Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Inexplicable censorship in ulm: "Car insurance"
12 views
Skip to first unread message
JNugent
Jan 15, 2024, 11:35:42 AM1/15/24
to
Thread: "Car Insurance".
The following (snipped) post was rejected for insufficient new material.
But it was a straightforward and adequate answer to a question which had
been asked.
QUOTE:
[ ... ]
[RP (to a different poster):
>>>> Â Perhaps you could answer my question about the employee calling a
>>>> taxi at the firm's expense, if he thought the employment contract
>>>> stipulation was unfair (and knew that in the short/medium term if
>>>> he ignored it, he'd be fired).
[JN:]
>>> How could anyone answer that, without being able to detect and
>>> understand your employer's mind-set?
[RP (to me):]
>> Perhaps you use your own experience, and that of others you have
>> heard expressed, quite how likely it would be an employer whose
>> mindset had that requirement (for roadside assistance on a car
>> employees were contractually required to own) to pay bills for
>> taxis, if the employee(s) refused to buy that roadside assistance.
> I cannot pretend to speak for your past employer and wouldn't dream of
> presumptively doing so.
> Likewise, they cannot speak for me.
ENDQUOTE.
That was not off-topic. Neither was it in any way short of new material
or points.
A very specific question (or request) had been put and my post was a
direct and succinct answer to it.
Perhaps someone doesn't want that thread to conclude in the usual way.
The following (snipped) post was rejected for insufficient new material.
But it was a straightforward and adequate answer to a question which had
been asked.
QUOTE:
[ ... ]
[RP (to a different poster):
>>>> Â Perhaps you could answer my question about the employee calling a
>>>> taxi at the firm's expense, if he thought the employment contract
>>>> stipulation was unfair (and knew that in the short/medium term if
>>>> he ignored it, he'd be fired).
[JN:]
>>> How could anyone answer that, without being able to detect and
>>> understand your employer's mind-set?
[RP (to me):]
>> Perhaps you use your own experience, and that of others you have
>> heard expressed, quite how likely it would be an employer whose
>> mindset had that requirement (for roadside assistance on a car
>> employees were contractually required to own) to pay bills for
>> taxis, if the employee(s) refused to buy that roadside assistance.
> I cannot pretend to speak for your past employer and wouldn't dream of
> presumptively doing so.
> Likewise, they cannot speak for me.
ENDQUOTE.
That was not off-topic. Neither was it in any way short of new material
or points.
A very specific question (or request) had been put and my post was a
direct and succinct answer to it.
Perhaps someone doesn't want that thread to conclude in the usual way.
Roland Perry
Jan 16, 2024, 4:01:56 AM1/16/24
to
In message <l0l56r...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:35:40 on Mon, 15
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
almost no direct or indirect experience of the mindset of employers in
general, in the circumstances you describe".
An adequate answer might be "based on the dozen or two employers I've
worked for, my close friends and family have worked for, what people in
the pub have told me, and what I've read, the employee would be asked if
it was April 1st, on confirming it wasn't be laughed out of the room,
and given his P45.
>QUOTE:
>[ ... ]
>[RP (to a different poster):
>>>>> Ā Perhaps you could answer my question about the employee calling a
questions.
Anyway, what's the sense in calling the action "Inexplicable", and then
by implication asking for an explanation?
--
Roland Perry
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
>Thread: "Car Insurance".
>
>The following (snipped) post was rejected for insufficient new material.
>
>But it was a straightforward and adequate answer to a question which
>had been asked.
A straightforward answer might be "I have no idea, because I have
>
>The following (snipped) post was rejected for insufficient new material.
>
>But it was a straightforward and adequate answer to a question which
>had been asked.
almost no direct or indirect experience of the mindset of employers in
general, in the circumstances you describe".
An adequate answer might be "based on the dozen or two employers I've
worked for, my close friends and family have worked for, what people in
the pub have told me, and what I've read, the employee would be asked if
it was April 1st, on confirming it wasn't be laughed out of the room,
and given his P45.
>QUOTE:
>[ ... ]
>[RP (to a different poster):
>>>>> taxi at the firm's expense, if he thought the employment contract
>>>>> stipulation was unfair (and knew that in the short/medium term if
>>>>> he ignored it, he'd be fired).
>
>[JN:]
>>>> How could anyone answer that, without being able to detect and
>>>> understand your employer's mind-set?
