Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
My post was "discarded" - why?
198 views
Skip to first unread message
Janet
Sep 27, 2016, 7:59:35 AM9/27/16
to
I posted this - and it was "discarded":
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 07:01:52 +0100, Saxman wrote:
> On 25/09/2016 16:39, MWJ wrote:
>> A couple who have been married 20 years and have no children.
>>
>> Are getting divorced, court papers just filed. Ground is unreasonable
>> behaviour.
>>
>> They've been separated a year in that they live in separate towns, for
>> the year prior to that they shared the matrimonial home but didn't
>> speak or live as a couple for six months and for the other six months
>> one of them lived in a separate flat.
>>
>> Solicitor said they could use separation as a ground but decided to go
>> for unreasonable behaviour.
>>
>> Now - one party's parent has died and it looks a like a serious lump of
>> cash will be coming their way in the next few months (£100,000 or more)
>>
>> Bad timing.
>>
>> Question: will the other party have any claim on this money?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
> Of course, they are still married.
Much as you might wish it to be so, that is not a hard-and-fast rule.
Lottery winnings, for instance, can be easily protected; and if a
divorce becomes complete before any inheritance is real, the spouse would
have to apply to the court and argue that circumstances exists that would
persuade the court to vary the presumption of protection.
Janet.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 07:01:52 +0100, Saxman wrote:
> On 25/09/2016 16:39, MWJ wrote:
>> A couple who have been married 20 years and have no children.
>>
>> Are getting divorced, court papers just filed. Ground is unreasonable
>> behaviour.
>>
>> They've been separated a year in that they live in separate towns, for
>> the year prior to that they shared the matrimonial home but didn't
>> speak or live as a couple for six months and for the other six months
>> one of them lived in a separate flat.
>>
>> Solicitor said they could use separation as a ground but decided to go
>> for unreasonable behaviour.
>>
>> Now - one party's parent has died and it looks a like a serious lump of
>> cash will be coming their way in the next few months (£100,000 or more)
>>
>> Bad timing.
>>
>> Question: will the other party have any claim on this money?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
> Of course, they are still married.
Much as you might wish it to be so, that is not a hard-and-fast rule.
Lottery winnings, for instance, can be easily protected; and if a
divorce becomes complete before any inheritance is real, the spouse would
have to apply to the court and argue that circumstances exists that would
persuade the court to vary the presumption of protection.
Janet.
The Todal
Sep 27, 2016, 8:14:33 AM9/27/16
to
You posted as Janet, perhaps intending readers to believe you were the
other Janet. Some might call that forgery, but I'm not sure it is.
You tell me that the post was rejected.
I'm assuming it was you who posted the same message again as Jonet and
it was allowed in. It seems an innocuous post but if you want to
contribute to the discussion without misleading anyone about who you
are, why not choose an original name that won't be confused with that of
another poster?
Janet
Sep 27, 2016, 8:26:03 AM9/27/16
to
Janet.
The Todal
Sep 27, 2016, 9:45:45 AM9/27/16
to
Janet
Oct 10, 2016, 9:54:42 AM10/10/16
to
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:14:30 +0100, The Todal wrote:
> It seems an innocuous post but if you want to
> contribute to the discussion without misleading anyone about who you
> are, why not choose an original name that won't be confused with that of
> another poster?
Why should some people have to use a unique name and others do not?
> contribute to the discussion without misleading anyone about who you
> are, why not choose an original name that won't be confused with that of
> another poster?
Roland Perry
Oct 10, 2016, 10:38:19 AM10/10/16
to
In message <ntg6j0$2u6$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:54:41 on Mon, 10 Oct
2016, Janet <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>> It seems an innocuous post but if you want to
>> contribute to the discussion without misleading anyone about who you
>> are, why not choose an original name that won't be confused with that of
>> another poster?
>
>Why should some people have to use a unique name and others do not?
Because at some level it's bit rude and confusing having forgers posting
comments that can only be intended to disrupt the group, by
incorporating some other well-known poster's name (into a chain of
postings made by one person, but using numerous different such names).
--
Roland Perry
2016, Janet <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>> It seems an innocuous post but if you want to
>> contribute to the discussion without misleading anyone about who you
>> are, why not choose an original name that won't be confused with that of
>> another poster?
