Re: Phone Book

[Theo]

Why was this not rejected from u.l.m for lack of legal content:

The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
> A BT phone book has been posted through my door. It is called The Phone
> Book. The cover says "Final edition. Hold on to it forever". It is much
> thinner than the big fat phone books we used to have.
>
> It is supposed to cover my neighbourhood but my name isn't in it, nor
> are the names of anyone I know in the locality. I know I haven't asked
> to be ex-directory.
>
> Is it supposed to have only BT customers in it, and not customers who
> have signed up to Sky, Plusnet, Talktalk etc, for their landline
> service? If so, is there no longer any reliable phone book if you want
> to look up someone's address and phone number?
>
> Has anyone else taken delivery of a phone book and noticed the same thing?
>

[The Todal]

On 20/11/2023 18:18, Theo wrote:
> Why was this not rejected from u.l.m for lack of legal content:

Because I both wrote the post and accepted it in the moderation queue.
Do you have any further questions?

[Fredxx]

On 20/11/2023 19:15, The Todal wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 18:18, Theo wrote:
>> Why was this not rejected from u.l.m for lack of legal content:
>
> Because I both wrote the post and accepted it in the moderation queue.
> Do you have any further questions?

Can you draw attention to it's legal content as per the original charter?

We've already had whinges from moderators about workload. Clearly they
have a greater bandwidth than you seem to think, or perhaps they're lazy?

[billy bookcase]

"Theo" <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:RUj*2I...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

> Why was this not rejected from u.l.m for lack of legal content:

the claim, were it found to be true....

" It is supposed to cover my neighbourhood but my name isn't in
it, nor are the names of anyone I know in the locality. I know
I haven't asked to be ex-directory."

would appear to constitute a blatant example of misrepresentation.
Which as you will know, is directly contrary to the Misrepresentation
Act of 1967

Such that were the plaintiff, known for present purposes as "The Todal"
to be induced to purchase Telephone Services from BT, on the agreed
basis that they would supply him with a "Phone Book" listing the
names of all subscribers in his locality; excepting those who
chose to be ex-directory, then BT's failure to do so would be
a clear and obvious Breach of Contract; laying them open to
compensation as outlined in Section 2

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/7/section/2

One might have thought, and quite reasonably so, that so much would
have been glaringly obvious, quite frankly.


bb

[The Todal]

On 20/11/2023 19:39, Fredxx wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 19:15, The Todal wrote:
>> On 20/11/2023 18:18, Theo wrote:
>>> Why was this not rejected from u.l.m for lack of legal content:
>>
>> Because I both wrote the post and accepted it in the moderation queue.
>> Do you have any further questions?
>
> Can you draw attention to it's legal content as per the original charter?

No.

>
> We've already had whinges from moderators about workload. Clearly they
> have a greater bandwidth than you seem to think, or perhaps they're lazy?

Clearly you have time on your hands.

[Theo]

The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 19:39, Fredxx wrote:
> > On 20/11/2023 19:15, The Todal wrote:
> >> On 20/11/2023 18:18, Theo wrote:
> >>> Why was this not rejected from u.l.m for lack of legal content:
> >>
> >> Because I both wrote the post and accepted it in the moderation queue.
> >> Do you have any further questions?
> >
> > Can you draw attention to it's legal content as per the original charter?
>
> No.

So can you describe the reasons why it was approved?

If somebody else were to make a similar posting, would that post also be
approved?

I note the moderation policy says:

"b) Humorous, frivolous or off-topic posts will sometimes be permissible if
they are followups to an on-topic discussion, at the discretion of the
moderators. "

And this posting, being a new thread, was not one of those.

Based on this evidence, how would you "assist contributors in
understanding how to post within moderation guidelines."?

Theo

[The Todal]

On 21/11/2023 21:26, Theo wrote:
> The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
>> On 20/11/2023 19:39, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 20/11/2023 19:15, The Todal wrote:
>>>> On 20/11/2023 18:18, Theo wrote:
>>>>> Why was this not rejected from u.l.m for lack of legal content:
>>>>
>>>> Because I both wrote the post and accepted it in the moderation queue.
>>>> Do you have any further questions?
>>>
>>> Can you draw attention to it's legal content as per the original charter?
>>
>> No.
>
> So can you describe the reasons why it was approved?

Work it out for yourself.

>
> If somebody else were to make a similar posting, would that post also be
> approved?

It entirely depends on which moderator actions it.

>
> I note the moderation policy says:
>
> "b) Humorous, frivolous or off-topic posts will sometimes be permissible if
> they are followups to an on-topic discussion, at the discretion of the
> moderators. "
>
> And this posting, being a new thread, was not one of those.
>
> Based on this evidence, how would you "assist contributors in
> understanding how to post within moderation guidelines."?
>
> Theo

I would be very happy to assist you if you post something that is
rejected by the moderators and you seek advice about how to make the
post acceptable.

[Fredxx]

On 21/11/2023 22:47, The Todal wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 21:26, Theo wrote:
>> The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
>>> On 20/11/2023 19:39, Fredxx wrote:
>>>> On 20/11/2023 19:15, The Todal wrote:
>>>>> On 20/11/2023 18:18, Theo wrote:
>>>>>> Why was this not rejected from u.l.m for lack of legal content:
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I both wrote the post and accepted it in the moderation queue.
>>>>> Do you have any further questions?
>>>>
>>>> Can you draw attention to it's legal content as per the original
>>>> charter?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> So can you describe the reasons why it was approved?
>
> Work it out for yourself.

Narcissism? Moderator thinking they're above the rules they're meant to
uphold?

>> If somebody else were to make a similar posting, would that post also be
>> approved?
>
> It entirely depends on which moderator actions it.

So more evidence of the above.

>> I note the moderation policy says:
>>
>> "b) Humorous, frivolous or off-topic posts will sometimes be
>> permissible if
>> they are followups to an on-topic discussion, at the discretion of the
>> moderators.  "
>>
>> And this posting, being a new thread, was not one of those.
>>
>> Based on this evidence, how would you "assist contributors in
>> understanding how to post within moderation guidelines."?
>>
>> Theo
>
>
> I would be very happy to assist you if you post something that is
> rejected by the moderators and you seek advice about how to make the
> post acceptable.

It's more about moderators making posts where us mere mortals, should we
get on our soapbox, aren't allowed to.

[Pancho]

On 21/11/2023 23:52, Fredxx wrote:

>>
>> Work it out for yourself.
>
> Narcissism? Moderator thinking they're above the rules they're meant to
> uphold?
>

I feel this is very similar to the situation with Sam Altman at OpenAI,
of similar importance.

[The Todal]

On 21/11/2023 23:52, Fredxx wrote:

When was any post of yours rejected for being off topic?

[Fredxx]

Have you actually read the original charter? Why do you think I should
feel obliged to break those rules?

[Jeff Layman]

You might want to follow the thread I started in unnm a couple of years ago:
<https://groups.google.com/g/uk.net.news.moderation/c/HAc9K_qmfG8/m/nlM4AI0WAgAJ>

--

Jeff

[GB]

On 22/11/2023 15:05, Fredxx wrote:

>> When was any post of yours rejected for being off topic?
>
> Have you actually read the original charter? Why do you think I should
> feel obliged to break those rules?

Wasn't it only yesterday that you called me a racist? I feel sure
that's against the charter, but you're claiming to be an expert on the
charter, so maybe you should tell us.

[Fredxx]

No I did nothing of the sort. I would apologise if I did.

If, however, anyone feels it is right to discriminate against others on
the basis of race, then all I can say if the cap fits, best wear it.
After all most will agree that discrimination on the basis of race is
the very definition of racism. Some are in denial of course, and say
that racism only applies to others.

[The Todal]

On 22/11/2023 15:05, Fredxx wrote:

This discussion is too boring and pointless, so these are my final words
on the topic.

The purpose of the moderation guidelines - which I drafted and which I
can amend or rewrite whenever I like - is to prevent flame wars and
abuse and defamation and mindless conspiracy-theorising rants and other
types of rubbish that regularly used to fill uk.legal when I still used
to read it.

The purpose is not to placate anal-retentive individuals who want each
post to quote a specific law or principle of law. Or who harbour an
irrational suspicion that their own opinions are deemed less worthy of
publication than the opinions of others even if there is no objective
evidence for such a belief.

The time for you to complain would be when you, as a "mere mortal", find
that your own post has been rejected. Don't put yourself down - you're
as immortal as everyone else.

[Roger Hayter]

As a matter of interest (not that I want to be a teacher's pet or anything) I
thought the phone book question raised interesting issues related to data
protection and changing attitudes to privacy. And about telephone systems,
which are always interesting.


--
Roger Hayter

[Fredxx]

Yet when Todal was asked, he was unable to indicate any legal content or
aspect to his post!!

[Fredxx]

I guess that's your way of saying you don't like being shown a hypocrite?

> The purpose of the moderation guidelines - which I drafted and which I
> can amend or rewrite whenever I like - is to prevent flame wars and
> abuse and defamation and mindless conspiracy-theorising rants and other
> types of rubbish that regularly used to fill uk.legal when I still used
> to read it.

You've said it all. It's a blatant admission this is your personal group
for your personal soapbox topics.

> The purpose is not to placate anal-retentive individuals who want each
> post to quote a specific law or principle of law. Or who harbour an
> irrational suspicion that their own opinions are deemed less worthy of
> publication than the opinions of others even if there is no objective
> evidence for such a belief.

The purpose of a charter is to discuss legal matters. It is not a
political group. If you want to post to an appropriate group feel free.

If you write moderation rules that run roughshod over the charter then
the group is a fraud.

> The time for you to complain would be when you, as a "mere mortal", find
> that your own post has been rejected. Don't put yourself down - you're
> as immortal as everyone else.

You have entirely missed the point.

[Jon Ribbens]

I blame the government.

[Roger Hayter]

On 23 Nov 2023 at 00:03:28 GMT, "Fredxx" <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:

> On 22/11/2023 19:56, The Todal wrote:
>> On 22/11/2023 15:05, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 22/11/2023 09:42, The Todal wrote:
>>>> On 21/11/2023 23:52, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>

sniip

>>>>> It's more about moderators making posts where us mere mortals,
>>>>> should we get on our soapbox, aren't allowed to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When was any post of yours rejected for being off topic?
>>>
>>> Have you actually read the original charter? Why do you think I should
>>> feel obliged to break those rules?
>>>
>>
>> This discussion is too boring and pointless, so these are my final words
>> on the topic.
>
> I guess that's your way of saying you don't like being shown a hypocrite?
>
>> The purpose of the moderation guidelines - which I drafted and which I
>> can amend or rewrite whenever I like - is to prevent flame wars and
>> abuse and defamation and mindless conspiracy-theorising rants and other
>> types of rubbish that regularly used to fill uk.legal when I still used
>> to read it.
>
> You've said it all. It's a blatant admission this is your personal group
> for your personal soapbox topics.

