Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Censorship in ulm!
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Norman Wells
Jan 3, 2024, 6:42:26 AM1/3/24
to
Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
Apparently, it's not now allowed to reply to or, worse, disagree with,
any moderator in ulm without being rejected on the new catch-all ground
of 'not new', which of course never applies to their own posts.
So, allow me to continue the discussion here, free from such absurd
censorship:
On 02/01/2024 23:19, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 01/01/2024 11:47, Norman Wells wrote:
> Since *you* are the one alleging Roland has breached copyright, it is
for *you* to identify the entity that holds copyright in the article and
for *you* to provide the evidence that substantiates your claim.
No, not so actually. There is a really good prima facie case of
copyright infringement. He has reproduced a work that is undoubtedly
still within copyright, and seemingly without permission, which is all
that is required under Section 17 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988. The burden therefore shifts to him to say why that is not so.
And if that involves saying it was with permission, it's for *him* to
establish that, obviously identifying the copyright owner and saying how
the permission arose.
> (Free clue: you can gain access to the Register of Copyrights
within the Library of Congress here: https://www.copyright.gov/ Happy
trails.)
>
> Everything you have posted on the matter to date falls some
considerable way short of this and unless and until you can provide
further and better particulars I do not believe there is anything worthy
of discussion.
You do not need to know who owned the tree in Sycamore Gap to know that
it was criminally damaged.
Similarly, it's not necessary to know who owns the copyright to know
that copyright infringement has occurred.
>> Do you think it's acceptable to copy someone else's relatively
recent work and reproduce it verbatim online without any established
consent?
>
> I refer you to the answer provided in response to the question asked
immediately above this.
Which is no answer at all.
What you seem to be arguing is that it's fine to do whatever you like if
you think you won't be caught.
I think that's somewhat reprehensible.
>> And moreover from a publication you say elsewhere has a clear
copyright notice on it?
>
> Ditto.
Indeed.
You have no answer.
unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
Apparently, it's not now allowed to reply to or, worse, disagree with,
any moderator in ulm without being rejected on the new catch-all ground
of 'not new', which of course never applies to their own posts.
So, allow me to continue the discussion here, free from such absurd
censorship:
On 02/01/2024 23:19, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 01/01/2024 11:47, Norman Wells wrote:
> Since *you* are the one alleging Roland has breached copyright, it is
for *you* to identify the entity that holds copyright in the article and
for *you* to provide the evidence that substantiates your claim.
No, not so actually. There is a really good prima facie case of
copyright infringement. He has reproduced a work that is undoubtedly
still within copyright, and seemingly without permission, which is all
that is required under Section 17 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988. The burden therefore shifts to him to say why that is not so.
And if that involves saying it was with permission, it's for *him* to
establish that, obviously identifying the copyright owner and saying how
the permission arose.
> (Free clue: you can gain access to the Register of Copyrights
within the Library of Congress here: https://www.copyright.gov/ Happy
trails.)
>
> Everything you have posted on the matter to date falls some
considerable way short of this and unless and until you can provide
further and better particulars I do not believe there is anything worthy
of discussion.
You do not need to know who owned the tree in Sycamore Gap to know that
it was criminally damaged.
Similarly, it's not necessary to know who owns the copyright to know
that copyright infringement has occurred.
>> Do you think it's acceptable to copy someone else's relatively
recent work and reproduce it verbatim online without any established
consent?
>
> I refer you to the answer provided in response to the question asked
immediately above this.
Which is no answer at all.
What you seem to be arguing is that it's fine to do whatever you like if
you think you won't be caught.
I think that's somewhat reprehensible.
>> And moreover from a publication you say elsewhere has a clear
copyright notice on it?
>
> Ditto.
Indeed.
You have no answer.
The Todal
Jan 3, 2024, 6:44:40 AM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 11:42, Norman Wells wrote:
> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
I rejected your post and another similar one from you, because it is
> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
obvious that you are repeating the same points again and again in an
effort to get the last word in an argument.
You're very boring when you do that.
Norman Wells
Jan 3, 2024, 6:46:55 AM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 11:42, Norman Wells wrote:
> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>
> Apparently, it's not now allowed to reply to or, worse, disagree with,
> any moderator in ulm without being rejected on the new catch-all ground
> of 'not new', which of course never applies to their own posts.
>
> So, allow me to continue the discussion here with a second rejected post, free from such absurd censorship:
> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>
> Apparently, it's not now allowed to reply to or, worse, disagree with,
> any moderator in ulm without being rejected on the new catch-all ground
> of 'not new', which of course never applies to their own posts.
>
On 02/01/2024 23:28, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 01/01/2024 11:33, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 01/01/2024 09:57, Simon Parker wrote:
>>> On 24/12/2023 21:33, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>>> My posts have been perfectly accurate, thank you. What do you
think was wrong with any of them?
>>>
>>> We could start with your claim that the work was by Tom Lehrer
because that's what ChatGPT told you.
>>>
>>> Even though you were merely parroting the words of ChatGPT,
>>
>> Exactly. In quotation marks. With the ChatGPT attribution. It
wasn't *my* claim, nor was it in fact a claim at all that it was a work
by Lehrer. It was a claim that "The quote is often attributed to the
American ... Tom Lehrer", which I (and you) have no reason to doubt.