>
>Why should some people have to use a unique name and others do not?
comments that can only be intended to disrupt the group, by
incorporating some other well-known poster's name (into a chain of
postings made by one person, but using numerous different such names).
--
Roland Perry
Janet
Oct 10, 2016, 10:51:50 AM10/10/16
to
to be unique and others are not? Is there one set of rules for "well-
known" posters, and another for others?
The Todal
Oct 10, 2016, 11:03:01 AM10/10/16
to
posters and your motive for doing so is probably to cause mischief.
Therefore your posts are likely to be rejected until you choose a name
that is clearly unique - the more unusual, the better. And stick to it.
Janet
Oct 10, 2016, 11:20:39 AM10/10/16
to
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:03:00 +0100, The Todal wrote:
>>
> There is no set of rules. You have chosen the names of well-known
> posters and your motive for doing so is probably to cause mischief.
> Therefore your posts are likely to be rejected until you choose a name
> that is clearly unique - the more unusual, the better. And stick to it.
You haven't explained why *some* posts from non-unique names are "to
>>
> There is no set of rules. You have chosen the names of well-known
> posters and your motive for doing so is probably to cause mischief.
> Therefore your posts are likely to be rejected until you choose a name
> that is clearly unique - the more unusual, the better. And stick to it.
cause mischief" and others from non-unique names not. Would it not be
better to look at the content of the post rather than the name used?
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 10, 2016, 11:31:32 AM10/10/16
to
Janet <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> <snip> Would it not be
making a big noise about how ulm is the Gold Standard of Usenet moderation
and that committing to follow their policy of moderating on content, not
poster, would be a pre-requisite for gaining their support for ukram. So
much for that noble principle, eh?
--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
> <snip> Would it not be
> better to look at the content of the post rather than the name used?
>
TBF, I do recall in the ukram debates many of the Great And Good of UK.*
>
making a big noise about how ulm is the Gold Standard of Usenet moderation
and that committing to follow their policy of moderating on content, not
poster, would be a pre-requisite for gaining their support for ukram. So
much for that noble principle, eh?
--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
The Todal
Oct 10, 2016, 11:43:59 AM10/10/16
to
On 10/10/2016 16:31, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> Janet <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> <snip> Would it not be
>> better to look at the content of the post rather than the name used?
>>
>
> TBF, I do recall in the ukram debates many of the Great And Good of UK.*
> making a big noise about how ulm is the Gold Standard of Usenet moderation
> and that committing to follow their policy of moderating on content, not
> poster, would be a pre-requisite for gaining their support for ukram. So
> much for that noble principle, eh?
>
I think you have misunderstood.
> Janet <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> <snip> Would it not be
>> better to look at the content of the post rather than the name used?
>>
>
> TBF, I do recall in the ukram debates many of the Great And Good of UK.*
> making a big noise about how ulm is the Gold Standard of Usenet moderation
> and that committing to follow their policy of moderating on content, not
> poster, would be a pre-requisite for gaining their support for ukram. So
> much for that noble principle, eh?
>
In ULM, we don't blacklist posters. We moderate on content. However,
when a poster has chosen a posting name that is similar to someone
else's posting name, the moderators may reject the post until a more
acceptable name is chosen.
Would you have no objection to someone posting here as Stephen Thomas
Cole <m...@privacy.net> ? If you have no objection and are willing to say
so, no doubt the person whom we are discussing can adopt that posting
name from now on.
Roland Perry
Oct 10, 2016, 12:05:06 PM10/10/16
to
In message <ntgbk5$dbh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:20:37 on Mon, 10 Oct
2016, Janet <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>> There is no set of rules. You have chosen the names of well-known
>> posters and your motive for doing so is probably to cause mischief.
>> Therefore your posts are likely to be rejected until you choose a name
>> that is clearly unique - the more unusual, the better. And stick to it.
>
>You haven't explained why *some* posts from non-unique names are "to
>cause mischief" and others from non-unique names not.
Isn't the latter an empty set?
>Would it not be
>better to look at the content of the post rather than the name used?
The name is part of the content (any respectable privacy activist will
tell you that).