That is rather a bizarre claim on the basis of thread about phone books, which
is at worst an inconsequential idle thought - I am not sure where soapboxes
come into it.

snip





>


--
Roger Hayter

[GB]

On 22/11/2023 19:56, The Todal wrote:

> On 22/11/2023 16:36, GB wrote:
>> On 22/11/2023 15:05, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>>> When was any post of yours rejected for being off topic?
>>>
>>> Have you actually read the original charter? Why do you think I
>>> should feel obliged to break those rules?
>>
>> Wasn't it only yesterday that you called me a racist?  I feel sure
>> that's against the charter, but you're claiming to be an expert on the
>> charter, so maybe you should tell us.
>
> No I did nothing of the sort. I would apologise if I did.

That's not surprising, as I was replying to Fredxx.

[Roger Hayter]

On 23 Nov 2023 at 19:37:15 GMT, "Brian Morrison" <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:

> On 23 Nov 2023 00:26:00 GMT

> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>
>> That is rather a bizarre claim on the basis of thread about phone
>> books, which is at worst an inconsequential idle thought - I am not
>> sure where soapboxes come into it.
>

> A long time ago (mid-1970s?) I remember seeing some sort of street
> auction taking place, the auctioneer was standing on a stack of old
> phone books. Presumably he didn't have a soapbox available.

I don't think I've ever seen an actual soapbox, though orange boxes and
ammunition boxes were around when I was a child.

--
Roger Hayter

[Fredxx]

I have no idea why the header indicates Todal had replied to your
message when it was most certainly me.

Funny how you chose to snip the most significant part of my post. I'll
reinstate it so you can give it a better read:

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2023-11-23, Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2023 00:26:00 GMT
> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>

>> That is rather a bizarre claim on the basis of thread about phone
>> books, which is at worst an inconsequential idle thought - I am not
>> sure where soapboxes come into it.
>

> A long time ago (mid-1970s?) I remember seeing some sort of street
> auction taking place, the auctioneer was standing on a stack of old
> phone books. Presumably he didn't have a soapbox available.

I saw someone once in Speakers' Corner railing against modern technology
(anything since the 1600s is evil, that sort of thing). They'd gone to
the trouble of acquiring hand-stitched clothing and such, but appeared
sadly immune to the irony that to achieve the necessary prominence for
their diatribe they were standing on a modern metal factory-manufactured
mini step ladder.

[Simon Parker]

Speaking only for myself0, and with my moderator's hat on, I will say,
(as I've said previously), that I prefer "light touch" moderation and
this is the basis on which I moderate. I don't think I've ever rejected
a post for being "off-topic".

I have been on Usenet for several decades and see each NG as a
community. Sometimes, posts are made which are not strictly relevant to
the group in which they are made. However, if the person making the
post is a regular they will know how to weigh the value of any responses
they receive and that can be of great value. Asking a question in a new
group in which one doesn't know anyone may receive a flurry of
conflicting responses, but how does one determine which is right and
which is wrong?

Similarly, an element of off-topic discussion helps create and maintain
"community spirit".

The alternative is that we insist that each post contains an "ObLeg"
somewhere in it so that it complies with the rules, whilst
simultaneously breaking them. I'd rather be open and transparent and
say that off-topic posts are acceptable within reason.

It is trivially easy to have the Moderation Policy updated to state this
but custom and practice would indicate this is already the case.

As always, I invite anyone that is dissatisfied with the service they
are receiving in ULM to request a refund of any and all fees they've
paid and recommend they take their custom to a location more in line
with their requirements.

If anyone has a problem with anything in this post, I recommend
re-reading the above paragraph. :-)

Regards

S.P.

[Norman Wells]

But you could justify breaking *any* of the moderation policy rules on a
similar basis, and perhaps you already do. Would the following not be
analogous for example?

"Speaking only for myself0, and with my moderator's hat on, I will say,
(as I've said previously), that I prefer "light touch" moderation and
this is the basis on which I moderate. I don't think I've ever rejected

a post for being "abusive or hurtful to someone else".

I have been on Usenet for several decades and see each NG as a

community. Sometimes, posts are made which are not as nice and flowery
as they might be in the group in which they are made. However, if the

person making the post is a regular they will know how to weigh the

abusiveness of any responses they receive and that can be of great

value. Asking a question in a new group in which one doesn't know

anyone may receive a flurry of abusive responses, but how does one

determine which is right and which is wrong?

Similarly, an element of abuse helps create and maintain "community spirit".

The alternative is that we insist that each post contains something nice
and fluffy somewhere in it so that it complies with the rules, whilst

simultaneously breaking them. I'd rather be open and transparent and

say that abusive or hurtful posts are acceptable within reason.

It is trivially easy to have the Moderation Policy updated to state this
but custom and practice would indicate this is already the case."

If we have a moderation policy, surely it's an abuse of it to adopt a
Pic'n'Mix approach where you just choose for your own convenience which
of the rules you want to follow?

[Simon Parker]

Even by your typically poor standards this is an extremely disappointing
post.

Trolling Score: 1/5
Sealion Value: 1/5
Broken-Record / Repetitive Score: 4/5

Please try harder with future posts, Norman. You really do need to put
in more effort as this post has failed miserably.

Regards

S.P.

[Norman Wells]

Your disappointment is for you to own.

> Trolling Score: 1/5
> Sealion Value: 1/5
> Broken-Record / Repetitive Score: 4/5
>
> Please try harder with future posts, Norman.  You really do need to put
> in more effort as this post has failed miserably.

The truth has clearly stung you. You have no answer to a valid point,
so resort, as usual, to patronising ad homs.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ksbb55...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:10:44 on Fri, 24
Nov 2023, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:

>As always, I invite anyone that is dissatisfied with the service they
>are receiving in ULM to request a refund of any and all fees they've
>paid and recommend they take their custom to a location more in line
>with their requirements.

+1
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

Dust under the carpet doesn't exist, eh?

[billy bookcase]

"Brian Morrison" <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20231125174...@deangelis.fenrir.org.uk...

> You've heard of the refrigerator light conundrum then?



Viz Top Tip:

Drill a 10mm hole in your fridge door so you can check
whether the light really goes does out.


bb

[Fredxx]

On 24/11/2023 10:10, Simon Parker wrote:

<snip>

> As always, I invite anyone that is dissatisfied with the service they
> are receiving in ULM to request a refund of any and all fees they've
> paid and recommend they take their custom to a location more in line
> with their requirements.

You were doing well until now.

Only a stupid person will believe that there are any fees due, or a
refund due. The issue is that this is a moderated group with a dictator
at it's helm. And you are the equivalent in Goebbels, where if your
glorious leader says jump, you reply, "How high?".

I volunteer my services to be a moderator, so we can finally stick to
the charter. As I have said before, and you ignored, if anyone wants a
moderated political group feel free to write a RFC.

> If anyone has a problem with anything in this post, I recommend
> re-reading the above paragraph. :-)

There is, and I have.

[Fredxx]

On 25/11/2023 08:56, Roland Perry wrote:

Are you arse-licker number 2? Or do you claim priority over SP?

[Ian Jackson]

In article <ksbb55...@mid.individual.net>,

Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Speaking only for myself0, and with my moderator's hat on, I will say,
>(as I've said previously), that I prefer "light touch" moderation and
>this is the basis on which I moderate. I don't think I've ever rejected
>a post for being "off-topic".
>

>[much snipped]

Thanks for the careful and considered reply. I found it convincing,
as an argument in favour of the original acceptance. Please continue.

It's a shame the response from your co-moderator was so high-handed.
IME if one is in a position of authority it's generally better to take
a sympathetic tone, and try to understand complaints, even if
ultimately the outcome isn't what the complainant is asking for.

--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[Roland Perry]

In message <uju0i8$2vk5d$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:38:49 on Sat, 25 Nov
2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:

>I volunteer my services to be a moderator,

Your intemperate postings make that somewhat unlikely to be accepted.

>so we can finally stick to the charter.

Or we could stick to refraining from complaining about mythical
departures from the charter.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

On 26/11/2023 11:48, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uju0i8$2vk5d$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:38:49 on Sat, 25 Nov
> 2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>
>> I volunteer my services to be a moderator,
>
> Your intemperate postings make that somewhat unlikely to be accepted.

Given the quantity of patronising name-calling, insults and abusive ad
homs I've received and had to endure over recent months, I wonder if you
would clarify just what you consider to be 'intemperate'?

To that end, can I ask you please to mark each of the following on a
scale of 1 (not intemperate at all) to 10 (extremely intemperate), and
at the end say what you think the level is that should disqualify one
from being a moderator?

1) Your apparent anal fixation aside

2) Your assurances are worth nought. Possibly even less than nought. In
fact, if you claim something is true, the likelihood is that it is false
so pervasive and habitual is your lying.

3) A liar and a hypocrite. You really are an odious individual. Do you
have any redeeming qualities whatsoever?

4) You really are a brainless fuckwit aren't you?

5) I call you a fuckwit because you're a fuckwit. It really is that
simple. Stop being a fuckwit and I'll stop calling you a fuckwit.

6) You really are determined to demonstrate that your fuckwittery knows
no bounds, aren't you?

7) Boo hoo. You're not a trusted poster and are on the fuckwit's list
instead. Sucks to be you. Perhaps you should consider going into the
garden to eat some worms?

8) You crave attention. Any attention. Even negative attention. You're
like the naughty child that misbehaves just so he can be told off
because at least being told off means you've been noticed and that
people are talking to you. Without that, you'd have nothing.

9) That way, everyone can see what a repulsive, revolting and
reprehensible individual you are.

10) I propose that all moderators cease moderating your posts with
immediate effect and until further notice.

I look forward with interest to your answers.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ksh801...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:53:37 on Sun, 26
Nov 2023, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>On 26/11/2023 11:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uju0i8$2vk5d$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:38:49 on Sat, 25 Nov
>>2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>>
>>> I volunteer my services to be a moderator,

>> Your intemperate postings make that somewhat unlikely to be
>>accepted.
>
>Given the quantity of patronising name-calling, insults and abusive ad
>homs I've received and had to endure over recent months, I wonder if
>you would clarify just what you consider to be 'intemperate'?

Oh, have you just outed yourself as Fredxx's sock puppet?

[Remainder snipped until we've sorted that out]

--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

Once again, as usual in fact, you post an evasive non-answer.

As you very well know (so don't pretend you don't), I am no-one's sock
puppet, nor is anyone else mine.

Now would you like to deal with the substance of what I previously posted?

Let me put it back for you so you don't forget what it was:

Given the quantity of patronising name-calling, insults and abusive ad
homs I've received and had to endure over recent months, I wonder if you
would clarify just what you consider to be 'intemperate'?

[Roland Perry]

In message <kshgr4...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:24:36 on Sun, 26

Nov 2023, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>On 26/11/2023 17:47, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ksh801...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:53:37 on Sun, 26
>>Nov 2023, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> On 26/11/2023 11:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <uju0i8$2vk5d$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:38:49 on Sat, 25
>>>>Nov 2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> I volunteer my services to be a moderator,
>>
>>>>  Your intemperate postings make that somewhat unlikely to be
>>>>accepted.
>>>
>>> Given the quantity of patronising name-calling, insults and abusive
>>>ad homs I've received and had to endure over recent months, I wonder
>>>if you would clarify just what you consider to be 'intemperate'?