>
>[RP (to me):]
>>> Perhaps you use your own experience, and that of others you have
>>> heard expressed, quite how likely it would be an employer whose
>>> mindset had that requirement (for roadside assistance on a car
>>> employees were contractually required to own) to pay bills for
>>> taxis, if the employee(s) refused to buy that roadside assistance.
>
>> I cannot pretend to speak for your past employer and wouldn't dream of
>> presumptively doing so.
>> Likewise, they cannot speak for me.
>ENDQUOTE.
>
>That was not off-topic. Neither was it in any way short of new material
>or points.
>
>A very specific question (or request) had been put and my post was a
>direct and succinct answer to it.
>
>Perhaps someone doesn't want that thread to conclude in the usual way.
Maybe someone was getting bored with the way you keep avoiding the
>>>>> stipulation was unfair (and knew that in the short/medium term if
>>>>> he ignored it, he'd be fired).
>
>[JN:]
>>>> How could anyone answer that, without being able to detect and
>>>> understand your employer's mind-set?
>
>[RP (to me):]
>>> Perhaps you use your own experience, and that of others you have
>>> heard expressed, quite how likely it would be an employer whose
>>> mindset had that requirement (for roadside assistance on a car
>>> employees were contractually required to own) to pay bills for
>>> taxis, if the employee(s) refused to buy that roadside assistance.
>
>> I cannot pretend to speak for your past employer and wouldn't dream of
>> presumptively doing so.
>> Likewise, they cannot speak for me.
>ENDQUOTE.
>
>That was not off-topic. Neither was it in any way short of new material
>or points.
>
>A very specific question (or request) had been put and my post was a
>direct and succinct answer to it.
>
>Perhaps someone doesn't want that thread to conclude in the usual way.
questions.
Anyway, what's the sense in calling the action "Inexplicable", and then
by implication asking for an explanation?
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
Jan 16, 2024, 9:04:27 AM1/16/24
to
On 16/01/2024 08:52 am, Roland Perry wrote:
> JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
>> Thread: "Car Insurance".
>
>> The following (snipped) post was rejected for insufficient new material.
>> But it was a straightforward and adequate answer to a question which
>> had been asked.
>
> A straightforward answer might be "I have no idea, because I have
> almost no direct or indirect experience of the mindset of employers in
> general, in the circumstances you describe".
>
> An adequate answer might be "based on the dozen or two employers I've
> worked for, my close friends and family have worked for, what people in
> the pub have told me, and what I've read, the employee would be asked if
> it was April 1st, on confirming it wasn't be laughed out of the room,
> and given his P45.
The only straightforward answer is one that is truthful.
> JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
>> Thread: "Car Insurance".
>
>> The following (snipped) post was rejected for insufficient new material.
>> But it was a straightforward and adequate answer to a question which
>> had been asked.
>
> A straightforward answer might be "I have no idea, because I have
> almost no direct or indirect experience of the mindset of employers in
> general, in the circumstances you describe".
>
> An adequate answer might be "based on the dozen or two employers I've
> worked for, my close friends and family have worked for, what people in
> the pub have told me, and what I've read, the employee would be asked if
> it was April 1st, on confirming it wasn't be laughed out of the room,
> and given his P45.
The only adequate answer is one which conveys all of the relevant truth
in response to the question.
Asked how a particular person (one whom one has never met and will never
meet) will, did or should react in a particular circumstance whose full
details are neither known not knowable to me, the only adequate (and
certainly straightforward) answer is:
QUOTE:
[in response to the question: "Perhaps you use your own experience, and
that of others you have heard expressed, quite how likely it would be an
employer whose mindset had that requirement (for roadside assistance on
a car employees were contractually required to own) to pay bills for
taxis, if the employee(s) refused to buy that roadside assistance.")
employer whose mindset had that requirement (for roadside assistance on
a car employees were contractually required to own) to pay bills for
"I cannot pretend to speak for your past employer and wouldn't dream of
presumptively doing so.
Likewise, they cannot speak for me."
ENDQUOTE
uk.l.m
I can't see any good reason why my response should not have appeared in
uk.l.m and (therefore) no good reason why your response to my respjnse
should not have appeared there.
What I am not going to do is continue here what ought to have been
continued there.
>> QUOTE:
>> [ ... ]
>> [RP (to a different poster):
>>>>>> taxi at the firm's expense, if he thought the employment contract
>>>>>> stipulation was unfair (and knew that in the short/medium term if
>>>>>> he ignored it, he'd be fired).
>>
>> [JN:]
>>>>> How could anyone answer that, without being able to detect and
>>>>> understand your employer's mind-set?