>>
>> So, do please refrain from misrepresentation and exaggeration.
>
> In one of the Auriol Grey threads [1], I made a post [2] in which I
quoted a section [3] from the CPS' Guidance of Homicide, Murder and
Manslaughter and provided a link to the source material from which I was
quoting [4].
>
> I prefaced my quoting of the CPS guidance material with a comment
indicating I was quoting from a third-party source [5], began the quoted
text with a "<quote>" marker and ended it with an "<end quote>" marker.
>
> Finally, I included a sentence indicating that the quoted text
included numerous case citations and that "The majority of the cited
cases are linked at the source material and need to be read to obtain an
accurate understanding of the material." [2]
>
> Despite this, on numerous occasions [6] you insisted that I had cited
'R v Larkin' because it was included within the CPS' source material
which I had quoted.
>
> So insistent were you with the claim that in quoting the material
from the CPS (which included a reference to R v Larkin) *I* had cited R
v Larkin, you repeated the claim in posts you made to UNNM too [7].
>
> In one message [8], you said concerning your claim that I had cited
'R v Larkin' merely because it was within the source material from the
CPS which I had quoted: "Without doubt, you cited it."
>
> If my quoting material from the CPS, which included a reference to 'R
v Larkin', is "without doubt" me citing the case, please explain how you
quoting something from ChatGPT isn't you making a claim.
>
> Either you were engaging in "misrepresentation and exaggeration" when
you claimed numerous times in multiple newsgroups that I had "without
doubt" cited 'R v Larkin' or you are wrong in insisting that material
you quoted from ChatGPT is not your claim. Please clarify in which of
the two scenarios you were wrong so that I know for future reference.
Once again, you've taken your eye off the ball.
What was important earlier was what R v Larkin had to say, not who cited
it. Here, the important point is that what Mr Perry reproduced is a
copyright work. Who actually wrote it originally, or even who owns it
now, is unimportant to the discussion unless he chooses to make it so as
part of his excuse.
>>> it is clear that neither you nor ChatGPT are familiar with Tom
Lehrer or you would have been aware of the statement he issued on the
26th November 2022 concerning copyright in his works (Spoiler Alert: it
finished with the words: "So help yourselves, and don’t send me any
money.").
>>>
>>> If, and that's a big if, the claim that the work was by Tom Lehrer
was correct, he would be the last person to pursue a copyright claim for
posting his works as he has permanently and irrevocably relinquished all
copyrights in his works.
>>
>> Fine. If that's the defence Mr Perry wishes to invoke, it's for him
to establish that the work was in fact by Lehrer, which he has actually
denied and argued against.
>
> You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that your claims
here in this quiet and forgotten little corner of the Internet have
meaning. Even if they did have meaning, (Ed: they don't!), the fact that
your claims are completely unsupported makes them irrelevant.
They're hardly unsupported.
He has been accused here, and not just by me, of copyright infringement.
There's a very, very good prima facie case of that. He has reproduced
a work here that is undoubtedly recent enough to be still in copyright,
and seemingly had no authorisation to do so.
> In short, Roland does not need to "invoke" any "defence" as he has
not been charged with anything nor is he in receipt of a court filing to
which a response is required.
You don't seem willing to consider theoretical cases or matters of
principle, which is a bit of a shame in a discussion forum, especially
one concerning legal matters where such discussions are grist to its mill.
Of course, he doesn't have to respond here unless he wants to clear his
name. He may get away with it if he keeps his head down, as he has been
doing. But it would be normal in a discussion to put his side of the
story so that the accusation, if unfounded, doesn't go uncontested.
Your only argument on his behalf seems to be that, if Mr Lehrer wrote
the article, just as the ChatGPT quote indicated was a common
attribution, he had given implied consent anyway by putting his works
into the public domain in the USA. But neither you nor he has admitted
(or established) that Mr Lehrer wrote it, and in fact both of you have
argued that the contrary is true. So, there's a gaping inconsistency in
what you're saying.
If he didn't write it, the copyright in it must belong to someone else.
Maybe, since you've referred to the article's apparent origin in Spy
Magazine, it belongs there. Maybe the copyright belongs still to its
original author, whoever that may be. It doesn't matter. The
overwhelming probability is that it is a copyright work owned by
someone, and that unauthorised reproduction of it is an infringement of
that copyright.
The burden therefore shifts to Mr Perry or his appointed representative
to counter that.
Can you do so?
>> Not that it's necessary to identify any author in a clear case of
infringement by copying. That's for the alleged infringer as his
defence, not the accuser.
>
> All we need now is a party with locus standi to launch an action
seeking legal remedy.
Or a convenient discussion forum in which we can reasonably discuss it.
Oh, look ...
> If you believe you have sufficient connection to and have suffered
demonstrable harm from the action you are attempting to challenge,
please adduce it to demonstrate support for your participation in the
discussion.
That's not necessary here.
>>>>> The earliest attribution I can find is from (the now defunct) Spy
magazine from February 1991:
>>>>>
>>>>>
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cZjZqaqi3TUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA50&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>>>
>>>> Well, jolly good. But what does that prove?