>> Oh, have you just outed yourself as Fredxx's sock puppet?
>> [Remainder snipped until we've sorted that out]
>
>Once again, as usual in fact, you post an evasive non-answer.
>
>As you very well know (so don't pretend you don't), I am no-one's sock
>puppet, nor is anyone else mine.

So why the knee-jerk reaction from *you* about my posting to Fredxx?

--
Roland Perry

[billy bookcase]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:ksh801...@mid.individual.net...

>
> 1) Your apparent anal fixation aside

Spoilsport


bb

[Fredxx]

On 26/11/2023 11:48, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <uju0i8$2vk5d$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:38:49 on Sat, 25 Nov
> 2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>
>> I volunteer my services to be a moderator,
>
> Your intemperate postings make that somewhat unlikely to be accepted.

Like other moderators I would be happy for my posts to remain moderated.

BTW, when was the last time a post of mine was rejected?

>> so we can finally stick to the charter.
>
> Or we could stick to refraining from complaining about mythical
> departures from the charter.

You seem to be in denial that the charter requires posts associated with
a legal aspect. Even Todal admits there was no legal basis to his post.

[Fredxx]

On 26/11/2023 19:58, Fredxx wrote:
> On 26/11/2023 11:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uju0i8$2vk5d$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:38:49 on Sat, 25 Nov
>> 2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>>
>>> I volunteer my services to be a moderator,
>>
>> Your intemperate postings make that somewhat unlikely to be accepted.
>

> Unlike other moderators I would be happy for my posts to remain moderated.
^^^^^^

[Fredxx]

Anyone with more that a few brain cells would know we are different
entities.

In much the same way Todal excused himself from this thread, you seem to
be following the same tradition in ignoring the more serious questions
posed to you.

[Norman Wells]

Avoidance, evasion, swerving, and yet another non-answer. You're
trolling again as you usually do. Are you fit to be a moderator in ulm?

Let me put back the questions you're trying desperately not to answer:

Given the quantity of patronising name-calling, insults and abusive ad
homs I've received and had to endure over recent months, I wonder if you
would clarify just what you consider to be 'intemperate'?

[Roland Perry]

In message <uk0d25$3dn5l$1...@dont-email.me>, at 21:24:23 on Sun, 26 Nov
2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:

Have you forgotten, so soon, that moderators have no compulsion to
answer any questions here, let alone sealioning and "have you stopped
beating your wife"?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <kshteq...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:59:54 on Sun, 26

Nov 2023, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>On 26/11/2023 18:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <kshgr4...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:24:36 on Sun, 26
>>Nov 2023, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> On 26/11/2023 17:47, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <ksh801...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:53:37 on Sun,
>>>>26 Nov 2023, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>>> On 26/11/2023 11:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <uju0i8$2vk5d$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:38:49 on Sat, 25
>>>>>>Nov  2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I volunteer my services to be a moderator,
>>>>
>>>>>>  Your intemperate postings make that somewhat unlikely to be accepted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the quantity of patronising name-calling, insults and
>>>>>abusive ad  homs I've received and had to endure over recent
>>>>>months, I wonder if  you would clarify just what you consider to
>>>>>be 'intemperate'?
>>
>>>>  Oh, have you just outed yourself as Fredxx's sock puppet?
>>>>  [Remainder snipped until we've sorted that out]
>>>
>>> Once again, as usual in fact, you post an evasive non-answer.
>>>
>>> As you very well know (so don't pretend you don't), I am no-one's
>>>sock puppet, nor is anyone else mine.

>> So why the knee-jerk reaction from *you* about my posting to Fredxx?
>
>Avoidance, evasion, swerving, and yet another non-answer.

The funny thing is, *you* aren't answering anything either. Strange
that.

[snip, what looks a lot like bot-generated text]
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <uk081d$3ctih$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:58:38 on Sun, 26 Nov

2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>On 26/11/2023 11:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uju0i8$2vk5d$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:38:49 on Sat, 25 Nov
>>2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>>
>>> I volunteer my services to be a moderator,

>> Your intemperate postings make that somewhat unlikely to be
>>accepted.
>
>Like other moderators I would be happy for my posts to remain moderated.

That's not the issue. You give every impression of harbouring grudges
against other posters, and in particular resent when it's pointed out
what a shit-show, empowered by gullible xenophobes, Brexit has been.

Both demonstrate a lack of impartiality.

>BTW, when was the last time a post of mine was rejected?

I have no idea. Look at the rejection messages you've received and tell
me. Oh wait! You have a self-inflicted write-only email address, and
decline to receive them.

Yet another disqualification.

>>> so we can finally stick to the charter.
>> Or we could stick to refraining from complaining about mythical
>>departures from the charter.
>
>You seem to be in denial that the charter requires posts associated
>with a legal aspect.

That's simply not true. As has been pointed out here the last few days.

Another reason why you wouldn't be a suitable moderator - you don't even
know the rules.

>Even Todal admits there was no legal basis to his post.

Because there doesn't need to be.

(Although in fact I disagree with that analysis, because the whole
business of telcos sharing subscriber data with each other - let alone
the public - is central to the GDPR (nee DPA) regime.
--
Roland Perry

[Tim Jackson]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 15:53:37 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...

> To that end, can I ask you please to mark each of the following on a
> scale of 1 (not intemperate at all) to 10 (extremely intemperate), and
> at the end say what you think the level is that should disqualify one
> from being a moderator?

[List snipped]

For each of your examples, please identify which were posted on ulm.

And which on unnm or another unmoderated group where there is no rule
against intemperate posts.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Norman Wells]

On 27/11/2023 07:39, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uk0d25$3dn5l$1...@dont-email.me>, at 21:24:23 on Sun, 26 Nov
> 2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:

>> In much the same way Todal excused himself from this thread, you seem
>> to be following the same tradition in ignoring the more serious
>> questions posed to you.
>
> Have you forgotten, so soon, that moderators have no compulsion to
> answer any questions here, let alone sealioning and "have you stopped
> beating your wife"?

Why do you, as a moderator in ulm, come here to a forum specifically set
up to discuss moderation issues when it's clear all you want to do is
evade discussing them?

It's trolling, Mr Perry. Pure and simple.

And it's utter hypocrisy to troll when you claim to have written
important papers decrying it, isn't it?

[Norman Wells]

Do you ever read what you reply to?

If you did, you'd see I answered your first question very directly and
clearly indeed. And your second question was not a follow-up but simply
prevarication of no relevance to the matter in hand, given that this is
an forum open to all. The purpose of your question was evidently just
to troll, which is entirely consistent with how you normally behave here.

If you'd like to stop trolling for just a moment, perhaps you'd address
the matter in hand which, as you'll recall, was:

Given the quantity of patronising name-calling, insults and abusive ad
homs I've received and had to endure over recent months, I wonder if you
would clarify just what you consider to be 'intemperate'?

> [snip, what looks a lot like bot-generated text]

Only if one of your fellow moderators is a bot since he generated them
all. Do you think he is?

[Norman Wells]

On 27/11/2023 08:04, Tim Jackson wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 15:53:37 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>
>> To that end, can I ask you please to mark each of the following on a
>> scale of 1 (not intemperate at all) to 10 (extremely intemperate), and
>> at the end say what you think the level is that should disqualify one
>> from being a moderator?
>
> [List snipped]
>
> For each of your examples, please identify which were posted on ulm.
>
> And which on unnm or another unmoderated group where there is no rule
> against intemperate posts.

Intemperance is not measured by where it is exhibited. It is an
independent quality.

All of Fredxx's posts we've ever seen in ulm have been personally
approved by a moderator, and must therefore be presumed to be perfectly
acceptable under the moderation policy.

If he has in fact exhibited any intemperance such as to disqualify him
from being a moderator, it must therefore have been elsewhere.

And if elsewhere counts against him, so it should too against others.

That is why I asked, very reasonably I think in a forum existing
specifically for the discussion of moderation issues, for clarification
of what level of intemperance counts against being a moderator, that
being a criterion brought up here by an existing moderator.

Perhaps you'd like to give us *your* views on what I said originally
which, just to remind you and to make it easy for you to reply, was:

Given the quantity of patronising name-calling, insults and abusive ad
homs I've received and had to endure over recent months, I wonder if you
would clarify just what you consider to be 'intemperate'?

To that end, can I ask you please to mark each of the following on a
scale of 1 (not intemperate at all) to 10 (extremely intemperate), and
at the end say what you think the level is that should disqualify one
from being a moderator?

[Norman Wells]

On 27/11/2023 07:47, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uk081d$3ctih$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:58:38 on Sun, 26 Nov
> 2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>> On 26/11/2023 11:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uju0i8$2vk5d$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:38:49 on Sat, 25 Nov
>>> 2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>>>
>>>> I volunteer my services to be a moderator,
>
>>>  Your intemperate postings make that somewhat unlikely to be accepted.
>>
>> Like other moderators I would be happy for my posts to remain moderated.
>
> That's not the issue. You give every impression of harbouring grudges
> against other posters, and in particular resent when it's pointed out
> what a shit-show, empowered by gullible xenophobes, Brexit has been.
>
> Both demonstrate a lack of impartiality.

Ah, 'impartiality', another criterion you've introduced for suitability
to be a moderator, in addition to 'temperance'.

Just to clarify what you mean by that, can I ask you please to mark each
of the following on a scale of 1 (completely impartial) to 10 (extremely
partial), and at the end say what you think the level is that should

[Tim Jackson]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 09:02:41 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...

>
> On 27/11/2023 08:04, Tim Jackson wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 15:53:37 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
> >
> >> To that end, can I ask you please to mark each of the following on a
> >> scale of 1 (not intemperate at all) to 10 (extremely intemperate), and
> >> at the end say what you think the level is that should disqualify one
> >> from being a moderator?
> >
> > [List snipped]
> >
> > For each of your examples, please identify which were posted on ulm.
> >
> > And which on unnm or another unmoderated group where there is no rule
> > against intemperate posts.
>
> Intemperance is not measured by where it is exhibited. It is an
> independent quality.

Actually, it *is* measured by where it is exhibited. There's no rule
against it in this group, unnm. But it's likely to be rejected in the
moderated group, depending how serious it is.

[Norman Wells]

Then where was it exhibited by Fredxx, and why doesn't wherever it was
apply to others as well as it apparently does to him?

You see, any posts from him we've seen in ulm have been personally
approved by a moderator and must therefore be acceptable and fully in
accordance with the moderation policy there. So, they can't have been
objectionably 'intemperate' or 'partial' as a moderator has claimed
should bar him from being a moderator.

In your zeal to snip, you seem to have overlooked that.

Just to clarify why I asked the question I did, it's because all of the
comments I numbered have been made against me by a current ulm moderator
in the last 6 months. Why should he be considered suitable to be a
moderator if Fredxx isn't?

Perhaps you'd like to address the substance of the matter now?

Why are you so shy you feel snipping is the best way of brushing it
under the carpet?

[Tim Jackson]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:00:42 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...

> Why are you so shy you feel snipping is the best way of brushing it
> under the carpet?

Because otherwise you just go on. And on. And on.

Yawn.

And even then it doesn't work. You still go on and on.