--
Roland Perry
2016, Janet <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>> There is no set of rules. You have chosen the names of well-known
>> posters and your motive for doing so is probably to cause mischief.
>> Therefore your posts are likely to be rejected until you choose a name
>> that is clearly unique - the more unusual, the better. And stick to it.
>
>You haven't explained why *some* posts from non-unique names are "to
>cause mischief" and others from non-unique names not.
>Would it not be
>better to look at the content of the post rather than the name used?
tell you that).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 10, 2016, 12:05:06 PM10/10/16
to
In message <ntg9u5$a40$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:51:49 on Mon, 10 Oct
Roland Perry
2016, Janet <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>>>> It seems an innocuous post but if you want to contribute to the
>>>> discussion without misleading anyone about who you are, why not choose
>>>> an original name that won't be confused with that of another poster?
>>>
>>>Why should some people have to use a unique name and others do not?
>>
>> Because at some level it's bit rude and confusing having forgers posting
>> comments that can only be intended to disrupt the group, by
>> incorporating some other well-known poster's name (into a chain of
>> postings made by one person, but using numerous different such names).
>
>But you haven't answered my question - why are only some names required
>to be unique and others are not?
Because at some level it's bit rude and confusing having forgers posting
comments that can only be intended to disrupt the group, by
incorporating some other well-known poster's name (into a chain of
postings made by one person, but using numerous different such names).
--
>>>> It seems an innocuous post but if you want to contribute to the
>>>> discussion without misleading anyone about who you are, why not choose
>>>> an original name that won't be confused with that of another poster?
>>>
>>>Why should some people have to use a unique name and others do not?
>>
>> Because at some level it's bit rude and confusing having forgers posting
>> comments that can only be intended to disrupt the group, by
>> incorporating some other well-known poster's name (into a chain of
>> postings made by one person, but using numerous different such names).
>
>But you haven't answered my question - why are only some names required
>to be unique and others are not?
Because at some level it's bit rude and confusing having forgers posting
comments that can only be intended to disrupt the group, by
incorporating some other well-known poster's name (into a chain of
postings made by one person, but using numerous different such names).
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 10, 2016, 12:15:06 PM10/10/16
to
In message <e61r9s...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:43:57 on Mon, 10
Oct 2016, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> remarked:
recently in ULM (that got through moderation).
>If you have no objection and are willing to say so, no doubt the person
>whom we are discussing can adopt that posting name from now on.
--
Roland Perry
Oct 2016, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> remarked:
>On 10/10/2016 16:31, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>> Janet <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> <snip> Would it not be
>>> better to look at the content of the post rather than the name used?
>>
>> TBF, I do recall in the ukram debates many of the Great And Good of UK.*
>> making a big noise about how ulm is the Gold Standard of Usenet moderation
>> and that committing to follow their policy of moderating on content, not
>> poster, would be a pre-requisite for gaining their support for ukram. So
>> much for that noble principle, eh?
>
>I think you have misunderstood.
>
>In ULM, we don't blacklist posters. We moderate on content. However,
>when a poster has chosen a posting name that is similar to someone
>else's posting name, the moderators may reject the post until a more
>acceptable name is chosen.
>
>Would you have no objection to someone posting here as Stephen Thomas
>Cole <m...@privacy.net> ?
Stephen Thomas Cole <m...@privacy.net> has posted half a dozen times
>> Janet <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> <snip> Would it not be
>>> better to look at the content of the post rather than the name used?
>>
>> TBF, I do recall in the ukram debates many of the Great And Good of UK.*
>> making a big noise about how ulm is the Gold Standard of Usenet moderation
>> and that committing to follow their policy of moderating on content, not
>> poster, would be a pre-requisite for gaining their support for ukram. So
>> much for that noble principle, eh?
>
>I think you have misunderstood.
>
>In ULM, we don't blacklist posters. We moderate on content. However,
>when a poster has chosen a posting name that is similar to someone
>else's posting name, the moderators may reject the post until a more
>acceptable name is chosen.
>
>Would you have no objection to someone posting here as Stephen Thomas
>Cole <m...@privacy.net> ?
recently in ULM (that got through moderation).
>If you have no objection and are willing to say so, no doubt the person
>whom we are discussing can adopt that posting name from now on.