>>>
>>> It proves that real research is far more useful than asking ChatGPT
for an answer which, even if should it have turned out to be correct,
only proved that the statement it was being used to support was itself
wrong.
>>
>> How does it prove anything of the sort?
>
> It was a link to a copy of a dated magazine in which I believe the
article first appeared, a fact confirmed by another poster that
referenced a popular fact-checking web-site in his post.
In which case, Mr Perry's reproduction of it is an even more blatant
infringement of copyright, given that the magazine has clear copyright
notices on it. What excuse does he, or can he, have?
> As I have said previously, firing a question into ChatGPT is no
substitute for real research. I invite you to continue proving my point
for me should you feel a compulsion to reply.
>
> Or you could accept that your Tom Lehrer horse is dead and you can
stop flogging it.
So, you're now abandoning the defence that Mr Lehrer implicitly
consented to the article's reproduction.
Fine. All you have to do now is say why Mr Perry's reproduction of it
is not an infringement of whoever's copyright it is.
Norman Wells
Jan 3, 2024, 6:55:23 AM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 11:44, The Todal wrote:
> On 03/01/2024 11:42, Norman Wells wrote:
>> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
>> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>
> I rejected your post and another similar one from you, because it is
> obvious that you are repeating the same points again and again in an
> effort to get the last word in an argument.
>
> You're very boring when you do that.
And you are censoring a live and lively discussion on a legal matter,
> On 03/01/2024 11:42, Norman Wells wrote:
>> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
>> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>
> I rejected your post and another similar one from you, because it is
> obvious that you are repeating the same points again and again in an
> effort to get the last word in an argument.
>
> You're very boring when you do that.
presumably to protect a fellow moderator or two from genuine open
discussion.
The ground you chose is not actually applicable on any sensible basis.
There is plenty new in what I said, particularly concerning the shifting
of the burden of proof and what the law prescribes.
By the way, just because *you're* bored is no reason to shut discussions
down.
There are others, including at least one moderator, who clearly aren't.
Jeff Gaines
Jan 3, 2024, 6:58:26 AM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 in message <kvkvh0...@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
Many thanks to the moderators for protecting us from boring, repetitive,
drivel.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Indecision is the key to flexibility
wrote:
[snipped]
Many thanks to the moderators for protecting us from boring, repetitive,
drivel.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Indecision is the key to flexibility
Norman Wells
Jan 3, 2024, 7:06:33 AM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 11:58, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 03/01/2024 in message <kvkvh0...@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
> wrote:
>
> [snipped]
>
> Many thanks to the moderators for protecting us from boring, repetitive,
> drivel.
You have no protection, I'm afraid, from Mr Parker's posts.
> On 03/01/2024 in message <kvkvh0...@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
> wrote:
>
> [snipped]
>
> Many thanks to the moderators for protecting us from boring, repetitive,
> drivel.
Sorry if we were having a discussion that didn't involve you.
Sorry too that you don't seem to have anything at all to add.
Roger Hayter
Jan 3, 2024, 7:19:20 AM1/3/24
to
post was probably copyright infringement. It is indeed tedious to argue again
and again for a position that hasn't been denied. Most people really don't
care about Roland's potential infringement, and may well suspect the the
copyright holder doesn't either. In any case, since no-one has denied it, why
keep repeating it endlessly? You're probably right - no-one has bothered to
disagree with you yet.
--
Roger Hayter
Mark Goodge
Jan 3, 2024, 7:46:01 AM1/3/24
to
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 11:42:25 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
>unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>
>Apparently, it's not now allowed to reply to or, worse, disagree with,
>any moderator in ulm without being rejected on the new catch-all ground
>of 'not new', which of course never applies to their own posts.
Saying the same thing over and over again, without making any effort to
>Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
>unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>
>Apparently, it's not now allowed to reply to or, worse, disagree with,
>any moderator in ulm without being rejected on the new catch-all ground
>of 'not new', which of course never applies to their own posts.
address the points made in response to the previous time you said it,
strikes me as being the very epitome of "not new".
>So, allow me to continue the discussion here, free from such absurd
>censorship:
would, of course, be uk.legal. It's a group which exists for that very
purpose. Expecting people to join with you in holding an off-topic
discussion in this group is pure arrogance.
Mark
Simon Parker
Jan 3, 2024, 8:11:51 AM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 11:42, Norman Wells wrote:
> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>
> Apparently, it's not now allowed to reply to or, worse, disagree with,
> any moderator in ulm without being rejected on the new catch-all ground
> of 'not new', which of course never applies to their own posts.
>
> So, allow me to continue the discussion here, free from such absurd
> censorship:
I would not so arrogant as to presume to speak for others, (nor for that
> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>
> Apparently, it's not now allowed to reply to or, worse, disagree with,
> any moderator in ulm without being rejected on the new catch-all ground
> of 'not new', which of course never applies to their own posts.
>
> So, allow me to continue the discussion here, free from such absurd
> censorship:
matter to feel that everyone has an inalienable right to read every word
that proceeds from my keyboard), but as the person to whom you were
replying with the rejected posts, I will state for the record that I
shall not be continuing the discussion here as that would be an abuse of
this newsgroup, which is for discussing moderation decisions not for
continuing discussions past the point where you have anything useful to
contribute.