>>
>> [RP (to me):]
>>>> Perhaps you use your own experience, and that of others you have
>>>> heard expressed, quite how likely it would be an employer whose
>>>> mindset had that requirement (for roadside assistance on a car
>>>> employees were contractually required to own) to pay bills for
>>>> taxis, if the employee(s) refused to buy that roadside assistance.
>>
>>> I cannot pretend to speak for your past employer and wouldn't dream of
>>> presumptively doing so.
>>> Likewise, they cannot speak for me.
>> ENDQUOTE.
>>
>> That was not off-topic. Neither was it in any way short of new
>> material or points.
>>
>> A very specific question (or request) had been put and my post was a
>> direct and succinct answer to it.
>>
>> Perhaps someone doesn't want that thread to conclude in the usual way.
>
> Maybe someone was getting bored with the way you keep avoiding the
> questions.
That wouldn't matter. Moderators are not there to indulge their own
>>>>>> stipulation was unfair (and knew that in the short/medium term if
>>>>>> he ignored it, he'd be fired).
>>
>> [JN:]
>>>>> How could anyone answer that, without being able to detect and
>>>>> understand your employer's mind-set?
>>
>> [RP (to me):]
>>>> Perhaps you use your own experience, and that of others you have
>>>> heard expressed, quite how likely it would be an employer whose
>>>> mindset had that requirement (for roadside assistance on a car
>>>> employees were contractually required to own) to pay bills for
>>>> taxis, if the employee(s) refused to buy that roadside assistance.
>>
>>> I cannot pretend to speak for your past employer and wouldn't dream of
>>> presumptively doing so.
>>> Likewise, they cannot speak for me.
>> ENDQUOTE.
>>
>> That was not off-topic. Neither was it in any way short of new
>> material or points.
>>
>> A very specific question (or request) had been put and my post was a
>> direct and succinct answer to it.
>>
>> Perhaps someone doesn't want that thread to conclude in the usual way.
>
> Maybe someone was getting bored with the way you keep avoiding the
> questions.
preferences.
>
> Anyway, what's the sense in calling the action "Inexplicable", and then
> by implication asking for an explanation?
Fair point. Perhaps read it as "Unexplained". The "explanation" in the
> Anyway, what's the sense in calling the action "Inexplicable", and then
> by implication asking for an explanation?
notifying email was there was no new material in my post. Of course, it
was an answer to a question. Only certain material can be relevant in
such a situation.
Simon Parker
Jan 16, 2024, 10:22:37 AM1/16/24
to
You have quoted the "short text" above ("message contains insufficient
new material"). However, I draw to your attention the "rejection text"
which says: "This post contains insufficient new material. Similar
points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of
becoming too repetitive."
In the opinion of the moderator that rejected the post, similar points
have been made already and the discussion was in danger of becoming too
repetitive.
NB: Not "the precise same point using the precise same words" but
"similar points".
NB: Not "has become repetitive" but is "in danger of becoming too
repetitive"
It is a subjective decision and as someone that engages with a poster
with whom discussions have a tendency to become circular I do not always
agree with the decision when a moderator decides that the discussion is
becoming too repetitive and needs ending. But I can live with it and
accept that different moderators draw their subjective lines in
different places. That doesn't mean that one line is correct and the
others are wrong. A moderator made a subjective call. You don't agree
with it. I recommend learning to live with it.
I do not consider that to be "inexplicable censorship" and I find your
use of the phrase hyperbolic. When it is necessary to resort to such
extreme exaggeration to make one's point, one rarely has a point worth
considering.
The discussion was in danger of becoming repetitive. A moderator called
time on it, as a moderator is permitted to do.
I recommend either making a new post to the thread which introduces
sufficient new material to prevent the discussion continuing in its
circular trajectory or leaving the sub-thread to die. A third option
would be to make your post to the unmoderated group "uk.legal" and hope
that it continues there.
Regards
S.P.
JNugent
Jan 16, 2024, 3:40:19 PM1/16/24
to
What would I have to do? Add extraneous material in order to render the
reply in no danger of being seen as "too repetitive"?
Simon Parker
Jan 16, 2024, 6:44:56 PM1/16/24
to
You answered the question with a question.
A response was posted to your question clarifying how you may answer the
original question.
You proffered two additional proposals as to why you wouldn't / couldn't
answer the original question.
At that point, the discussion has become circular.
If this discussion were a game of chess the threefold repetition
(sometimes referred to as the repetition of position and triple
occurrence of position) rule would be invoked and a draw declared
bringing the game to an end.