Roland Perry
Janet
Oct 10, 2016, 12:17:52 PM10/10/16
to
transparency. When I posted the content here one of the moderators
called it "innocuous".
And where is it written that two people cannot have the same name?
Janet
Oct 10, 2016, 12:18:39 PM10/10/16
to
Harriette Edison
Oct 10, 2016, 12:26:19 PM10/10/16
to
I submitted a post to uk.legal.moderated.
A Google groops search shows the name "Harriette Edison" has never been
used on ulm.
Why was my post "discarded"?
A Google groops search shows the name "Harriette Edison" has never been
used on ulm.
Why was my post "discarded"?
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 10, 2016, 1:23:37 PM10/10/16
to
The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 16:31, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>> Janet <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> <snip> Would it not be
>>> better to look at the content of the post rather than the name used?
>>>
>>
>> TBF, I do recall in the ukram debates many of the Great And Good of UK.*
>> making a big noise about how ulm is the Gold Standard of Usenet moderation
>> and that committing to follow their policy of moderating on content, not
>> poster, would be a pre-requisite for gaining their support for ukram. So
>> much for that noble principle, eh?
>>
>
> I think you have misunderstood.
No, I think ulm was badly misrepresented by people who should have known
> On 10/10/2016 16:31, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>> Janet <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> <snip> Would it not be
>>> better to look at the content of the post rather than the name used?
>>>
>>
>> TBF, I do recall in the ukram debates many of the Great And Good of UK.*
>> making a big noise about how ulm is the Gold Standard of Usenet moderation
>> and that committing to follow their policy of moderating on content, not
>> poster, would be a pre-requisite for gaining their support for ukram. So
>> much for that noble principle, eh?
>>
>
> I think you have misunderstood.
better.
> In ULM, we don't blacklist posters. We moderate on content. However,
> when a poster has chosen a posting name that is similar to someone
> else's posting name, the moderators may reject the post until a more
> acceptable name is chosen.
> Would you have no objection to someone posting here as Stephen Thomas
> Cole <m...@privacy.net> ? If you have no objection and are willing to say
> so, no doubt the person whom we are discussing can adopt that posting
> name from now on.
>
about it. It is what it is, the imposter clearly gets better sport out of
those who are bothered about being impostered, so best to just ignore it.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 10, 2016, 1:23:37 PM10/10/16
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The name is part of the content (any respectable privacy activist will
> tell you that).
Will be interesting to see how the Great And Good of U.K.* try and explain
>
> The name is part of the content (any respectable privacy activist will
> tell you that).
that doozy away.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 10, 2016, 1:23:38 PM10/10/16
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <e61r9s...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:43:57 on Mon, 10
> Oct 2016, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> remarked:
>> On 10/10/2016 16:31, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>>> Janet <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> <snip> Would it not be
>>>> better to look at the content of the post rather than the name used?
>>>
>>> TBF, I do recall in the ukram debates many of the Great And Good of UK.*
>>> making a big noise about how ulm is the Gold Standard of Usenet moderation
>>> and that committing to follow their policy of moderating on content, not
>>> poster, would be a pre-requisite for gaining their support for ukram. So
>>> much for that noble principle, eh?
>>
>> I think you have misunderstood.
>>
>> In ULM, we don't blacklist posters. We moderate on content. However,
>> when a poster has chosen a posting name that is similar to someone
>> else's posting name, the moderators may reject the post until a more
>> acceptable name is chosen.
>>
>> Would you have no objection to someone posting here as Stephen Thomas
>> Cole <m...@privacy.net> ?
>
> Stephen Thomas Cole <m...@privacy.net> has posted half a dozen times
> recently in ULM (that got through moderation).
>
Shit happens. I don't read or subscribe to ulm and haven't posted there in
> In message <e61r9s...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:43:57 on Mon, 10
> Oct 2016, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> remarked:
>> On 10/10/2016 16:31, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>>> Janet <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> <snip> Would it not be
>>>> better to look at the content of the post rather than the name used?
>>>
>>> TBF, I do recall in the ukram debates many of the Great And Good of UK.*
>>> making a big noise about how ulm is the Gold Standard of Usenet moderation
>>> and that committing to follow their policy of moderating on content, not
>>> poster, would be a pre-requisite for gaining their support for ukram. So
>>> much for that noble principle, eh?