If you wish to continue the discussion without abusing this newsgroup, I
recommend taking it to the unmoderated uk.legal group.
I cannot guarantee I will reply if you repost them there unless you have
something new to add to the discussion and are prepared to address the
points I raised in my posts, what is taking place isn't actually a
discussion but is rather just you repeating the same points again, and
again, and again, without addressing anything said in response.
If your intention was to ensure that people saw your 'erudite' words,
then it would seem you have achieved your aim so may I congratulate you.
However, some posters have expressed an opinion that they agree with the
decision taken by the moderator to reject your posts as not new and
repetitive. You would do well to give thought and consideration to that
matter.
Regards
S.P.
Simon Parker
Jan 3, 2024, 8:15:40 AM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 11:44, The Todal wrote:
> On 03/01/2024 11:42, Norman Wells wrote:
>> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
>> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>
> I rejected your post and another similar one from you, because it is
> obvious that you are repeating the same points again and again in an
> effort to get the last word in an argument.
>
> You're very boring when you do that.
If you look at the moderation log, you'll see I discarded some sex spam
>> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
>> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>
> I rejected your post and another similar one from you, because it is
> obvious that you are repeating the same points again and again in an
> effort to get the last word in an argument.
>
> You're very boring when you do that.
and had looked at the two posts of Norman's when I did that but did not
approve them and instead left them in the queue.
Having read them, I had come to the conclusion that they were repetitive
and likely needed rejecting for this reason but felt it better for
another moderator to "pull the lever" so that there could be no just
accusation that the rejection was "personal".
It seems that my consideration was in vain as he's gone on to accuse you
of precisely the same even though, to the best of my knowledge, you
hadn't participated in the thread.
Which all serves to demonstrate the futility of attempting to show
Norman's posts any consideration whatsoever.
His recent exchanges have confirmed that he still believes every word he
posts is beyond criticism and he therefore cannot accept that any of his
posts should ever be rejected for any reason whatsoever and that should
a post be rejected it will be for "spurious, unsupportable and probably
entirely personal reasons" rather than the reason you've stated that he
was the post was essentially repeating what he'd already said.
Posters that have expressed an opinion in this thread agree with your
decision to reject the posts but I don't expect that to make a jot of
difference to Norman who will continue to insist that the decision was
"spurious, unsupportable and probably entirely personal".
Regards
S.P.
Norman Wells
Jan 3, 2024, 8:58:31 AM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 13:11, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 03/01/2024 11:42, Norman Wells wrote:
>> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
>> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>>
>> Apparently, it's not now allowed to reply to or, worse, disagree with,
>> any moderator in ulm without being rejected on the new catch-all
>> ground of 'not new', which of course never applies to their own posts.
>>
>> So, allow me to continue the discussion here, free from such absurd
>> censorship:
>
> I would not so arrogant as to presume to speak for others, (nor for that
> matter to feel that everyone has an inalienable right to read every word
> that proceeds from my keyboard), but as the person to whom you were
> replying with the rejected posts, I will state for the record that I
> shall not be continuing the discussion here as that would be an abuse of
> this newsgroup, which is for discussing moderation decisions not for
> continuing discussions past the point where you have anything useful to
> contribute.
>
> If you wish to continue the discussion without abusing this newsgroup, I
> recommend taking it to the unmoderated uk.legal group.
Here is quite good enough. It's a moderation decision that has caused
> On 03/01/2024 11:42, Norman Wells wrote:
>> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
>> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>>
>> Apparently, it's not now allowed to reply to or, worse, disagree with,
>> any moderator in ulm without being rejected on the new catch-all
>> ground of 'not new', which of course never applies to their own posts.
>>
>> So, allow me to continue the discussion here, free from such absurd
>> censorship:
>
> I would not so arrogant as to presume to speak for others, (nor for that
> matter to feel that everyone has an inalienable right to read every word
> that proceeds from my keyboard), but as the person to whom you were
> replying with the rejected posts, I will state for the record that I
> shall not be continuing the discussion here as that would be an abuse of
> this newsgroup, which is for discussing moderation decisions not for
> continuing discussions past the point where you have anything useful to
> contribute.
>
> If you wish to continue the discussion without abusing this newsgroup, I
> recommend taking it to the unmoderated uk.legal group.
its appearance here.
> I cannot guarantee I will reply if you repost them there unless you have
> something new to add to the discussion and are prepared to address the
> points I raised in my posts, what is taking place isn't actually a
> discussion but is rather just you repeating the same points again, and
> again, and again, without addressing anything said in response.
> If your intention was to ensure that people saw your 'erudite' words,
> then it would seem you have achieved your aim so may I congratulate you.
>
> However, some posters have expressed an opinion that they agree with the
> decision taken by the moderator to reject your posts as not new and
> repetitive.
much as mine.
> You would do well to give thought and consideration to that
> matter.
amiss.
Norman Wells
Jan 3, 2024, 9:22:50 AM1/3/24
to
Even now, *you* are using weaselly words like 'probably' and 'potential'
rather than plainly and honestly accepting it.
> Most people really don't
> care about Roland's potential infringement,
work and reproduce it verbatim online without any established consent
because 'most people really don't care'?