But it isn't a game of chess so we don't have that rule. Instead we
have the "notnew" rejection rule which was invoked.
The discussion was not moving forward. It had become circular. Your
post was rejected for that reason.
I have outlined your next steps in my previous post.
I have nothing else to add and see nothing else to discuss.
Regards
S.P.
Roland Perry
Jan 17, 2024, 2:47:47 AM1/17/24
to
In message <l0o7tg...@mid.individual.net>, at 20:40:16 on Tue, 16
answer. As is "42".
Thanks for all the fish.
--
Roland Perry
>Of course, my post answered a specific question.
With something irrelevant to the question. Pedantically, that's an
answer. As is "42".
Thanks for all the fish.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jan 20, 2024, 8:17:53 AM1/20/24
to
In message <RbZkuvwr...@perry.uk>, at 08:52:59 on Tue, 16 Jan 2024,
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
Hello! Are you going to reply to this, or not?
If not, you'll edge even closer to "wasting the mods' time".
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>In message <l0l56r...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:35:40 on Mon, 15
>Jan 2024, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
>>Thread: "Car Insurance".
>>
>>The following (snipped) post was rejected for insufficient new material.
>>
>>But it was a straightforward and adequate answer to a question which
>>had been asked.
>
>A straightforward answer might be "I have no idea, because I have
>almost no direct or indirect experience of the mindset of employers in
>general, in the circumstances you describe".
>
>An adequate answer might be "based on the dozen or two employers I've
>worked for, my close friends and family have worked for, what people in
>the pub have told me, and what I've read, the employee would be asked
>if it was April 1st, on confirming it wasn't be laughed out of the
>room, and given his P45.
>
>>QUOTE:
>>[ ... ]
>>[RP (to a different poster):
>>>>>> Â Perhaps you could answer my question about the employee calling a
>Jan 2024, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
>>Thread: "Car Insurance".
>>
>>The following (snipped) post was rejected for insufficient new material.
>>
>>But it was a straightforward and adequate answer to a question which
>>had been asked.
>
>A straightforward answer might be "I have no idea, because I have
>almost no direct or indirect experience of the mindset of employers in
>general, in the circumstances you describe".
>
>An adequate answer might be "based on the dozen or two employers I've
>worked for, my close friends and family have worked for, what people in
>the pub have told me, and what I've read, the employee would be asked
>if it was April 1st, on confirming it wasn't be laughed out of the
>room, and given his P45.
>
>>QUOTE:
>>[ ... ]
>>[RP (to a different poster):
If not, you'll edge even closer to "wasting the mods' time".
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
Jan 20, 2024, 11:37:07 AM1/20/24
to
Roland Perry
Jan 22, 2024, 3:43:19 AM1/22/24
to
In message <l12b5g...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:37:05 on Sat, 20
Asking why you are either unable, or is it unwilling, to answer my
question. Every time I have to ask you again, it 'wastes my time'TM.
That two strikes, a third and you'll be out.
--
Roland Perry
question. Every time I have to ask you again, it 'wastes my time'TM.
That two strikes, a third and you'll be out.
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
Jan 22, 2024, 9:27:46 AM1/22/24
to
directly answering questions if posts containing the answers are "modded
out" on the surprising basis that they don't contain enough new material?
When it is possible and allows an adequate response, I prefer brevity,
concision and focus. But that is apparently unacceptable.
Andy Walker
Jan 22, 2024, 9:28:29 AM1/22/24
to
On 22/01/2024 08:38, Roland Perry wrote:
[RP, to JN:]
someone points out that JN /did/ reply to RP's question; see his
post of 16/01/2024, timed at 14:04. Or it may not.
--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Haydn
[RP, to JN:]
>>>> Anyway, what's the sense in calling the action "Inexplicable",
>>>> and then by implication asking for an explanation?
[RP, again:]
>>>> and then by implication asking for an explanation?
>>> Hello! Are you going to reply to this, or not?
>>> If not, you'll edge even closer to "wasting the mods' time".
[JN:]
>>> If not, you'll edge even closer to "wasting the mods' time".
>> What are you talking about?
[RP:]
> Asking why you are either unable, or is it unwilling, to answer my
> question. Every time I have to ask you again, it 'wastes my time'TM.
> That two strikes, a third and you'll be out.
It may save yet another round of blank incomprehensions if
> question. Every time I have to ask you again, it 'wastes my time'TM.
> That two strikes, a third and you'll be out.
someone points out that JN /did/ reply to RP's question; see his
post of 16/01/2024, timed at 14:04. Or it may not.