>>
>> I think you have misunderstood.
>>
>> In ULM, we don't blacklist posters. We moderate on content. However,
>> when a poster has chosen a posting name that is similar to someone
>> else's posting name, the moderators may reject the post until a more
>> acceptable name is chosen.
>>
>> Would you have no objection to someone posting here as Stephen Thomas
>> Cole <m...@privacy.net> ?
>
> Stephen Thomas Cole <m...@privacy.net> has posted half a dozen times
> recently in ULM (that got through moderation).
>
a long time, I know those posts aren't from me and I'm sure any ulm readers
with their wits about them knew that too.
Harriette Edison
Oct 10, 2016, 1:58:10 PM10/10/16
to
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 17:23:20 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> In ULM, we don't blacklist posters. We moderate on content. However,
>> when a poster has chosen a posting name that is similar to someone
>> else's posting name, the moderators may reject the post until a more
>> acceptable name is chosen.
>
> That's not "moderating on content".
>
It is, however, new policy:
"I can't see any useful purpose in modifying our moderation policy to
enable us to reject posts for nym-shifting. I don't have any objection to
nym-shifting."
(Message-ID: <9o83qt...@mid.individual.net>)
> The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> In ULM, we don't blacklist posters. We moderate on content. However,
>> when a poster has chosen a posting name that is similar to someone
>> else's posting name, the moderators may reject the post until a more
>> acceptable name is chosen.
>
> That's not "moderating on content".
>
"I can't see any useful purpose in modifying our moderation policy to
enable us to reject posts for nym-shifting. I don't have any objection to
nym-shifting."
(Message-ID: <9o83qt...@mid.individual.net>)
Paul Cummins
Oct 10, 2016, 2:00:42 PM10/10/16
to
In article <ntgff9$kde$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, m...@privacy.net (Harriette
Probably because a Person Search shows there is no such person in the
United Kingdom.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
United Kingdom.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
Janet
Oct 10, 2016, 2:15:39 PM10/10/16
to
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:03:00 +0100, The Todal wrote:
" But questioning another poster's motives or integrity is not
permissible in uklm."
Or is that only for posters, not moderators?
Harriette Edison
Oct 10, 2016, 2:18:30 PM10/10/16
to
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 19:00:00 +0100, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <ntgff9$kde$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, m...@privacy.net (Harriette
> Edison) wrote:
>
>> I submitted a post to uk.legal.moderated.
>>
>> A Google groops search shows the name "Harriette Edison" has never been
>> used on ulm.
>>
>> Why was my post "discarded"?
>
> Probably because a Person Search shows there is no such person in the
> United Kingdom.
Are only names of people who appear on that search engine allowed?
> In article <ntgff9$kde$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, m...@privacy.net (Harriette
> Edison) wrote:
>
>> I submitted a post to uk.legal.moderated.
>>
>> A Google groops search shows the name "Harriette Edison" has never been
>> used on ulm.
>>
>> Why was my post "discarded"?
>
> Probably because a Person Search shows there is no such person in the
> United Kingdom.
Roger Hayter
Oct 10, 2016, 2:23:26 PM10/10/16
to
<m...@privacy.net>". Indeed, I may sometimes do this myself. It is
relatively unlikely that I will use Aioe though.
For the record, I do not like the ulm moderators discarding these posts
so we cannot see what is rejected.
--
Roger Hayter
Roland Perry
Oct 10, 2016, 2:54:09 PM10/10/16
to
In message <ntgf0t$jaa$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:18:37 on Mon, 10 Oct
who take enough time to.
--
Roland Perry
2016, Janet <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>> In message <ntgbk5$dbh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:20:37 on Mon, 10 Oct
>> 2016, Janet <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>>
>>>> There is no set of rules. You have chosen the names of well-known
>>>> posters and your motive for doing so is probably to cause mischief.
>>>> Therefore your posts are likely to be rejected until you choose a name
>>>> that is clearly unique - the more unusual, the better. And stick to
>>>> it.
>>>
>>>You haven't explained why *some* posts from non-unique names are "to
>>>cause mischief" and others from non-unique names not.
>>
>> Isn't the latter an empty set?