Do you not think, in a moderated group, it had no place and should not
have been permitted? You see, it seems to me that unlawful activity in
the group is rather more egregious and reprehensible than a post merely
being considered 'not new'. Don't you?
> and may well suspect the the copyright holder doesn't either.
victim may not care, we don't have to take any steps to establish that,
but can just go ahead and do whatever we want? Does that apply in all
walks of life as far as you're concerned? You can borrow the
neighbour's lawnmower without even asking him because you just suspect
he won't care?
> In any case, since no-one has denied it, why
> keep repeating it endlessly? You're probably right - no-one has bothered to
> disagree with you yet.
matter if it was all agreed, and why did they never say as much even
when asked directly?
Norman Wells
Jan 3, 2024, 9:27:00 AM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 13:15, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 03/01/2024 11:44, The Todal wrote:
>> On 03/01/2024 11:42, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
>>> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>>
>> I rejected your post and another similar one from you, because it is
>> obvious that you are repeating the same points again and again in an
>> effort to get the last word in an argument.
>>
>> You're very boring when you do that.
>
> If you look at the moderation log, you'll see I discarded some sex spam
> and had looked at the two posts of Norman's when I did that but did not
> approve them and instead left them in the queue.
>
> Having read them, I had come to the conclusion that they were repetitive
> and likely needed rejecting for this reason but felt it better for
> another moderator to "pull the lever" so that there could be no just
> accusation that the rejection was "personal".
>
> It seems that my consideration was in vain as he's gone on to accuse you
> of precisely the same even though, to the best of my knowledge, you
> hadn't participated in the thread.
That's the thing about personal rejections. They don't have to be
> On 03/01/2024 11:44, The Todal wrote:
>> On 03/01/2024 11:42, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
>>> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>>
>> I rejected your post and another similar one from you, because it is
>> obvious that you are repeating the same points again and again in an
>> effort to get the last word in an argument.
>>
>> You're very boring when you do that.
>
> If you look at the moderation log, you'll see I discarded some sex spam
> and had looked at the two posts of Norman's when I did that but did not
> approve them and instead left them in the queue.
>
> Having read them, I had come to the conclusion that they were repetitive
> and likely needed rejecting for this reason but felt it better for
> another moderator to "pull the lever" so that there could be no just
> accusation that the rejection was "personal".
>
> It seems that my consideration was in vain as he's gone on to accuse you
> of precisely the same even though, to the best of my knowledge, you
> hadn't participated in the thread.
logical at all.
> Which all serves to demonstrate the futility of attempting to show
> Norman's posts any consideration whatsoever.
>
> His recent exchanges have confirmed that he still believes every word he
> posts is beyond criticism and he therefore cannot accept that any of his
> posts should ever be rejected for any reason whatsoever and that should
> a post be rejected it will be for "spurious, unsupportable and probably
> entirely personal reasons" rather than the reason you've stated that he
> was the post was essentially repeating what he'd already said.
> Posters that have expressed an opinion in this thread agree with your
> decision to reject the posts but I don't expect that to make a jot of
> difference to Norman who will continue to insist that the decision was
> "spurious, unsupportable and probably entirely personal".
Norman Wells
Jan 3, 2024, 9:32:38 AM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 12:45, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 11:42:25 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
>> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>>
>> Apparently, it's not now allowed to reply to or, worse, disagree with,
>> any moderator in ulm without being rejected on the new catch-all ground
>> of 'not new', which of course never applies to their own posts.
>
> Saying the same thing over and over again, without making any effort to
> address the points made in response to the previous time you said it,
> strikes me as being the very epitome of "not new".
Were that to be true, I'd agree. But it isn't.
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 11:42:25 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
>> unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>>
>> Apparently, it's not now allowed to reply to or, worse, disagree with,
>> any moderator in ulm without being rejected on the new catch-all ground
>> of 'not new', which of course never applies to their own posts.
>
> Saying the same thing over and over again, without making any effort to
> address the points made in response to the previous time you said it,
> strikes me as being the very epitome of "not new".
>> So, allow me to continue the discussion here, free from such absurd
>> censorship:
>
> The correct place to have a legal discussion without moderator involvement
> would, of course, be uk.legal. It's a group which exists for that very
> purpose. Expecting people to join with you in holding an off-topic
> discussion in this group is pure arrogance.
(b) it's here perfectly justifiably because of ludicrous moderation
decisions
(c) here is perfectly good enough
(d) it's not moderator involvement I'm seeking to avoid but moderator
interference.
Jeff Gaines
Jan 3, 2024, 9:58:01 AM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 in message <un3pnt$37l75$1...@dont-email.me> Ottavio Caruso
wrote:
>Am 03/01/2024 um 11:58 schrieb Jeff Gaines:
>>On 03/01/2024 in message <kvkvh0...@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
>>wrote:
>>
>>[snipped]
>>
>>Many thanks to the moderators for protecting us from boring, repetitive,
>>drivel.
>>
>
>If that is the case, why don't you just use a killfile? There is plenty of
>boring and repetitive drivel around but I don't always need a moderator to
>tell me what is good for me.