--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Haydn
JNugent
Jan 22, 2024, 10:49:05 AM1/22/24
to
On 22/01/2024 02:28 pm, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 22/01/2024 08:38, Roland Perry wrote:
> [RP, to JN:]
>>>>> Anyway, what's the sense in calling the action "Inexplicable",
>>>>> and then by implication asking for an explanation?
> [RP, again:]
>>>> Hello! Are you going to reply to this, or not?
>>>> If not, you'll edge even closer to "wasting the mods' time".
> [JN:]
>>> What are you talking about?
> [RP:]
>> Asking why you are either unable, or is it unwilling, to answer my
>> question. Every time I have to ask you again, it 'wastes my time'TM.
>> That two strikes, a third and you'll be out.
>
> It may save yet another round of blank incomprehensions if
> someone points out that JN /did/ reply to RP's question; see his
> post of 16/01/2024, timed at 14:04. Or it may not.
Thank you.
> On 22/01/2024 08:38, Roland Perry wrote:
> [RP, to JN:]
>>>>> Anyway, what's the sense in calling the action "Inexplicable",
>>>>> and then by implication asking for an explanation?
> [RP, again:]
>>>> Hello! Are you going to reply to this, or not?
>>>> If not, you'll edge even closer to "wasting the mods' time".
> [JN:]
>>> What are you talking about?
> [RP:]
>> Asking why you are either unable, or is it unwilling, to answer my
>> question. Every time I have to ask you again, it 'wastes my time'TM.
>> That two strikes, a third and you'll be out.
>
> It may save yet another round of blank incomprehensions if
> someone points out that JN /did/ reply to RP's question; see his
> post of 16/01/2024, timed at 14:04. Or it may not.
I'd forgotten about that.
Roland Perry
Jan 23, 2024, 2:29:17 AM1/23/24
to
In message <l17h3e...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:49:02 on Mon, 22
That was a response (blatantly avoiding the question), not an answer.
--
Roland Perry
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jan 23, 2024, 2:29:18 AM1/23/24
to
In message <l17cav...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:27:42 on Mon, 22
No you aren't.
>but what is the point in directly answering questions if posts
>containing the answers are "modded out" on the surprising basis that
>they don't contain enough new material?
This is not a moderated group.
>When it is possible and allows an adequate response, I prefer brevity,
>concision and focus. But that is apparently unacceptable.
What's unacceptable is refusing to have a sensible discussion here.
--
Roland Perry
>but what is the point in directly answering questions if posts
>containing the answers are "modded out" on the surprising basis that
>they don't contain enough new material?
>When it is possible and allows an adequate response, I prefer brevity,
>concision and focus. But that is apparently unacceptable.
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
Jan 23, 2024, 9:08:02 AM1/23/24
to
This group, as I understand it, is the place to ask such questions.
So what is the point in directly answering questions in uk.l.m if posts
containing the answers are "modded out" on the surprising basis that
they don't contain enough new material?
they don't contain enough new material?
>> When it is possible and allows an adequate response, I prefer brevity,
>> concision and focus. But that is apparently unacceptable.
>
> What's unacceptable is refusing to have a sensible discussion here.
This is the place to discuss moderation policy and practice.
>> concision and focus. But that is apparently unacceptable.
>
> What's unacceptable is refusing to have a sensible discussion here.
uk.l.m (or in another universe, uk.l) is the place to discuss
substantive issues.
I am fairly sure that this is well-known.
In any case, I'm sure you saw AW's post.
JNugent
Jan 23, 2024, 9:14:47 AM1/23/24
to
necessary.
Roland Perry
Jan 28, 2024, 2:34:20 AM1/28/24
to
In message <l19vi0...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:08:00 on Tue, 23
question(s) posted in u.n.n.m
But this discussion in u.n.n.m is now at an end, but if you feel you
need to explain why you are (a) behaving like a dickhead or (b) not a
chatbot; please feel free.
--
Roland Perry
>what is the point in directly answering questions in uk.l.m if posts
>containing the answers are "modded out" on the surprising basis that
>they don't contain enough new material?
I'm asking you, and you are repeatedly refusing, to answer my
>containing the answers are "modded out" on the surprising basis that
>they don't contain enough new material?
question(s) posted in u.n.n.m
But this discussion in u.n.n.m is now at an end, but if you feel you
need to explain why you are (a) behaving like a dickhead or (b) not a
chatbot; please feel free.
--
Roland Perry
0 new messages