>>
>>>Would it not be better to look at the content of the post rather than
>>>the name used?
>>
>> The name is part of the content (any respectable privacy activist will
>> tell you that).
>
>So is the domain then.
Yes, and the domain is on of the ways the forgeries are noticed by those
>> In message <ntgbk5$dbh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:20:37 on Mon, 10 Oct
>> 2016, Janet <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>>
>>>> There is no set of rules. You have chosen the names of well-known
>>>> posters and your motive for doing so is probably to cause mischief.
>>>> Therefore your posts are likely to be rejected until you choose a name
>>>> that is clearly unique - the more unusual, the better. And stick to
>>>> it.
>>>
>>>You haven't explained why *some* posts from non-unique names are "to
>>>cause mischief" and others from non-unique names not.
>>
>> Isn't the latter an empty set?
>>
>>>Would it not be better to look at the content of the post rather than
>>>the name used?
>>
>> The name is part of the content (any respectable privacy activist will
>> tell you that).
>
>So is the domain then.
who take enough time to.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 10, 2016, 2:54:09 PM10/10/16
to
In message <ntgiq9$r4$2...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 17:23:21 on Mon,
10 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
remarked:
--
Roland Perry
10 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
remarked:
>> The name is part of the content (any respectable privacy activist will
>> tell you that).
>
>Will be interesting to see how the Great And Good of U.K.* try and explain
>that doozy away.
It doesn't need explaining away, it's a simple fact.
>> tell you that).
>
>Will be interesting to see how the Great And Good of U.K.* try and explain
>that doozy away.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 10, 2016, 2:54:10 PM10/10/16
to
Roland Perry
Oct 10, 2016, 2:54:10 PM10/10/16
to
In message <ntgls9$vvo$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 18:15:37 on Mon, 10 Oct
2016, Janet <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
2016, Janet <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>Does this quote from Steve Walker help?
>
>" But questioning another poster's motives or integrity is not
>permissible in uklm."
>
>Or is that only for posters, not moderators?
This is unnm, not ulm.
>
>" But questioning another poster's motives or integrity is not
>permissible in uklm."
>
>Or is that only for posters, not moderators?
--
Roland Perry
Jerry Stuckle
Oct 10, 2016, 2:57:58 PM10/10/16
to
--
Troll alert! This was not me.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 10, 2016, 3:06:42 PM10/10/16
to
Vicky O'Hare
Oct 10, 2016, 3:41:16 PM10/10/16
to
The questioning is being done about posters in (and their posts submitted
to) ulm.
Paul Cummins
Oct 10, 2016, 3:58:05 PM10/10/16
to
In article <ntgm1k$vvo$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, m...@privacy.net (Harriette
Are names of people who are coincidentally my dead exes likely to keep
trying to post to uk.legal.moderated and other moderated groups?
I'm happy to provide evidence to moderators if needs be.
Edison) wrote:
> > Probably because a Person Search shows there is no such person in
> the
> > United Kingdom.
>
>
> Are only names of people who appear on that search engine allowed?
It depends...
> > Probably because a Person Search shows there is no such person in
> the
> > United Kingdom.
>
>
> Are only names of people who appear on that search engine allowed?
Are names of people who are coincidentally my dead exes likely to keep
trying to post to uk.legal.moderated and other moderated groups?
I'm happy to provide evidence to moderators if needs be.
Roland Perry
Oct 10, 2016, 4:03:40 PM10/10/16
to
In message <ntgorh$pi0$1...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 19:06:25 on Mon,
this matter are from first principles.
--
Roland Perry
10 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
remarked:
>>>> The name is part of the content (any respectable privacy activist will
>>>> tell you that).
>>>
>>> Will be interesting to see how the Great And Good of U.K.* try and explain
>>> that doozy away.
>>
>> It doesn't need explaining away, it's a simple fact.
>
>And totally undermines what the Great And Good insisted previously.
I have no idea what they said, or why they said it. My own opinions on
remarked:
>>>> The name is part of the content (any respectable privacy activist will
>>>> tell you that).
>>>
>>> Will be interesting to see how the Great And Good of U.K.* try and explain
>>> that doozy away.
>>
>> It doesn't need explaining away, it's a simple fact.
