reason that I so despise you
I would not go down that road again Maggot.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation kat <little...@hotmail.com>
kat, I'd be happy if you took JMS on one to one. None of us seem able
to get through to it / her / him. Perhaps you can manage something we
can't? I'd kiss your feet if you persuaded JMS to stop. If you think
that is OTT how about I buy you and mr kat a meal if you get JMS to
stop?
Tony
wrote:
You say stop as though you have some right to control their actions on
usenet. Isn't that what this entire debate is about. If someone is
causing abuse of the 'net there are actions that can be taken, if someone
is causing abuse on the 'net then use your killfile. The moderated group
has a set of sanctions they can impose on that specific group, and they've
done so, but the rest of unmoderated usenet is not something you can
prevent someone using.
If you dislike what you read - don't read it.
Percy Picacity
news:W8XdlnmjV+CMFwbu@[127.0.0.1]:
Such a lot of words! - such a lot of sophistry! All to rationalise
why you (plural) are calling another, ostensibly female, poster
"it" in a childish insult - like all the American teenagers on
usenet calling each other homosexuals or paedophiles for want of
anything more cogent to say. It is a cheap and pointless insult.
It is also remarkably misogynistic, I can't imagine you calling an
ostensibly male poster "it" as an insult (although on reflection you
might well use "she" as an insult to an ostensibly male poster).
I'd either keep your mouths shut or apologise for your misjudgement
if I were you.
--
Percy Picacity
Simon Brooke
> Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:58:03 <871rbr...@mid.individual.net>
> uk.net.news.moderation Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com>
>
>>On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 07:37:14 -0700, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>>>> However, if she knows it's false (assuming it is) and just posts it
>>>> to wind people up, then it is trolling.
>>>
>>> I have never seen any evidence that JMS actually believes a word it
>>
>>Guy, every time you use the word 'it' to refer to a person, no matter
>>how much you dislike them, you fatally undermine your own argument. It's
>>like mentioning Hitler in a Usenet debate.
>
> I disagree, Simon. JMS is (unlike you, me and Guy) an unidentified
> person. It is an entity and calling it it is appropriate.
JMS is Judith M Smith. I've no idea where she lives, but I don't need to.
I know who Guy is, where he lives and who he works for, because that's
all public on the Web. Likewise, my own home address is on my web site.
I've no idea who you are. I guess your given name is probably 'William',
and you seem familiar with Cambridge. But if there's an 'unidentified
person' in this thread, it's you, not Judith.
--
;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundam variat
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
nothing
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk>
Wm:
>>JMS doesn't want to be clearly defined as male or female as far as I can
>>tell. My instinct suggests male rather than female. Woman are often
>>proud to be women in a place like this and get enormous respect as a
>>result (from me at least). I think JMS can't say because the entity is
>>a man behaving as a woman.
>
>
>Fascinating.
This is easily sorted out, JMS. There are a number of people in this
group that I trust.
You can choose any of Molly, kat, PP, MarkG, GeoffB and a lot of others.
My suggestion is this. I send my land address and identifying details
to one of them and you do the same.
The trusted person then passes on the details they have received to the
other person.
I think you will run away scared at the thought of that. That being
honesty and openness about who you are.
>Don't you really think that most people here could not give a hoot
>what my gender, sexuality, or preferred perversion is - and would
>rather discuss moderation.
It seems to me that you have a rather unique perversion. I don't think
(but may be wrong) it is sexual but attention seeking is definitely
something you should seek help for.
>I have never seen so many fuckwits gather to comment on such trivial
>matters for a long, long time.
Were you someone else before? If not how do you know that?
>I suggest that anyone reading this asks themselves the question - did
>I really say that - have I made a worthwhile contribution to
>discussion about moderation.
I know I have. I suggest you choose a trusted person so we can exchange
details or simply disappear as a known dishonest person.
Tony
wrote:
>My suggestion is this. I send my land address and identifying details
>to one of them and you do the same.
Why? Why does it even matter?
>I know I have. I suggest you choose a trusted person so we can exchange
>details or simply disappear as a known dishonest person.
I refuse to tell you, or anyone else in this newsgroup where I live. Some
people might be able to working it out, others might not. Some people
might even already know, others might not, but I'm not sending my details
to anyone just so you can prove or disprove something.
Am I now dishonest?
Your fixation is disturbing, pointless and shows more about you than it
does other people.
Ace
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:56:19 <j9on061r4jbtssa9o...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.moderation Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com>
>
>>On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:49:49 +0100, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
<JMS>
>>>Desperately seeking attention is my guess.