Even to the extent of re-inserting snipped questions over and over
again, in the forlorn hope that there's someone out there who you've not
yet thoroughly bored the pants off, and who will indulge you. Next
you'll point out that it's a discussion group, so why is no-one prepared
to discuss things with you.


Then you say that things which have been accepted by the mods must
therefore have been **fully** in accordance with the moderation policy.

While at the same time inviting us to score intemperance on a scale of 1
to 10. If something scores 5 on the Norman scale, is that fully in
accordance or not?

Next you'll be reminding us that this is a discussion group, so we ought
to engage with your endlessly repetitive attempts at discussion, rather
than cutting them off.

Yawn.

[Norman Wells]

On 27/11/2023 11:00, Tim Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:00:42 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>
>> Why are you so shy you feel snipping is the best way of brushing it
>> under the carpet?
>
> Because otherwise you just go on. And on. And on.
>
> Yawn.

As you said, there is no rule against it here, and it can't be held
against me, so why not? You don't have to respond if it's after your
bedtime.

> And even then it doesn't work. You still go on and on.
>
> Even to the extent of re-inserting snipped questions over and over
> again, in the forlorn hope that there's someone out there who you've not
> yet thoroughly bored the pants off, and who will indulge you. Next
> you'll point out that it's a discussion group, so why is no-one prepared
> to discuss things with you.

No, the question is why *you* are here if you're not prepared to discuss
it. People not responding in any significant way exhibit their own
revealing traits.

> Then you say that things which have been accepted by the mods must
> therefore have been **fully** in accordance with the moderation policy.

It's what they're there to ensure actually.

> While at the same time inviting us to score intemperance on a scale of 1
> to 10. If something scores 5 on the Norman scale, is that fully in
> accordance or not?

It's not *my* scale but a personal score, which is why I invited you to:

"at the end say what *you* think the level is that should disqualify one
from being a moderator?"

Why do you come here if you don't have any views or opinions of your
own? Why do you pretend you're addressing the point when you're just
avoiding it? And what does your apparent compulsion to participate,
even completely vacuously, say about your own pomposity and
self-importance?

[Fredxx]

Playing dumb is most unbecoming of a moderator. There is however an
obligation to stick to the charter, and that includes moderators. Unless
you have forgotten that?

You seem to be infatuated with "beating your wife". I'm sure Froid would
have something to say on the subject.

[Fredxx]

On 27/11/2023 07:47, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uk081d$3ctih$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:58:38 on Sun, 26 Nov
> 2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>> On 26/11/2023 11:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uju0i8$2vk5d$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:38:49 on Sat, 25 Nov
>>> 2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>>>
>>>> I volunteer my services to be a moderator,
>
>>>  Your intemperate postings make that somewhat unlikely to be accepted.
>>
>> Like other moderators I would be happy for my posts to remain moderated.
>
> That's not the issue. You give every impression of harbouring grudges
> against other posters, and in particular resent when it's pointed out
> what a shit-show, empowered by gullible xenophobes, Brexit has been.
>
> Both demonstrate a lack of impartiality.

It is Remain extremists that feel the need to lie about the consequences
of Brexit that I feel obliged to correct. Please feel free to cite the
last occasion when I made comment about Brexit without another poster,
usually a moderator, bringing up the subject beforehand.

That demonstrates impartiality on my part and a complete lack by others
still infatuated with losing, showing displeasure to anyone who
supported Brexit and disagrees with their personal politics.

>> BTW, when was the last time a post of mine was rejected?
>
> I have no idea. Look at the rejection messages you've received and tell
> me. Oh wait! You have a self-inflicted write-only email address, and
> decline to receive them.
>
> Yet another disqualification.

And easily remedied. When was my last post rejected? You may wish to
look at:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.ulm

>>>> so we can finally stick to the charter.
>>>  Or we could stick to refraining from complaining about mythical
>>> departures from the charter.
>>
>> You seem to be in denial that the charter requires posts associated
>> with a legal aspect.
>
> That's simply not true. As has been pointed out here the last few days.
>
> Another reason why you wouldn't be a suitable moderator - you don't even
> know the rules.
>
>> Even Todal admits there was no legal basis to his post.
>
> Because there doesn't need to be.

So you confirm this is now your personal chat group, where moderators
can run roughshod over the charter.

> (Although in fact I disagree with that analysis, because the whole
> business of telcos sharing subscriber data with each other - let alone
> the public - is central to the GDPR (nee DPA) regime.

Todal didn't seem to think so.

[Roger Hayter]

On 27 Nov 2023 at 12:36:07 GMT, "Fredxx" <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:

> On 27/11/2023 07:47, Roland Perry wrote:

>> snip

>
>> (Although in fact I disagree with that analysis, because the whole
>> business of telcos sharing subscriber data with each other - let alone
>> the public - is central to the GDPR (nee DPA) regime.
>
> Todal didn't seem to think so.

Surely that's the whole point of a legal group - to discuss differences of
opinion on the law.

--
Roger Hayter

[Fredxx]

You would think do, wouldn't you?

[Simon Parker]

On 25/11/2023 08:11, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 24/11/2023 23:13, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 24/11/2023 15:28, Norman Wells wrote:

>>> But you could justify breaking *any* of the moderation policy rules
>>> on a similar basis, and perhaps you already do.  Would the following
>>> not be analogous for example?
>>>
>>> "Speaking only for myself, and with my moderator's hat on, I will
>>> say, (as I've said previously), that I prefer "light touch"
>>> moderation and this is the basis on which I moderate.  I don't think
>>> I've ever rejected
>>> a post for being "abusive or hurtful to someone else".
>>>
>>> I have been on Usenet for several decades and see each NG as a
>>> community.  Sometimes, posts are made which are not as nice and
>>> flowery as they might be in the group in which they are made.
>>> However, if the person making the post is a regular they will know
>>> how to weigh the abusiveness of any responses they receive and that
>>> can be of great value.  Asking a question in a new group in which one
>>> doesn't know anyone may receive a flurry of abusive responses, but
>>> how does one determine which is right and which is wrong?
>>>
>>> Similarly, an element of abuse helps create and maintain "community
>>> spirit".
>>>
>>> The alternative is that we insist that each post contains something
>>> nice and fluffy somewhere in it so that it complies with the rules,
>>> whilst simultaneously breaking them.  I'd rather be open and
>>> transparent and say that abusive or hurtful posts are acceptable
>>> within reason.
>>>
>>> It is trivially easy to have the Moderation Policy updated to state
>>> this   but custom and practice would indicate this is already the case."
>>>
>>> If we have a moderation policy, surely it's an abuse of it to adopt a
>>> Pic'n'Mix approach where you just choose for your own convenience
>>> which of the rules you want to follow?
>>
>> Even by your typically poor standards this is an extremely
>> disappointing post.
>
> Your disappointment is for you to own.

My disappointment is in you, more specifically your post, which was
pathetic, even when measured using the decidedly low bar of what is to
be expected in posts from you.

I am more than happy to own my disappointment in the poor quality of
your posts.

Are you?


>> Trolling Score: 1/5
>> Sealion Value: 1/5
>> Broken-Record / Repetitive Score: 4/5
>>
>> Please try harder with future posts, Norman.  You really do need to
>> put in more effort as this post has failed miserably.
>
> The truth has clearly stung you.  You have no answer to a valid point,
> so resort, as usual, to patronising ad homs.

There was no truth in the post therefore it is impossible for something
that wasn't present to have any effect on me whatsoever.

You post wasn't witty, it wasn't clever and it certainly wasn't accurate.

It was poor, even by your low standards.

As I said earlier, please try harder.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

On 25/11/2023 23:38, Fredxx wrote:
> On 24/11/2023 10:10, Simon Parker wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> As always, I invite anyone that is dissatisfied with the service they
>> are receiving in ULM to request a refund of any and all fees they've
>> paid and recommend they take their custom to a location more in line
>> with their requirements.
>
> You were doing well until now.

Fortunately for me, I neither want nor need your validation of my posts.


> Only a stupid person will believe that there are any fees due, or a
> refund due. The issue is that this is a moderated group with a dictator
> at it's helm. And you are the equivalent in Goebbels, where if your
> glorious leader says jump, you reply, "How high?".

As no consideration exists, perhaps you could outline the contractual
obligation you feel the moderators owe you?

Absent that, please outline your plan for rectifying what you perceive
to be a problem with the operation of the moderation in ULM and detail
how many of the current posters agree with you, providing relevant data
to support your claim.

For my part, I do not believe ULM has a dictator at the helm. I may
have chosen to express myself differently in the circumstances but I
neither approve nor endorse the language other moderators may use here
and do not ask them to approve or endorse my language here so my
thoughts on the matter are worth even less than your ULM subscription fee.

The moderators do not operate a hive mind. We are individuals and
express ourselves as such. However, when moderating, we attempt to do
so in a manner that is consistent with the charter and moderation
policy. I have explained why I do not have an issue with the post in
question and that remains true, regardless of the identity of the poster.

Finally, as I've never been asked to "Jump" by a fellow moderator, it is
impossible for me to have asked "How High?" in reply.

Apart from those minor flaws in your argument and your reference to
Goebbels thereby leaving you wide open to having Godwin's law invoked
then you make a convincing argument(!)


> I volunteer my services to be a moderator, so we can finally stick to
> the charter. As I have said before, and you ignored, if anyone wants a
> moderated political group feel free to write a RFC.

This isn't The Hunger Games. You don't get to volunteer as tribute.
Especially after having referred to one moderator as a dictator, a
second as an arse-licker and compared a third to Goebbels.

Additionally, you have admitted that your offer comes with an ulterior
motive.

It is therefore evidently impossible for you to work in a meaningful way
with the current moderators so your offer to join the team is as
meaningless as the rest of your post.


>> If anyone has a problem with anything in this post, I recommend
>> re-reading the above paragraph. :-)
>
> There is, and I have.

Read it again, then. And try to pay attention to what you're reading
this time.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

On 26/11/2023 15:53, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 26/11/2023 11:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uju0i8$2vk5d$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:38:49 on Sat, 25 Nov
>> 2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>>

>>> I volunteer my services to be a moderator,
>>

>> Your intemperate postings make that somewhat unlikely to be accepted.
>

> Given the quantity of patronising name-calling, insults and abusive ad
> homs I've received and had to endure over recent months, I wonder if you
> would clarify just what you consider to be 'intemperate'?
>

> To that end, can I ask you please to mark each of the following on a
> scale of 1 (not intemperate at all) to 10 (extremely intemperate), and

> at the end say what you think the level is that should disqualify one
> from being a moderator?
>

> 1) Your apparent anal fixation aside
>
> 2) Your assurances are worth nought.  Possibly even less than nought. In
> fact, if you claim something is true, the likelihood is that it is false
> so pervasive and habitual is your lying.
>
> 3) A liar and a hypocrite.  You really are an odious individual.  Do you
> have any redeeming qualities whatsoever?
>
> 4) You really are a brainless fuckwit aren't you?
>
> 5) I call you a fuckwit because you're a fuckwit.  It really is that

> simple.  Stop being a fuckwit and I'll stop calling you a fuckwit.