>
>And totally undermines what the Great And Good insisted previously.
this matter are from first principles.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 10, 2016, 4:03:40 PM10/10/16
to
In message <ntgobj$14cm$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 18:57:55 on Mon, 10 Oct
2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>> Why was my post "discarded"?
>
>Roland doesn't like you, and he's a very (self)important man.
I didn't discard it, so that's not the reason.
--
Roland Perry
2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>> Why was my post "discarded"?
>
>Roland doesn't like you, and he's a very (self)important man.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 10, 2016, 4:03:40 PM10/10/16
to
In message <ntgqsp$196m$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 19:41:13 on Mon, 10 Oct
2016, Vicky O'Hare <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
This is so obvious I wonder if you are being wilfully obtuse.
--
Roland Perry
2016, Vicky O'Hare <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>>>Does this quote from Steve Walker help?
>>>
>>>" But questioning another poster's motives or integrity is not
>>>permissible in uklm."
>>>
>>>Or is that only for posters, not moderators?
>>
>> This is unnm, not ulm.
>
>True, and irrelevant.
>
>The questioning is being done about posters in (and their posts submitted
>to) ulm.
Not permissible in ulm is orthogonal to not permissible in unnm.
>>>
>>>" But questioning another poster's motives or integrity is not
>>>permissible in uklm."
>>>
>>>Or is that only for posters, not moderators?
>>
>> This is unnm, not ulm.
>
>True, and irrelevant.
>
>The questioning is being done about posters in (and their posts submitted
>to) ulm.
This is so obvious I wonder if you are being wilfully obtuse.
--
Roland Perry
Roger Hayter
Oct 10, 2016, 4:23:36 PM10/10/16
to
--
Roger Hayter
Roger Hayter
Oct 10, 2016, 4:23:37 PM10/10/16
to
think he is saying that because a poster in ulm is not allowed to
question the motives of another poster publicly in ulm then a moderator
in ulm should not be allowed to question the motives of a poster on ulm
by rejecting his post on suspicion of evil intention. FWIW I agree
moderators should not do that, but his logic for drawing that conclusion
is rubbish.
--
Roger Hayter
Roger Hayter
Oct 10, 2016, 4:23:38 PM10/10/16
to
Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:26:17 +0000, Harriette Edison wrote:
>
> > I submitted a post to uk.legal.moderated.
> >
> > A Google groops search shows the name "Harriette Edison" has never been
> > used on ulm.
> >
> > Why was my post "discarded"?
>
>
> Roland doesn't like you, and he's a very (self)important man.
Are you talking to yourself or are you a different forger? Or both?
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:26:17 +0000, Harriette Edison wrote:
>
> > I submitted a post to uk.legal.moderated.
> >
> > A Google groops search shows the name "Harriette Edison" has never been
> > used on ulm.
> >
> > Why was my post "discarded"?
>
>
> Roland doesn't like you, and he's a very (self)important man.
(Neither is not logically possible, barring serious psychopathology.)
--
Roger Hayter
The Todal
Oct 10, 2016, 4:45:21 PM10/10/16
to
for instance are plainly the same person that started this thread.
But mischievously impersonating other posters is a very different thing.
People notice the name, but not the email address.
And as I've previously pointed out, the moderation policy has been clear
on this subject for more than 2 years.
The Todal
Oct 10, 2016, 4:48:17 PM10/10/16
to
supportive emails, right?
The Todal
Oct 10, 2016, 4:53:40 PM10/10/16
to
effect of his silly game is that when you read his posts in ULM you
sometimes assume that they have been made by a person whose opinions you
usually respect. That's dishonest and tends to undermine the group even
if it is in a relatively trivial way.
If he thinks his posts are too boring to read, he shouldn't trick people
into reading them by masquerading as Janet or Judith.
The Todal
Oct 10, 2016, 5:07:50 PM10/10/16
to
moderation team.....
The Todal
Oct 10, 2016, 5:11:06 PM10/10/16
to
if they were rubbish posts, I'd be less likely to read your posts in
other groups.
Jerry Stuckle
Oct 10, 2016, 5:21:04 PM10/10/16
to
Jerry Stuckle
Oct 10, 2016, 5:22:55 PM10/10/16
to
work?