>>
>>Or, as it's commonly known, "trolling".
>
>Nope.
<snip 'definition'>
Who really gives a shit, though?
A sad, misguided attention seaker, by any other name, is still a
troll.
Simon Brooke
> I, personally, am open to people being of mixed sexual orientation and
> saying so. The JMS doesn't say that about itself. The JMS wants to
> appear as a female but is unable to show that it is female. Should it
> be him or her?
You know, what, Wm..., this is a text-only medium. I cannot show that I
am female here, and neither can you. That does not justify anyone
referring to either of us as 'it'.
Simon Brooke
Jim, please! Some of us have just taken mouthfuls of coffee!
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk>
>On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 18:47:17 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>As in JMS is actually a person with a lower than average IQ or possibly
>>in a wheelchair? We've heard all sorts of stuff from JMS, PP, some of
>>it is quite bizarre. Personally I think it is made up as necessary.
>>i.e. if JMS gets pushed hard a new ailment will appear.
>
>
>I have never said that *I* have any particular ailments.
None at all?
>I *have* said that you are mentally retarded.
High IQ can be difficult to ascertain for some.
>I really do wonder about your personal interest in other people and
>their private lives. Asking Chapman about his "boys" - asking Crispin
>about the kids he looks after - asking people to send you any personal
>information they had about me.
>
>Most odd - and even unhealthy
I'm CRB'd.
Are you?
I think if Tom or Guy had problems with me as a person regarding
children they'd have said so by now. You're just making things up, JMS,
and opening yourself to further questions, do you have a CRB
certificate?
Tom Crispin
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>JMS doesn't do that so, call me old fashioned, it isn't a troll.
Years ago I used to entertain myself by winding up posters in the
Usenet group us.military.army with 'edward ohare' who was part of a
group called 'Under the Bridge'. He described the sort of behaviour we
took part in as 'engagement trolling'. Our intent was clearly to wind
up posters to the group.
I make not judgement on the accuracy of the title he gave to our
posting. But the sort of thing we would say critisiced the US military
for the stream of Friendly Fire incidents during the First Oil War and
the Kosovan War.
The posts of Greagoir O'Cearullain also known as 'Catholic Humanitas'
were described as mission posting. He seemed to have a genuine
interest in the nonsense he posted about female incarceration.
To put this in the context of uk.rec.cycling, ohare would probably
describe Judith as an engagement troll, and Doug and MattB as a
mission posters. The distinction being that Doug and MattB have an
interest in what they post and JMS posts primarily to wind people up.
Tom Crispin
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>On 06/06/2010 17:51, Wm... wrote:
>> Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:44:29
>> <R72dnfyeG9bRF5bR...@brightview.co.uk>
>> uk.net.news.moderation Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
>>
>>> On 06/06/2010 05:23, Wm... wrote:
>>>
>>>> Clive is OK when he sticks to what he knows about (I'm not sure what
>>>> Clive is trying to achieve and he will have to work on getting rid of
>>>> the wannabe status if he is to become reliable);
>>>
>>> One of us has just expressed the desire to join the URCM mod panel,
>>> and it ain't me. That's astonishing hypocrisy on your part.
>>
>> Nope. It is a test for the urcm mod panel. Will they (after Sara for
>> example) allow a person with possibly controversial views to join them.
>> I'd be just as happy if TomC was invited so it isn't about me.
>
>Yes. I've never said I want to be on the mod panel, you have said you
>want to be on the mod panel. I've never said I want to be on the komite,
>you've said you want to be on the komite. I'm not the wannabe round
>here, it's you.
I note that you have taken care not to deny your Great Ambition.
Tom Crispin
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>I'm CRB'd.
>
>Are you?
>
>I think if Tom or Guy had problems with me as a person regarding
>children they'd have said so by now. You're just making things up, JMS,
>and opening yourself to further questions, do you have a CRB
>certificate?
A CRB check only lists convictions and cautions. It does nothing to
suggest if a person has had unlawful intent in the past, now or at
some time in the future unless at some point in the past the person
was caught.
Tosspot
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:49:49 +0100, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Sun, 6 Jun 2010 03:37:51
>>> <34fe91cf-ff62-4dda...@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
>>> uk.net.news.moderation "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net>
>>>
>>>> JMS' first personal attacks in URC were within an hour of first
>>>> posting there, long before people started goading her. The catalyst
>>>> for her spectacularly inappropriate reactions seems mainly to be
>>>> failure to agree with her.
>>>
>>> Call me silly but I don't know what the JMS entity is expecting us to
>>> agree with any more. I think cycling hats is a tool rather than an
>>> ideal for it. What JMS is trying to achieve is beyond my ken if I
>>> exclude plain nastiness.