>
> 6) You really are determined to demonstrate that your fuckwittery knows
> no bounds, aren't you?
>
> 7) Boo hoo.  You're not a trusted poster and are on the fuckwit's list
> instead.  Sucks to be you.  Perhaps you should consider going into the
> garden to eat some worms?
>
> 8) You crave attention.  Any attention.  Even negative attention. You're
> like the naughty child that misbehaves just so he can be told off
> because at least being told off means you've been noticed and that
> people are talking to you.  Without that, you'd have nothing.
>
> 9) That way, everyone can see what a repulsive, revolting and
> reprehensible individual you are.
>
> 10) I propose that all moderators cease moderating your posts with
> immediate effect and until further notice.
>
> I look forward with interest to your answers.

I do not believe any of those posts were made by a moderator so your
point is moot.

And before you hasten away to fire off a reply, might I request that you
read your own words in Message-ID: <kfb1od...@mid.individual.net>
because anything you are thinking of saying by means of reply, will need
to agree with the statements you expressed in that post.

Regards

S.P.

[Fredxx]

On 27/11/2023 13:41, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 25/11/2023 23:38, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 24/11/2023 10:10, Simon Parker wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> As always, I invite anyone that is dissatisfied with the service they
>>> are receiving in ULM to request a refund of any and all fees they've
>>> paid and recommend they take their custom to a location more in line
>>> with their requirements.
>>
>> You were doing well until now.
>
> Fortunately for me, I neither want nor need your validation of my posts.

Power has gone to your head too.

>> Only a stupid person will believe that there are any fees due, or a
>> refund due. The issue is that this is a moderated group with a
>> dictator at it's helm. And you are the equivalent in Goebbels, where
>> if your glorious leader says jump, you reply, "How high?".
>
> As no consideration exists, perhaps you could outline the contractual
> obligation you feel the moderators owe you?

The moral obligation of following the Charter and your integrity in
upholding it.

Why do you feel the need to mention consideration, is money your only
goal in life? Don't you have any other personal values and attributes?

<snip>

>>> If anyone has a problem with anything in this post, I recommend
>>> re-reading the above paragraph. :-)
>>
>> There is, and I have.
>
> Read it again, then.  And try to pay attention to what you're reading
> this time.

I have and I have a problem with your interpretation of the charter. Do
you think you're above everyone else, or simply can't see the issue at hand?

[Simon Parker]

On 26/11/2023 00:09, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <ksbb55...@mid.individual.net>,
> Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Speaking only for myself0, and with my moderator's hat on, I will say,

>> (as I've said previously), that I prefer "light touch" moderation and
>> this is the basis on which I moderate. I don't think I've ever rejected

>> a post for being "off-topic".
>>
>> [much snipped]
>
> Thanks for the careful and considered reply. I found it convincing,
> as an argument in favour of the original acceptance. Please continue.
>
> It's a shame the response from your co-moderator was so high-handed.
> IME if one is in a position of authority it's generally better to take
> a sympathetic tone, and try to understand complaints, even if
> ultimately the outcome isn't what the complainant is asking for.

As I've said in a parallel post, I can only speak for myself using the
language I choose to use. Other moderators enjoy the same right and
privilege.

Regards

S.P.

[Fredxx]

None of which is worthy of a moderator.

[Norman Wells]

Off you go then to cry in your own little corner. And blow your nose
before you come back please.

> Are you?

Am I what? I have no disappointment, so have nothing to own in that
regard. I made a valid point with which you have omitted to engage
despite feeling compelled to respond in your typically self-important,
vacuous way.

[Norman Wells]

On 27/11/2023 13:41, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 25/11/2023 23:38, Fredxx wrote:

>> I volunteer my services to be a moderator, so we can finally stick to
>> the charter. As I have said before, and you ignored, if anyone wants a
>> moderated political group feel free to write a RFC.
>
> This isn't The Hunger Games.  You don't get to volunteer as tribute.
> Especially after having referred to one moderator as a dictator, a
> second as an arse-licker and compared a third to Goebbels.

All he's done is volunteer. And why not? You say you need more moderators.

> Additionally, you have admitted that your offer comes with an ulterior
> motive.

I really don't think sticking to the Charter (or even the moderation
policy if you want to be pathetically pedantic) can be described as
'ulterior' by any stretch of the imagination.

If you think that is an ulterior motive, I think you need to re-examine
your own rather cavalier attitude towards moderation, don't you?

> It is therefore evidently impossible for you to work in a meaningful way
> with the current moderators so your offer to join the team is as
> meaningless as the rest of your post.

But you say elsewhere you all do your own thing!

"I neither approve nor endorse the language other moderators may use
here and do not ask them to approve or endorse my language here so my
thoughts on the matter are worth even less than your ULM subscription fee.

The moderators do not operate a hive mind. We are individuals and
express ourselves as such. However, when moderating, we attempt to do
so in a manner that is consistent with the charter and moderation policy."

So, on your own admission, it's not a necessary attribute 'to work in a
meaningful way with the current moderators' (whatever that means), is it?

So, why do you dismiss Fredxx's offer with no due process or
consideration unless out of entirely personal animosity, and just the
sort of intemperance and partiality Mr Perry was railing against in any
moderator?

Anyway, how can you contend that you attempt to moderate in a manner
that is consistent with the charter and moderation policy when an
earlier post of yours in this thread about the acceptability of
off-topic posts was directly contrary to what they say?

You're being totally inconsistent.

[Norman Wells]

*You*, Mr Parker, made every single one of those remarks. They are all
for *you* to own. The capacity in which you think you made them is
irrelevant. They are all yours, and reveal your intrinsic nature with
the utmost clarity.

It's Fredxx's intrinsic nature you appear to be objecting to as regards
his offer to become a moderator. It can't be down to just his posts in
ulm because, if they had been objectionable, they would have been
rejected in moderation and we wouldn't have seen them. You clearly
think is doesn't matter therefore where he displayed any intemperance
you allege he did. So, it can't matter where you made yours, or in what
capacity, can it?

Why do you think his remarks should preclude him from being a moderator
but yours shouldn't?

[Fredxx]

Very well put.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ksj35r...@mid.individual.net>, at 08:43:40 on Mon, 27

Nov 2023, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>On 27/11/2023 07:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <kshteq...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:59:54 on Sun, 26
>>Nov 2023, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> On 26/11/2023 18:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <kshgr4...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:24:36 on Sun,
>>>>26 Nov 2023, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>>> On 26/11/2023 17:47, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ksh801...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:53:37 on
>>>>>>Sun, 26  Nov 2023, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 26/11/2023 11:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <uju0i8$2vk5d$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:38:49 on Sat,
>>>>>>>>25 Nov  2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I volunteer my services to be a moderator,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Your intemperate postings make that somewhat unlikely to be
>>>>>>>>accepted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the quantity of patronising name-calling, insults and
>>>>>>>abusive  ad  homs I've received and had to endure over recent
>>>>>>>months, I  wonder if  you would clarify just what you consider to
>>>>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>>  Oh, have you just outed yourself as Fredxx's sock puppet?
>>>>>>  [Remainder snipped until we've sorted that out]
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, as usual in fact, you post an evasive non-answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you very well know (so don't pretend you don't), I am no-one's
>>>>>sock  puppet, nor is anyone else mine.
>>
>>>>  So why the knee-jerk reaction from *you* about my posting to
>>>>Fredxx?
>>>
>>> Avoidance, evasion, swerving, and yet another non-answer.

>> The funny thing is, *you* aren't answering anything either. Strange
>>that.
>
>Do you ever read what you reply to?

It has been established many times that I always read what I'm replying
to. But to your continuing annoyance, I won't be taunted into responding
to your sealioning. So why waste so much time repeating the same process
and expecting a different result? Or is that what bots do.

>Given the quantity of patronising name-calling, insults and abusive ad
>homs I've received and had to endure over recent months, I wonder if
>you would clarify just what you consider to be 'intemperate'?

So you *are* Fredxx, because that's who I accused of being intemperate.

Glad we finally got that sorted out.

<snip, more sealioning>
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <uk21q0$3onn4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:24:32 on Mon, 27 Nov
2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:

>> Have you forgotten, so soon, that moderators have no compulsion to
>>answer any questions here, let alone sealioning and "have you stopped
>>beating your wife"?
>
>Playing dumb is most unbecoming of a moderator.

It's not dumb to point out that moderators have no compulsion to post
here. That's an established fact (which some people/bots seem to have
forgotten).

>There is however an obligation to stick to the charter, and that
>includes moderators. Unless you have forgotten that?

And we do. But perhaps you don't realise that because you've once again
demonstrated in this thread you don't understand the charter.

>You seem to be infatuated with "beating your wife". I'm sure Froid
>would have something to say on the subject.

It's a well know phrase or saying M'Lud, and if you are unaware of that,
that's several more debating points you just lost.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ksj49g...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:02:41 on Mon, 27
Nov 2023, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>> For each of your examples, please identify which were posted on ulm.
>> And which on unnm or another unmoderated group where there is no
>>rule
>> against intemperate posts.
>
>Intemperance is not measured by where it is exhibited. It is an
>independent quality.
>
>All of Fredxx's posts we've ever seen in ulm have been personally
>approved by a moderator, and must therefore be presumed to be perfectly
>acceptable under the moderation policy.

Again you demonstrate ignorance of the charter. Intemperance alone is
not against the charter, but I would characterise it as "giving people
enough rope they hang themselves".
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <uk31to$3u584$1...@dont-email.me>, at 21:32:39 on Mon, 27 Nov
2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:

Sock puppetry at its finest.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ksj2ci...@mid.individual.net>, at 08:30:11 on Mon, 27

Nov 2023, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>On 27/11/2023 07:39, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uk0d25$3dn5l$1...@dont-email.me>, at 21:24:23 on Sun, 26 Nov
>>2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>

>>> In much the same way Todal excused himself from this thread, you
>>>seem to be following the same tradition in ignoring the more serious
>>>questions posed to you.

>> Have you forgotten, so soon, that moderators have no compulsion to
>>answer any questions here, let alone sealioning and "have you stopped
>>beating your wife"?
>

>Why do you, as a moderator in ulm, come here to a forum specifically
>set up to discuss moderation issues when it's clear all you want to do
>is evade discussing them?

I'm not evading, because it's been established I have no responsibility
to reply. But I do read what's posted here, for amusements sake, and so
I am better informed about who I might be inclined to trust to be
whitelisted on ulm.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <uk22fn$3onn4$2...@dont-email.me>, at 12:36:07 on Mon, 27 Nov
2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:

>>You give every impression of harbouring grudges against other
>>posters, and in particular resent when it's pointed out what a
>>shit-show, empowered by gullible xenophobes, Brexit has been.

>> Both demonstrate a lack of impartiality.
>
>It is Remain extremists that feel the need to lie about the
>consequences of Brexit that I feel obliged to correct.

Except now the truth is emerging, and widely accepted, it's the people
who lie about the lack of consequences who are in the dock.

>>> Even Todal admits there was no legal basis to his post.
>> Because there doesn't need to be.
>
>So you confirm this is now your personal chat group, where moderators
>can run roughshod over the charter.
>
>> (Although in fact I disagree with that analysis, because the whole
>>business of telcos sharing subscriber data with each other - let alone
>>the public - is central to the GDPR (nee DPA) regime.
>
>Todal didn't seem to think so.