Nor do I but I appreciate what the moderators do (I may not always agree
but hey ho) as it keeps the group usable.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Remember, the Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.
wrote:
>Am 03/01/2024 um 11:58 schrieb Jeff Gaines:
>>On 03/01/2024 in message <kvkvh0...@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
>>wrote:
>>
>>[snipped]
>>
>>Many thanks to the moderators for protecting us from boring, repetitive,
>>drivel.
>>
>
>boring and repetitive drivel around but I don't always need a moderator to
>tell me what is good for me.
Nor do I but I appreciate what the moderators do (I may not always agree
but hey ho) as it keeps the group usable.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Jon Ribbens
Jan 3, 2024, 10:00:08 AM1/3/24
to
On 2024-01-03, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Am 03/01/2024 um 11:58 schrieb Jeff Gaines:
> Am 03/01/2024 um 11:58 schrieb Jeff Gaines:
>> On 03/01/2024 in message <kvkvh0...@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snipped]
>>
>> Many thanks to the moderators for protecting us from boring, repetitive,
>> drivel.
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snipped]
>>
>> Many thanks to the moderators for protecting us from boring, repetitive,
>> drivel.
>
> If that is the case, why don't you just use a killfile? There is plenty
> of boring and repetitive drivel around but I don't always need a
> moderator to tell me what is good for me.
Perhaps you are unaware, but uk.legal.moderated is a moderated group.
> of boring and repetitive drivel around but I don't always need a
> moderator to tell me what is good for me.
Norman Wells
Jan 3, 2024, 10:29:45 AM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 14:57, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 03/01/2024 in message <un3pnt$37l75$1...@dont-email.me> Ottavio Caruso
> wrote:
>> Am 03/01/2024 um 11:58 schrieb Jeff Gaines:
>>> Many thanks to the moderators for protecting us from boring,
>>> repetitive, drivel.
>>
>> If that is the case, why don't you just use a killfile? There is
>> plenty of boring and repetitive drivel around but I don't always need
>> a moderator to tell me what is good for me.
>
> Nor do I but I appreciate what the moderators do (I may not always agree
> but hey ho) as it keeps the group usable.
Having posted just 137 messages to the group last year, ie just a meagre
> On 03/01/2024 in message <un3pnt$37l75$1...@dont-email.me> Ottavio Caruso
> wrote:
>> Am 03/01/2024 um 11:58 schrieb Jeff Gaines:
>>> Many thanks to the moderators for protecting us from boring,
>>> repetitive, drivel.
>>
>> If that is the case, why don't you just use a killfile? There is
>> plenty of boring and repetitive drivel around but I don't always need
>> a moderator to tell me what is good for me.
>
> Nor do I but I appreciate what the moderators do (I may not always agree
> but hey ho) as it keeps the group usable.
0.55% of the total, how 'usable' does the group have to be for you, and
what significance should properly be attached to your comment?
Jeff Gaines
Jan 3, 2024, 10:32:43 AM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 in message <kvlcr7...@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
I've lost track of the figures, Norman. Remind me how many messages I read
please.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
I was standing in the park wondering why Frisbees got bigger as they get
closer.
Then it hit me.
wrote:
please.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
closer.
Then it hit me.
Norman Wells
Jan 3, 2024, 10:44:35 AM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 15:32, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 03/01/2024 in message <kvlcr7...@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
> wrote:
>> On 03/01/2024 14:57, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 03/01/2024 in message <un3pnt$37l75$1...@dont-email.me> Ottavio
>>> Caruso wrote:
>>>> Am 03/01/2024 um 11:58 schrieb Jeff Gaines:
>>
>>>>> Many thanks to the moderators for protecting us from boring,
>>>>> repetitive, drivel.
>>>>
>>>> If that is the case, why don't you just use a killfile? There is
>>>> plenty of boring and repetitive drivel around but I don't always
>>>> need a moderator to tell me what is good for me.
>>>
>>> Nor do I but I appreciate what the moderators do (I may not always
>>> agree but hey ho) as it keeps the group usable.
>>
>> Having posted just 137 messages to the group last year, ie just a
>> meagre 0.55% of the total, how 'usable' does the group have to be for
>> you, and what significance should properly be attached to your comment?
>
> I've lost track of the figures, Norman. Remind me how many messages I
> read please.
I don't know. 138?
> On 03/01/2024 in message <kvlcr7...@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
> wrote:
>> On 03/01/2024 14:57, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 03/01/2024 in message <un3pnt$37l75$1...@dont-email.me> Ottavio
>>> Caruso wrote:
>>>> Am 03/01/2024 um 11:58 schrieb Jeff Gaines:
>>
>>>>> Many thanks to the moderators for protecting us from boring,
>>>>> repetitive, drivel.
>>>>
>>>> If that is the case, why don't you just use a killfile? There is
>>>> plenty of boring and repetitive drivel around but I don't always
>>>> need a moderator to tell me what is good for me.
>>>
>>> Nor do I but I appreciate what the moderators do (I may not always
>>> agree but hey ho) as it keeps the group usable.
>>
>> Having posted just 137 messages to the group last year, ie just a
>> meagre 0.55% of the total, how 'usable' does the group have to be for
>> you, and what significance should properly be attached to your comment?
>
> I've lost track of the figures, Norman. Remind me how many messages I
> read please.