>>
>
> Or, as it's commonly known, "trolling".
Evening! No, in my opinion, in this case it's not just "avin a laugh'", it's
compulsive behaviour to be at the center of attention in the limited world of
usenet. Whether this compulsion leaks into the real world I don't know, but it
might be interesting.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
>Such a lot of words! - such a lot of sophistry! All to rationalise
>why you (plural) are calling another, ostensibly female, poster
>"it" in a childish insult - like all the American teenagers on
>usenet calling each other homosexuals or paedophiles for want of
>anything more cogent to say. It is a cheap and pointless insult.
>It is also remarkably misogynistic, I can't imagine you calling an
>ostensibly male poster "it" as an insult (although on reflection you
>might well use "she" as an insult to an ostensibly male poster).
>I'd either keep your mouths shut or apologise for your misjudgement
>if I were you.
I have the normal compliment of mouth, one.
I am not a teenager, PP, any more than you are.
JMS is a problem person. Please accept that.
I'll happily apologise to the JMS entity when I know who it is. Until
then I'm afraid I cannot do that. Meanwhile the JMS entity is whoever I
want it to be.
Today the JMS entity is a teenage boy with acne that spends a lot of
time picking at his spots. Only JMS can say that is incorrect unless
you actually know differently, PP.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
>In uk.net.news.moderation, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>My suggestion is this. I send my land address and identifying details
>>to one of them and you do the same.
>
>Why? Why does it even matter?
jms wants to represent something, you, Tony, represent something too. I
don't need to know your land address but I could probably find it out if
I thought it necessary (I've no reason to at the moment).
>>I know I have. I suggest you choose a trusted person so we can exchange
>>details or simply disappear as a known dishonest person.
>
>I refuse to tell you, or anyone else in this newsgroup where I live. Some
>people might be able to working it out, others might not. Some people
>might even already know, others might not, but I'm not sending my details
>to anyone just so you can prove or disprove something.
>
>Am I now dishonest?
No, I was purposely exposing myself to jms and offered a number of
people as a decent exchange.
>Your fixation is disturbing, pointless and shows more about you than it
>does other people.
Those are harsh words, Tony.
If I thought I was alone in a crusade (like JMS) I might agree with you
that I was the bad person. You seem to have missed the point that a lot
of people dislike a person.
Am I not allowed to share my dislike too?
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com>
>On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 19:35:23 +0100, Wm... wrote:
>
>> I, personally, am open to people being of mixed sexual orientation and
>> saying so. The JMS doesn't say that about itself. The JMS wants to
>> appear as a female but is unable to show that it is female. Should it
>> be him or her?
>
>You know, what, Wm..., this is a text-only medium. I cannot show that I
>am female here, and neither can you. That does not justify anyone
>referring to either of us as 'it'.
I don't mind if you refer to me as her. You know I am male, it'd be an
in joke. Feel free.
Clive George
Why would I? What's scary about wanting to ride a bike at a moderate
pace? I'm getting closer - 20 seconds faster today. Still a while to go
though.
Tony
wrote:
>Am I not allowed to share my dislike too?
Of course you are, but inventing complex arrangements in order to claim
someone is dishonest is a bit stupid, when most other people wouldn't do
them either.
If you want to claim someone is dishonest, prove what they've said is
dishonest.
Jim A
> I was purposely exposing myself to jms
That was in a "You show me yours if I show you mine." sort of way was
it? I suppose that's as good a way as any to check someone's gender
credentials.
--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride
Percy Picacity
news:ojvn06topi7mdppiq...@4ax.com:
And it is entirely possible to have an unhealthy obsession with usenet
posters' real life identities without it having anything to do with
children.
--
Percy Picacity
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Tom Crispin
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
I know that, Tom. I was wondering if JMS knew that; you've spoiled my
joke, dear.
Percy Picacity
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:49:13 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>JMS doesn't do that so, call me old fashioned, it isn't a troll.
>
snip
>
> To put this in the context of uk.rec.cycling, ohare would probably
> describe Judith as an engagement troll, and Doug and MattB as a
> mission posters. The distinction being that Doug and MattB have an
> interest in what they post and JMS posts primarily to wind people
> up.
My impression is that she posts Important Truths and then becomes so
embroiled in lashing out at people who regard them as neither that
everyone has forgotten how it all started. Over months of observation
I am sure that it is the Truthes that are important to her and she
would be meekly satisfied if people acknowledged them as such.
--
Percy Picacity