I think he was mistaken to say that, as it's clearly a legal issue.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ksj4n6...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:09:59 on Mon, 27
Nov 2023, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>You give every impression of harbouring grudges against other
>>posters, and in particular resent when it's pointed out what a
>>shit-show, empowered by gullible xenophobes, Brexit has been.
>> Both demonstrate a lack of impartiality.
>
>Ah, 'impartiality', another criterion you've introduced for suitability
>to be a moderator

Oh dear, you are now claiming that moderators are allowed not to be
impartial!! I've put a cross in my diary.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

Then it must be your English comprehension or intelligence that is
letting you down because it clearly hasn't sunk in. I fully answered
your question as you can see from what you've quoted above.

> But to your continuing annoyance, I won't be taunted into responding
> to your sealioning. So why waste so much time repeating the same process
> and expecting a different result? Or is that what bots do.

I mention it because it's a moderation issue raised in a forum
specifically set up to discuss such matters, and you're a moderator in
ulm who might be expected to have some useful input. There's no point
in your 'contributing' otherwise.

*You* raised the matter of 'intemperate' postings. I asked if you would
clarify what you meant. It's reasonable to ask that in any discussion,
especially here, and of a moderator. Sadly though, it seems you won't
or can't explain what you mean, and that leads me to believe you rather
pathetically have no idea what you're talking about and can't support
anything you say.

>> Given the quantity of patronising name-calling, insults and abusive ad
>> homs I've received and had to endure over recent months, I wonder if
>> you would clarify just what you consider to be 'intemperate'?
>
> So you *are* Fredxx, because that's who I accused of being intemperate.
>
> Glad we finally got that sorted out.

And that's a further indication that your English comprehension and/or
intelligence leave quite a lot to be desired.

[Norman Wells]

Why do you lie?

Is it deliberate or just an inability to understand the English language?

[Norman Wells]

Another trolling non-answer, I see.

Would it be too much to ask that you engage with the substance of the
question rather than indulge in peripheral lies and misrepresentations?

Should trolling preclude someone from being a moderator do you think?

[Norman Wells]

On 28/11/2023 09:44, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ksj49g...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:02:41 on Mon, 27
> Nov 2023, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>
>>>  For each of your examples, please identify which were posted on ulm.
>>>  And which on unnm or another unmoderated group where there is no rule
>>> against intemperate posts.
>>
>> Intemperance is not measured by where it is exhibited.  It is an
>> independent quality.
>>
>> All of Fredxx's posts we've ever seen in ulm have been personally
>> approved by a moderator, and must therefore be presumed to be
>> perfectly acceptable under the moderation policy.
>
> Again you demonstrate ignorance of the charter.

Hardly. I never mentioned the Charter.

> Intemperance alone is
> not against the charter, but I would characterise it as "giving people
> enough rope they hang themselves".

Why then did you raise the matter of 'not against the Charter'
intemperance making a person unsuitable to be a moderator?

Perhaps you'd now deal with the point that a current moderator in ulm
made all of the intemperate comments I numbered in earlier posts to this
thread. If his remarks, wherever they appeared, do not make him
unsuitable to be a moderator, why do Fredxx's, wherever they appeared?

[Norman Wells]

On 28/11/2023 09:39, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ksj2ci...@mid.individual.net>, at 08:30:11 on Mon, 27
> Nov 2023, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> On 27/11/2023 07:39, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uk0d25$3dn5l$1...@dont-email.me>, at 21:24:23 on Sun, 26 Nov
>>> 2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>>
>>>> In much the same way Todal excused himself from this thread, you
>>>> seem  to be following the same tradition in ignoring the more
>>>> serious questions posed to you.
>
>>>  Have you forgotten, so soon, that moderators have no compulsion to
>>> answer any questions here, let alone sealioning and "have you stopped
>>> beating your wife"?
>>
>> Why do you, as a moderator in ulm, come here to a forum specifically
>> set up to discuss moderation issues when it's clear all you want to do
>> is evade discussing them?
>
> I'm not evading, because it's been established I have no responsibility
> to reply.

But why do you feel compelled to speak when you have absolutely nothing
to say? Is it sheer pomposity, self-importance, or what?

It's trolling, Mr Perry. Pure and simple.

[Simon Parker]

Why would I need to go to a corner, much less go there to cry, because
you're seemingly incapable of making a worthwhile post?

Disappointment such as I experienced might be expressed with a shake of
the head or a rolling of the eyes. It was so poor it would merit little
more than either of those responses.

>> Are you?
>
> Am I what?  I have no disappointment, so have nothing to own in that
> regard.  I made a valid point with which you have omitted to engage
> despite feeling compelled to respond in your typically self-important,
> vacuous way.

A man with no shame can feel no disappointment. As I've said
previously, you're like a small child that craves attention. When the
attention doesn't come naturally, you misbehave and act up as that is a
sure fire way of getting the attention you desire. Any attention, even
negative attention, is attention after all.

Unless you have anything else of substance to add to the discussion,
(unlikely, but the offer is there), I shall be withdrawing so as to
remove the attention you crave.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

On 28/11/2023 10:46, Norman Wells wrote:

> I mention it because it's a moderation issue raised in a forum
> specifically set up to discuss such matters, and you're a moderator in
> ulm who might be expected to have some useful input.  There's no point
> in your 'contributing' otherwise.

It isn't "a moderation issue", no matter how many times you try to claim
otherwise.

None of the posts about which you are complaining were made in a
moderated group so the content of the posts is not "a moderation issue".

Similarly, as you yourself have stated in the past [1], "there are no
moderators here" (in UNNM) and "Moderators from elsewhere have no duties
here" (in UNNM) again emphasising that posts made here (in UNNM) are not
"a moderation issue".

If you have a moderation issue, you'd like to raise, please do so.
Otherwise, your repeated posts on topics other than moderation are an
abuse of this group and as someone so intent on insisting that
newsgroups and the posters therein adhere rigidly to the Charter, that
would be an incredibly hypocritical position for you to adopt.

Regards

S.P.

[1] Message-ID: <kfb1od...@mid.individual.net> in case you've forgotten.

[Simon Parker]

On 27/11/2023 15:33, Norman Wells wrote:

> On 27/11/2023 13:42, Simon Parker wrote:

>> I do not believe any of those posts were made by a moderator so your
>> point is moot.
>
> *You*, Mr Parker, made every single one of those remarks.

I am well aware of that. Not only do I recall making the posts in
question, and the circumstances surrounding each post, but I can spot an
erudite post when I see one. When a number of such posts are grouped
together, the erudition of the poster that made them is unmistakeable
and unmissable.

> They are all for *you* to own.

Which, for the avoidance of doubt, I am more than happy to do.

Your posts frequently demonstrate that you are a liar, a hypocrite and a
fuckwit. Your assurances and therefore worthless and anything you claim
to be true is likely to be incorrect so pervasive is your fuckwittery,
lying and hypocrisy.

The volume and nature of your posts clearly demonstrates you crave
attention, even negative attention, and at one point you consistently
used "anally" as an adverb even when it was tautologous to do so, (e.g.
"anally petty") hence the reference to an "anal fixation", which I am
pleased to note now seems to have passed.

All of which leads to the inescapable conclusion that you are a
repulsive, revolting and reprehensible individual.

> The capacity in which you think you made them is irrelevant.

In your opinion. Which is frequently wrong. And is again here. But I
don't expect you to accept that and so we must agree to disagree.

> They are all yours, and reveal your intrinsic nature with
> the utmost clarity.

In your opinion. Which is frequently wrong. And is again here. But I
don't expect you to accept that and so we must agree to disagree.

> It's Fredxx's intrinsic nature you appear to be objecting to as regards
> his offer to become a moderator.  It can't be down to just his posts in
> ulm because, if they had been objectionable, they would have been
> rejected in moderation and we wouldn't have seen them.  You clearly
> think is doesn't matter therefore where he displayed any intemperance
> you allege he did.  So, it can't matter where you made yours, or in what
> capacity, can it?
>
> Why do you think his remarks should preclude him from being a moderator
> but yours shouldn't?

I see your comprehension skills haven't yet improved sufficiently to be
at a point where you can understand simple arguments and draw accurate
conclusions therefrom.

Have a re-read of my post wherein I stated why I think it would be
difficult for Fredxx to join the moderation *team* (I've given you a not
so subtle hint there, you can thank me later).

If you still can't understand it, perhaps you could have someone else
explain it to you. Maybe Fredxx will volunteer for that too?

Regards

S.P.

[Fredxx]

On 28/11/2023 12:47, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 28/11/2023 10:46, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> I mention it because it's a moderation issue raised in a forum
>> specifically set up to discuss such matters, and you're a moderator in
>> ulm who might be expected to have some useful input.  There's no point
>> in your 'contributing' otherwise.
>
> It isn't "a moderation issue", no matter how many times you try to claim
> otherwise.
>
> None of the posts about which you are complaining were made in a
> moderated group so the content of the posts is not "a moderation issue".

I was accused of intemperate posts in other groups, which seemingly
disqualified me from becoming a moderator in ulm.

It seems you endorse one rule for moderators and their clique and
another for the mere plebs.

[Simon Parker]

I can only conclude that you got too close to the portal leading to
NormanWorld, have been sucked through to the other side and are now
viewing matters through the distortion of the Norman Portal.

Should you ever desire to rejoin the rest of the universe on this side
of the portal and experience any difficulty in escaping NormanWorld,
please do let us know.

Regards

S.P.

[Fredxx]

On 28/11/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uk21q0$3onn4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:24:32 on Mon, 27 Nov
> 2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:
>
>>>  Have you forgotten, so soon, that moderators have no compulsion to
>>> answer any questions here, let alone sealioning and "have you stopped
>>> beating your wife"?
>>
>> Playing dumb is most unbecoming of a moderator.
>
> It's not dumb to point out that moderators have no compulsion to post
> here. That's an established fact (which some people/bots seem to have
> forgotten).
>
>> There is however an obligation to stick to the charter, and that
>> includes moderators. Unless you have forgotten that?

Your charter must be different to the one voted for.

>
> And we do. But perhaps you don't realise that because you've once again
> demonstrated in this thread you don't understand the charter.
>
>> You seem to be infatuated with "beating your wife". I'm sure Froid
>> would have something to say on the subject.
>
> It's a well know phrase or saying M'Lud, and if you are unaware of that,
> that's several more debating points you just lost.

I am very well aware of the purpose of the question and not sure how I
have lost. It's an expression that doesn't naturally spring to my mind
and write. On the other hand you have used a number of times.

[Simon Parker]

On 27/11/2023 14:07, Fredxx wrote:
> On 27/11/2023 13:41, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 25/11/2023 23:38, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 24/11/2023 10:10, Simon Parker wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> As always, I invite anyone that is dissatisfied with the service
>>>> they are receiving in ULM to request a refund of any and all fees
>>>> they've paid and recommend they take their custom to a location more
>>>> in line with their requirements.
>>>
>>> You were doing well until now.
>>
>> Fortunately for me, I neither want nor need your validation of my posts.
>
> Power has gone to your head too.