Whatever, your contributions categorise you as a very minor stakeholder.
Mark Goodge
Jan 3, 2024, 11:29:38 AM1/3/24
to
that a greater quantity of posts to a newsgroup makes someone a more
valuable contributor? Even for you, Norman, that is completely barking.
Mark
Kerr-Mudd, John
Jan 3, 2024, 11:59:36 AM1/3/24
to
allow him to have a normal life, his compulsion to continue to repeat the
same indignant stuff to usenet is just too obsessive. TIA.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
Norman Wells
Jan 3, 2024, 12:11:00 PM1/3/24
to
And the number of posts from an individual is at least a measurable
indication of their 'stake' in the group.
You posted the numbers of posts in 2023 a few days ago. If 'valuable
contributor' is what you regard as important, perhaps you should have
posted a list in 'valuable contributor' order. But you didn't.
So, we have what we have, and can only work from that.
Roger Hayter
Jan 3, 2024, 12:49:48 PM1/3/24
to
published in alphabetical order - "we have to work from that"?
--
Roger Hayter
billy bookcase
Jan 3, 2024, 1:44:52 PM1/3/24
to
"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:kvl8tn...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Great! So, it's okay, is it, to copy someone else's relatively recent work and
> reproduce it verbatim online without any established consent because 'most people
> really don't care'?
It's not relatively recent. As Simon Parker explained, along with
> Great! So, it's okay, is it, to copy someone else's relatively recent work and
> reproduce it verbatim online without any established consent because 'most people
> really don't care'?
a PDF featuring the word "Exclusive" it first appeared in
"Spy" magazine in 1991; and according to the former Editors it
first appeared on the Internet a few years later.* Thus becoming
one of the widely known "Spy" pieces of all. That's around say
1995, which is 28 years ago.
I myself assumed Roland had posted it for the benefit of any newbies
who hadn't already seen it over the past 28 years, same as any
other joke or funny story they'd heard,
Although I was forgetting; you're not programmed to recognise jokes
or funny stories are you ? Ahhh!
bb
"Spy The Funny Years" 2006 p.289
Norman Wells
Jan 3, 2024, 2:00:29 PM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 18:44, billy bookcase wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:kvl8tn...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Great! So, it's okay, is it, to copy someone else's relatively recent work and
>> reproduce it verbatim online without any established consent because 'most people
>> really don't care'?
>
> It's not relatively recent. As Simon Parker explained, along with
> a PDF featuring the word "Exclusive" it first appeared in
> "Spy" magazine in 1991; and according to the former Editors it
> first appeared on the Internet a few years later.* Thus becoming
> one of the widely known "Spy" pieces of all. That's around say
> 1995, which is 28 years ago.
Which is altogether recent in copyright terms, which lasts for 70 years
> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:kvl8tn...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Great! So, it's okay, is it, to copy someone else's relatively recent work and
>> reproduce it verbatim online without any established consent because 'most people
>> really don't care'?
>
> It's not relatively recent. As Simon Parker explained, along with
> a PDF featuring the word "Exclusive" it first appeared in
> "Spy" magazine in 1991; and according to the former Editors it
> first appeared on the Internet a few years later.* Thus becoming
> one of the widely known "Spy" pieces of all. That's around say
> 1995, which is 28 years ago.
from the death of the author.
Virtually all literary works created in the last 100 years will still be
in copyright. At least that would be the only safe assumption.
Now would you like to answer the question I asked please?
> I myself assumed Roland had posted it for the benefit of any newbies
> who hadn't already seen it over the past 28 years, same as any
> other joke or funny story they'd heard,
especially in the confines of a moderated legal group where such
unlawful activity surely shouldn't be permitted.
Norman Wells
Jan 3, 2024, 2:03:22 PM1/3/24
to
a useless alphabetical list would not be.
billy bookcase
Jan 3, 2024, 2:41:51 PM1/3/24
to
news:kvlp6a...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> I myself assumed Roland had posted it for the benefit of any newbies
>> who hadn't already seen it over the past 28 years, same as any
>> other joke or funny story they'd heard,
>
> Maybe he did, but he wasn't entitled to infringe copyright to do
> so, especially in the confines of a moderated legal group where
> such unlawful activity surely shouldn't be permitted.
That's one thing nobody could ever accuse you of, at least Norman.
As nobody could ever possibility suspect that anything you ever posted
on UseNet, was ever copied from somebody else.
It's all most definitely, all your own work.
(Although I somehow suspect the point has alreadyt been made)
bb
> On 03/01/2024 18:44, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>> news:kvl8tn...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> Great! So, it's okay, is it, to copy someone else's relatively recent work and
>>> reproduce it verbatim online without any established consent because 'most people
>>> really don't care'?
>>
>> It's not relatively recent. As Simon Parker explained, along with
>> a PDF featuring the word "Exclusive" it first appeared in
>> "Spy" magazine in 1991; and according to the former Editors it
>> first appeared on the Internet a few years later.* Thus becoming
>> one of the widely known "Spy" pieces of all. That's around say
>> 1995, which is 28 years ago.
>
> Which is altogether recent in copyright terms, which lasts for 70 years from the death
> of the author.
>
> Virtually all literary works created in the last 100 years will still be in copyright.