Nothing to do with "power". More to do with having sufficient knowledge
and experience on the matter to speak from a position of certainty
without the need for validation by third parties.

I find that you equate being a moderator with having "power" to be
noteworthy. If you think it displays power to volunteer your time to
reject reams of sex spam, and then, having done that, having to read
posts from random threads out of sequence, knowing you're going to need
to read the posts again in context should they be approved, and then
decide whether to approve or reject the post, and if you reject it to
choose a suitable reason, knowing it is possible, or in some cases
likely, that the rejection will lead to a thread here questioning the
rejection, all the while knowing that if you approve a post that might
be libellous, (either by manually approving a post, by failing to
maintain adequately the "whitelist" and / or by failing to maintain
adequately the "trigger word" list), particularly if the post is from an
anonymous and / or impecunious poster, that it is your home on the line
rather than theirs then I can only assume you are using a very unusual
definition of the word "power" or you have grossly misunderstood what it
means to be a moderator

>>> Only a stupid person will believe that there are any fees due, or a
>>> refund due. The issue is that this is a moderated group with a
>>> dictator at it's helm. And you are the equivalent in Goebbels, where
>>> if your glorious leader says jump, you reply, "How high?".
>>
>> As no consideration exists, perhaps you could outline the contractual
>> obligation you feel the moderators owe you?
>
> The moral obligation of following the Charter and your integrity in
> upholding it.

According to some posters, with whom you seem to agree, the moderators
have neither morals nor integrity so it seems if that is true, you are
left holding no cards whatsoever. When one has no cards left to play,
it is generally accepted that the best tactic is to fold.

> Why do you feel the need to mention consideration, is money your only
> goal in life? Don't you have any other personal values and attributes?

No and yes, respectively.

I mention consideration in an attempt to focus the minds of posters that
seem to forget that the moderators are unpaid volunteers risking their
homes on nothing more than a moment's inattention or a slip of the
fingers. Similarly, without the moderators doing this, ULM ceases to
function as the moderation queue will eventually be full of sex spam and
posts awaiting approval. A little more gratitude and a little less
confrontation would not go amiss.

As has been explained, the Charter gives the moderators complete control
over the content of the moderation policy, providing it doesn't directly
conflict with the Charter.

The easiest solution to resolving complaints about the moderation policy
is to change the moderation policy. I think the group is mostly working
at the moment and is certainly better than the alternatives. I also
believe that the majority of regular posters would agree. If you have
hard data to dispute this, now would be a good time to produce it.
Otherwise, I am not inclined to change the manner and method in which I
moderate posts to please what I consider to be a minority of posters, no
matter how vocal they become.

> <snip>
>
>>>> If anyone has a problem with anything in this post, I recommend
>>>> re-reading the above paragraph. :-)
>>>
>>> There is, and I have.
>>
>> Read it again, then.  And try to pay attention to what you're reading
>> this time.
>
> I have and I have a problem with your interpretation of the charter. Do
> you think you're above everyone else, or simply can't see the issue at
> hand?

I recommend re-reading "secondary purpose" (a) of the Charter and then
asking yourself from where legislation originates in the UK and what
body or bodies might fulfil the role of "legislators" stated therein.

If you do so, with an open mind, you might appreciate where I'm coming
from. You might not agree, but at least you will understand and that's
half the battle.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

On 27/11/2023 15:00, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 27/11/2023 13:41, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 25/11/2023 23:38, Fredxx wrote:
>
>>> I volunteer my services to be a moderator, so we can finally stick to
>>> the charter. As I have said before, and you ignored, if anyone wants
>>> a moderated political group feel free to write a RFC.
>>
>> This isn't The Hunger Games.  You don't get to volunteer as tribute.
>> Especially after having referred to one moderator as a dictator, a
>> second as an arse-licker and compared a third to Goebbels.
>
> All he's done is volunteer.  And why not?  You say you need more
> moderators.

No harm in volunteering and I'm sure the moderation team would welcome
the notion of suitable candidates volunteering to join the team. (But I
cannot and do not speak on behalf of all moderators.)

However, the moderators need to trust each other with their respective
homes - literally. It is difficult in the extreme to trust one's home
to someone that has variously described you as a dictator, an
arse-licker and compared you to Goebbels.

That you cannot see this confirms that you haven't the faintest clue
about what is involved in being a moderator. (Free clue: it is much
more than clicking a radio button for "Accept" and "Reject".)

>> Additionally, you have admitted that your offer comes with an ulterior
>> motive.
>
> I really don't think sticking to the Charter (or even the moderation
> policy if you want to be pathetically pedantic) can be described as
> 'ulterior' by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> If you think that is an ulterior motive, I think you need to re-examine
> your own rather cavalier attitude towards moderation, don't you?

I've stated numerous times previously, (including in this thread), that
I favour "light touch" moderation.

Someone insisting upon strict, absolute and total rigid adherence to
their interpretation of the Charter, an interpretation with which,
tangentially, I don't happen to agree, is further unlikely to get my
vote to join the moderation team.

So that's two strikes for Fredxx from me. I'm not sure how many strikes
are necessary to preclude one from joining the team, or if the vote on
adding a probationary moderator to the team needs to be unanimous or is
taken on a majority vote. Even then, if during their probationary
period that person is making moderation decisions at odds with the rest
of the team, I would suggest it will inevitably lead to problems within
the newsgroup and potentially the decline and ultimate death of the
group so their probationary appointment is unlikely to become permanent.

Again, it shouldn't be necessary to explain these things as they are
self-evident but your animosity towards the moderators blinds you to the
facts of the matter.

>> It is therefore evidently impossible for you to work in a meaningful
>> way with the current moderators so your offer to join the team is as
>> meaningless as the rest of your post.
>
> But you say elsewhere you all do your own thing!
>
> "I neither approve nor endorse the language other moderators may use

> *here* and do not ask them to approve or endorse my language *here* so my

> thoughts on the matter are worth even less than your ULM subscription fee.
>
> The moderators do not operate a hive mind.  We are individuals and

> express ourselves as such [*here*].  However, when moderating, we attempt to do

> so in a manner that is consistent with the charter and moderation policy."

I've highlighted a word in the first quote and added a word for clarity
in the second. I hope this assists your comprehension.

> So, on your own admission, it's not a necessary attribute 'to work in a
> meaningful way with the current moderators' (whatever that means), is it?

No, that is not what I've said at all. It is your twisted
interpretation of what I said which is borne from your animosity towards
the moderators and ably demonstrates the cognitive bias present in your
posts. Most people display this in every day life, but you exhibit it
in such an extreme manner that it is worthy of study.

> So, why do you dismiss Fredxx's offer with no due process or
> consideration unless out of entirely personal animosity, and just the
> sort of intemperance and partiality Mr Perry was railing against in any
> moderator?

That's your prejudices speaking again.

> Anyway, how can you contend that you attempt to moderate in a manner
> that is consistent with the charter and moderation policy when an
> earlier post of yours in this thread about the acceptability of
> off-topic posts was directly contrary to what they say?
>
> You're being totally inconsistent.

Or you've completely misinterpreted what I said, either because you lack
the requisite level of comprehension or have done so deliberately in an
attempt to score points. Either reason dictates that further discussion
of the matter is useless, so I will agree to disagree and bid you good day.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

In your opinion, with which I don't agree.

If you have Message-IDs from a moderated group which support your point,
now would seem a good time to post them.

Regards

S.P.

[Roger Hayter]

What I think is inappropriate is a moderator commenting on the suitability of
someone else as a moderator a) in public, b) without a formal application and
c) without discussing the matter with his fellow moderators. My personal view
is that that was inappropriate, and a lapse from the standards that that
moderator[1] would normally hold himself too.


However, if you would actually like to be a moderator I suggest you email
either the moderators as a group or the Todal and apply. If you are then, I
trust confidentially, rejected it is up to you whether to complain publicly.

As someone who is not a moderator of ULM I suggest you would need to make
moderation decisions in a more measured way than you sometimes post, but then
I would say that of myself too!



[1] I have actually forgotten which moderator it was, and I'm not going to
look back.

--
Roger Hayter

[Norman Wells]

On 28/11/2023 13:06, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 27/11/2023 15:00, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 27/11/2023 13:41, Simon Parker wrote:
>>> On 25/11/2023 23:38, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>>> I volunteer my services to be a moderator, so we can finally stick
>>>> to the charter. As I have said before, and you ignored, if anyone
>>>> wants a moderated political group feel free to write a RFC.
>>>
>>> This isn't The Hunger Games.  You don't get to volunteer as tribute.
>>> Especially after having referred to one moderator as a dictator, a
>>> second as an arse-licker and compared a third to Goebbels.
>>
>> All he's done is volunteer.  And why not?  You say you need more
>> moderators.
>
> No harm in volunteering and I'm sure the moderation team would welcome
> the notion of suitable candidates volunteering to join the team.  (But I
> cannot and do not speak on behalf of all moderators.)
>
> However, the moderators need to trust each other with their respective
> homes - literally.  It is difficult in the extreme to trust one's home
> to someone that has variously described you as a dictator, an
> arse-licker and compared you to Goebbels.

How easy is it to trust anyone who says things like the following?:

1) Your apparent anal fixation aside

2) Your assurances are worth nought. Possibly even less than nought. In
fact, if you claim something is true, the likelihood is that it is false
so pervasive and habitual is your lying.

3) A liar and a hypocrite. You really are an odious individual. Do you
have any redeeming qualities whatsoever?

4) You really are a brainless fuckwit aren't you?

5) I call you a fuckwit because you're a fuckwit. It really is that
simple. Stop being a fuckwit and I'll stop calling you a fuckwit.

6) You really are determined to demonstrate that your fuckwittery knows
no bounds, aren't you?

7) Boo hoo. You're not a trusted poster and are on the fuckwit's list
instead. Sucks to be you. Perhaps you should consider going into the
garden to eat some worms?

8) You crave attention. Any attention. Even negative attention. You're
like the naughty child that misbehaves just so he can be told off
because at least being told off means you've been noticed and that
people are talking to you. Without that, you'd have nothing.

9) That way, everyone can see what a repulsive, revolting and
reprehensible individual you are.

10) I propose that all moderators cease moderating your posts with
immediate effect and until further notice.

You see, I don't regard any of those as demonstrating trustworthiness
either. Do you?

Why do you consider yourself trustworthy and Fredxx not?

> That you cannot see this confirms that you haven't the faintest clue
> about what is involved in being a moderator.  (Free clue: it is much
> more than clicking a radio button for "Accept" and "Reject".)

So what? I said nothing about that.

>>> Additionally, you have admitted that your offer comes with an
>>> ulterior motive.
>>
>> I really don't think sticking to the Charter (or even the moderation
>> policy if you want to be pathetically pedantic) can be described as
>> 'ulterior' by any stretch of the imagination.
>>
>> If you think that is an ulterior motive, I think you need to
>> re-examine your own rather cavalier attitude towards moderation, don't
>> you?
>
> I've stated numerous times previously, (including in this thread), that
> I favour "light touch" moderation.
>
> Someone insisting upon strict, absolute and total rigid adherence to
> their interpretation of the Charter, an interpretation with which,
> tangentially, I don't happen to agree, is further unlikely to get my
> vote to join the moderation team.

You said earlier:

"when moderating, we attempt to do so in a manner that is consistent
with the charter and moderation policy"

yet you also said that off topic posts off-topic posts are acceptable
within reason, and indicated that you allow them.

That's not consistent with the moderation policy, so you're being
utterly inconsistent.

> So that's two strikes for Fredxx from me.

You clearly count strikes in a very partial and intemperate way.

> I'm not sure how many strikes
> are necessary to preclude one from joining the team, or if the vote on
> adding a probationary moderator to the team needs to be unanimous or is
> taken on a majority vote.  Even then, if during their probationary
> period that person is making moderation decisions at odds with the rest
> of the team, I would suggest it will inevitably lead to problems within
> the newsgroup and potentially the decline and ultimate death of the
> group so their probationary appointment is unlikely to become permanent.

That's why there are moderation guidelines by which *all* moderators
should abide. It's not Pic'n'Mix, abiding by what you like and ignoring
what you don't.

>>> It is therefore evidently impossible for you to work in a meaningful
>>> way with the current moderators so your offer to join the team is as
>>> meaningless as the rest of your post.
>>
>> But you say elsewhere you all do your own thing!
>>
>> "I neither approve nor endorse the language other moderators may use
>> *here* and do not ask them to approve or endorse my language *here* so
>> my thoughts on the matter are worth even less than your ULM
>> subscription fee.
>>
>> The moderators do not operate a hive mind.  We are individuals and
>> express ourselves as such [*here*].  However, when moderating, we
>> attempt to do so in a manner that is consistent with the charter and
>> moderation policy."
>
> I've highlighted a word in the first quote and added a word for clarity
> in the second.  I hope this assists your comprehension.

Your intrinsic nature is what you express anywhere, not just somewhere
other than here.

>> So, on your own admission, it's not a necessary attribute 'to work in
>> a meaningful way with the current moderators' (whatever that means),
>> is it?
>
> No, that is not what I've said at all.  It is your twisted
> interpretation of what I said

No it isn't. It's a direct quote from your post. It's still there and
you'll see it if you look above.

So, please don't argue black is white.

> which is borne from your animosity towards
> the moderators and ably demonstrates the cognitive bias present in your
> posts.  Most people display this in every day life, but you exhibit it
> in such an extreme manner that it is worthy of study.

Pointless ad homs aside ...

>> So, why do you dismiss Fredxx's offer with no due process or
>> consideration unless out of entirely personal animosity, and just the
>> sort of intemperance and partiality Mr Perry was railing against in
>> any moderator?
>
> That's your prejudices speaking again.

You obviously have no answer or useful comment to make.

>> Anyway, how can you contend that you attempt to moderate in a manner
>> that is consistent with the charter and moderation policy when an
>> earlier post of yours in this thread about the acceptability of
>> off-topic posts was directly contrary to what they say?
>>
>> You're being totally inconsistent.
>
> Or you've completely misinterpreted what I said, either because you lack
> the requisite level of comprehension or have done so deliberately in an
> attempt to score points.

Hardly. I've given exact quotes from your posts to demonstrate your
self-contradiction.

[Norman Wells]

On 28/11/2023 13:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2023 at 12:50:56 GMT, "Fredxx" <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>> On 28/11/2023 12:47, Simon Parker wrote:
>>> On 28/11/2023 10:46, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>
>>>> I mention it because it's a moderation issue raised in a forum
>>>> specifically set up to discuss such matters, and you're a moderator in
>>>> ulm who might be expected to have some useful input. There's no point
>>>> in your 'contributing' otherwise.
>>>
>>> It isn't "a moderation issue", no matter how many times you try to claim
>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>> None of the posts about which you are complaining were made in a
>>> moderated group so the content of the posts is not "a moderation issue".
>>
>> I was accused of intemperate posts in other groups, which seemingly
>> disqualified me from becoming a moderator in ulm.
>>
>> It seems you endorse one rule for moderators and their clique and
>> another for the mere plebs.
>
> What I think is inappropriate is a moderator commenting on the suitability of
> someone else as a moderator a) in public, b) without a formal application and
> c) without discussing the matter with his fellow moderators. My personal view
> is that that was inappropriate, and a lapse from the standards that that
> moderator[1] would normally hold himself too.
>
> However, if you would actually like to be a moderator I suggest you email
> either the moderators as a group or the Todal and apply. If you are then, I
> trust confidentially, rejected it is up to you whether to complain publicly.

Why shouldn't the process of anointing moderators take place in the
group as a whole? Why should it be done secretly, privately and
confidentially as befits a cabal?

The group does not belong to the moderators, even though they clearly
think it should, but to all of us, and we should all have a say in what
will affect how it works.

> As someone who is not a moderator of ULM I suggest you would need to make
> moderation decisions in a more measured way than you sometimes post, but then
> I would say that of myself too!

All of his posts have been manually moderated and therefore personally
approved by a moderator before appearing in the group.

If you have any complaints about how his accepted posts have been
expressed, perhaps you should take it up with them, not him.

If you're whitelisted, and your own posts should be more measured,
that's for you alone to sort out and apologise for.

[Norman Wells]

On 28/11/2023 13:01, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 27/11/2023 14:07, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 27/11/2023 13:41, Simon Parker wrote:
>>> On 25/11/2023 23:38, Fredxx wrote:
>>>> On 24/11/2023 10:10, Simon Parker wrote:

>>>>> As always, I invite anyone that is dissatisfied with the service
>>>>> they are receiving in ULM to request a refund of any and all fees
>>>>> they've paid and recommend they take their custom to a location
>>>>> more in line with their requirements.
>>>>
>>>> You were doing well until now.
>>>
>>> Fortunately for me, I neither want nor need your validation of my posts.
>>
>> Power has gone to your head too.
>
> Nothing to do with "power".  More to do with having sufficient knowledge
> and experience on the matter to speak from a position of certainty
> without the need for validation by third parties.

You have no doubts about your own infallibility, have you?

> As has been explained, the Charter gives the moderators complete control
> over the content of the moderation policy, providing it doesn't directly
> conflict with the Charter.
>
> The easiest solution to resolving complaints about the moderation policy
> is to change the moderation policy.

Bingo!

Why then, without any such change, did you say earlier, in your
Pic'n'Mix way, that off-topic posts are acceptable within reason, and
indicated that you allow them?

[Tim Jackson]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 14:13:15 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...

>
> yet you also said that off topic posts off-topic posts are acceptable
> within reason, and indicated that you allow them.
>
> That's not consistent with the moderation policy, so you're being
> utterly inconsistent.

I suggest you re-read the moderation policy.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Norman Wells]

Are vacuous ad homs all you've got?

Why can you not give a straight answer to the question 'Why do you think
his remarks should preclude him from being a moderator but yours shouldn't?'

If you have a brain, you must have a view. Pointless having one otherwise.

[Fredxx]

On 28/11/2023 13:06, Simon Parker wrote:

> On 27/11/2023 15:00, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 27/11/2023 13:41, Simon Parker wrote:
>>> On 25/11/2023 23:38, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>>> I volunteer my services to be a moderator, so we can finally stick
>>>> to the charter. As I have said before, and you ignored, if anyone
>>>> wants a moderated political group feel free to write a RFC.
>>>
>>> This isn't The Hunger Games.  You don't get to volunteer as tribute.
>>> Especially after having referred to one moderator as a dictator, a
>>> second as an arse-licker and compared a third to Goebbels.
>>
>> All he's done is volunteer.  And why not?  You say you need more
>> moderators.
>
> No harm in volunteering and I'm sure the moderation team would welcome
> the notion of suitable candidates volunteering to join the team.  (But I
> cannot and do not speak on behalf of all moderators.)
>
> However, the moderators need to trust each other with their respective
> homes - literally.  It is difficult in the extreme to trust one's home
> to someone that has variously described you as a dictator, an
> arse-licker and compared you to Goebbels.

The similarity is plain for all to see. If there was a democratic
election of moderators then I would of course humbly apologise for
making the association of a moderator to a dictator or his cronies.

At the moment, moderators are personally invited as long as their views
on politics and other matters coincide. Those who wish the group stuck
to the charter where politics and non-legal matters are not accepted are
seen as a pariah to the group.

If you want politic and other personal matters feel free to issue a rfc
to start uk.politics.moderated

[Norman Wells]

On 28/11/2023 12:50, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 27/11/2023 15:33, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 27/11/2023 13:42, Simon Parker wrote:
>
>>> I do not believe any of those posts were made by a moderator so your
>>> point is moot.
>>
>> *You*, Mr Parker, made every single one of those remarks.
>
> I am well aware of that.  Not only do I recall making the posts in
> question, and the circumstances surrounding each post, but I can spot an
> erudite post when I see one.  When a number of such posts are grouped
> together, the erudition of the poster that made them is unmistakeable
> and unmissable.

I'm afraid you're not making any sense.

>> They are all for *you* to own.
>
> Which, for the avoidance of doubt, I am more than happy to do.
>
> Your posts frequently demonstrate that you are a liar, a hypocrite and a
> fuckwit.  Your assurances and therefore worthless and anything you claim
> to be true is likely to be incorrect so pervasive is your fuckwittery,
> lying and hypocrisy.

So you say, but as always with no substantiation or justification. It's
just imperfect recollection, childish name-calling and ad homs with you,
isn't it?

> The volume and nature of your posts clearly demonstrates you crave
> attention, even negative attention, and at one point you consistently
> used "anally" as an adverb even when it was tautologous to do so, (e.g.
> "anally petty") hence the reference to an "anal fixation", which I am
> pleased to note now seems to have passed.
>
> All of which leads to the inescapable conclusion that you are a
> repulsive, revolting and reprehensible individual.

So you say, but as always with no substantiation or justification. It's
just playground insults and ad homs, nothing substantive on point.

Are you sure you're fit to be a moderator?

>> The capacity in which you think you made them is irrelevant.
>
> In your opinion.  Which is frequently wrong.  And is again here.

So you say, but as always with no substantiation, justification, or even
argument this time.

>> They are all yours, and reveal your intrinsic nature with the utmost
>> clarity.
>
> In your opinion.  Which is frequently wrong.  And is again here.

But with all the substantiation and justification I have given by way of
direct quotes from you, and without any childish ad homs at all. That's
the difference, you see?

>> It's Fredxx's intrinsic nature you appear to be objecting to as
>> regards his offer to become a moderator.  It can't be down to just his
>> posts in ulm because, if they had been objectionable, they would have
>> been rejected in moderation and we wouldn't have seen them.  You
>> clearly think is doesn't matter therefore where he displayed any
>> intemperance you allege he did.  So, it can't matter where you made
>> yours, or in what capacity, can it?
>>
>> Why do you think his remarks should preclude him from being a
>> moderator but yours shouldn't?
>
> I see your comprehension skills haven't yet improved sufficiently to be
> at a point where you can understand simple arguments and draw accurate
> conclusions therefrom.

Care to answer the question now please? You see, it's your opportunity
to show you're not the hypocrite your position says you are.

[Pamela]

> [SNIP]

For latecomers who have not been reading all the posts in this
dicsussion, do you have references for these points? I can't find many
of them. Thank you.