> At least that would be the only safe assumption.
>
> Now would you like to answer the question I asked please?
Er, no.
>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>> news:kvl8tn...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> Great! So, it's okay, is it, to copy someone else's relatively recent work and
>>> reproduce it verbatim online without any established consent because 'most people
>>> really don't care'?
>>
>> It's not relatively recent. As Simon Parker explained, along with
>> a PDF featuring the word "Exclusive" it first appeared in
>> "Spy" magazine in 1991; and according to the former Editors it
>> first appeared on the Internet a few years later.* Thus becoming
>> one of the widely known "Spy" pieces of all. That's around say
>> 1995, which is 28 years ago.
>
> Which is altogether recent in copyright terms, which lasts for 70 years from the death
> of the author.
>
> Virtually all literary works created in the last 100 years will still be in copyright.
> At least that would be the only safe assumption.
>
> Now would you like to answer the question I asked please?
>
>> I myself assumed Roland had posted it for the benefit of any newbies
>> who hadn't already seen it over the past 28 years, same as any
>> other joke or funny story they'd heard,
>
> Maybe he did, but he wasn't entitled to infringe copyright to do
> so, especially in the confines of a moderated legal group where
> such unlawful activity surely shouldn't be permitted.
As nobody could ever possibility suspect that anything you ever posted
on UseNet, was ever copied from somebody else.
It's all most definitely, all your own work.
(Although I somehow suspect the point has alreadyt been made)
bb
Roger Hayter
Jan 3, 2024, 3:27:19 PM1/3/24
to
--
Roger Hayter
Norman Wells
Jan 3, 2024, 5:04:39 PM1/3/24
to
the person's involvement with the group, and hence the stake he has in it.
Norman Wells
Jan 3, 2024, 5:08:51 PM1/3/24
to
On 03/01/2024 19:41, billy bookcase wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:kvlp6a...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 03/01/2024 18:44, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>>> news:kvl8tn...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> Great! So, it's okay, is it, to copy someone else's relatively recent work and
>>>> reproduce it verbatim online without any established consent because 'most people
>>>> really don't care'?
>>>
>>> It's not relatively recent. As Simon Parker explained, along with
>>> a PDF featuring the word "Exclusive" it first appeared in
>>> "Spy" magazine in 1991; and according to the former Editors it
>>> first appeared on the Internet a few years later.* Thus becoming
>>> one of the widely known "Spy" pieces of all. That's around say
>>> 1995, which is 28 years ago.
>>
>> Which is altogether recent in copyright terms, which lasts for 70 years from the death
>> of the author.
>>
>> Virtually all literary works created in the last 100 years will still be in copyright.
>> At least that would be the only safe assumption.
>>
>> Now would you like to answer the question I asked please?
>
> Er, no.
Thought not. Avoiding the issue again. Is it too difficult for you?
> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:kvlp6a...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 03/01/2024 18:44, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>>> news:kvl8tn...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> Great! So, it's okay, is it, to copy someone else's relatively recent work and
>>>> reproduce it verbatim online without any established consent because 'most people
>>>> really don't care'?
>>>
>>> It's not relatively recent. As Simon Parker explained, along with
>>> a PDF featuring the word "Exclusive" it first appeared in
>>> "Spy" magazine in 1991; and according to the former Editors it
>>> first appeared on the Internet a few years later.* Thus becoming
>>> one of the widely known "Spy" pieces of all. That's around say
>>> 1995, which is 28 years ago.
>>
>> Which is altogether recent in copyright terms, which lasts for 70 years from the death
>> of the author.
>>
>> Virtually all literary works created in the last 100 years will still be in copyright.
>> At least that would be the only safe assumption.
>>
>> Now would you like to answer the question I asked please?
>
> Er, no.
>>> I myself assumed Roland had posted it for the benefit of any newbies
>>> who hadn't already seen it over the past 28 years, same as any
>>> other joke or funny story they'd heard,
>>
>> Maybe he did, but he wasn't entitled to infringe copyright to do
>> so, especially in the confines of a moderated legal group where
>> such unlawful activity surely shouldn't be permitted.
>
> That's one thing nobody could ever accuse you of, at least Norman.
>
> As nobody could ever possibility suspect that anything you ever posted
> on UseNet, was ever copied from somebody else.
>
> It's all most definitely, all your own work.
No?
Thought not.
You're just hot air.
Roland Perry
Jan 6, 2024, 3:00:46 AM1/6/24
to
In message <kvkvl4...@mid.individual.net>, at 11:44:36 on Wed, 3 Jan
2024, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> remarked:
>On 03/01/2024 11:42, Norman Wells wrote:
>> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
>>unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>
--
Roland Perry
2024, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> remarked:
>On 03/01/2024 11:42, Norman Wells wrote:
>> Yet more evidence of rejections in ulm occurring for spurious,
>>unsupportable and probably entirely personal reasons.
>
>I rejected your post and another similar one from you, because it is
>obvious that you are repeating the same points again and again in an
>effort to get the last word in an argument.
You are arguing with a chatbot, you'll never win. Just ignore it.
>obvious that you are repeating the same points again and again in an
>effort to get the last word in an argument.
--
Roland Perry
0 new messages