Jerry Stuckle
Oct 10, 2016, 5:29:40 PM10/10/16
to
post were not being read by you.
Pelican
Oct 10, 2016, 5:33:27 PM10/10/16
to
Roland Perry
Oct 11, 2016, 2:41:14 AM10/11/16
to
In message <nth0rc$1k6o$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 21:22:52 on Mon, 10 Oct
The forger makes things less clear by adopting various names used by
regular posters, but they are also posting in their own "regular name",
and they should restrict themselves to that.
--
Roland Perry
2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>>>> Why was my post "discarded"?
>>>
>>>Roland doesn't like you, and he's a very (self)important man.
>>
>> I didn't discard it, so that's not the reason.
>
>Clean hands in this particular instance, Rolly, but is your influence at
>work?
The only thing I'm influencing is clarity in who is posting to ulm.
>>>> Why was my post "discarded"?
>>>
>>>Roland doesn't like you, and he's a very (self)important man.
>>
>> I didn't discard it, so that's not the reason.
>
>Clean hands in this particular instance, Rolly, but is your influence at
>work?
The forger makes things less clear by adopting various names used by
regular posters, but they are also posting in their own "regular name",
and they should restrict themselves to that.
--
Roland Perry
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 11, 2016, 2:41:58 AM10/11/16
to
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 11, 2016, 2:41:59 AM10/11/16
to
Most folk with any gumption have long been filtering for "@privacy.net" and
its variations.
>And
> if they were rubbish posts, I'd be less likely to read your posts in
> other groups.
>
Jerry Stuckle
Oct 11, 2016, 3:01:34 AM10/11/16
to
generally correct, but not (directly) in this particular instance.
Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
Spite?
Jerry Stuckle
Oct 11, 2016, 3:03:33 AM10/11/16
to
Brian Reay
Oct 11, 2016, 3:16:19 AM10/11/16
to
On 10/10/2016 19:00, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <ntgff9$kde$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, m...@privacy.net (Harriette
Conversely, if someone isn't listed as a director at company's house,
then there is every reason to doubt he is one- regardless of his claims.
> In article <ntgff9$kde$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, m...@privacy.net (Harriette
> Edison) wrote:
>
>> I submitted a post to uk.legal.moderated.
>>
>> A Google groops search shows the name "Harriette Edison" has never
>> been used on ulm.
>>
>
>> I submitted a post to uk.legal.moderated.
>>
>> A Google groops search shows the name "Harriette Edison" has never
>> been used on ulm.
>>
>> Why was my post "discarded"?
>
>
> Probably because a Person Search shows there is no such person in the
> United Kingdom.
>
That means nothing.
> United Kingdom.
>
Conversely, if someone isn't listed as a director at company's house,
then there is every reason to doubt he is one- regardless of his claims.
Brian Reay
Oct 11, 2016, 3:26:10 AM10/11/16
to
On 10/10/2016 21:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
your new found sense of fairness?
Brian Reay
Oct 11, 2016, 3:42:20 AM10/11/16
to
There have been multiple obvious posts by the 'forger' but it is only
when someone 'with the ear' of the moderators whines a post is
discarded. Oddly it seems not for pretending to be someone else, at
least not as far as can be seen.
I'm not condoning the use of false names etc. but just because someone
new appears and someone, with a history false claims and of lying,
claims the name is false, is hardly a reason to discard their posts.
Roland Perry
Oct 11, 2016, 3:44:15 AM10/11/16
to
In message <nti2od$sur$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:01:33 on Tue, 11 Oct
enough confidence in their opinions that they could state them other
than through this sock-puppet-alike.
>Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>Spite?
I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
forged name).
--
Roland Perry
2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>> The only thing I'm influencing is clarity in who is posting to ulm.
>>
>> The forger makes things less clear by adopting various names used by
>> regular posters, but they are also posting in their own "regular name",
>> and they should restrict themselves to that.
>
>So "Roland doesn't like you, and he's a very (self)important man." is
>generally correct, but not (directly) in this particular instance.
I don't dislike the forger, only his methods. I wish they had enough
>>
>> The forger makes things less clear by adopting various names used by
>> regular posters, but they are also posting in their own "regular name",
>> and they should restrict themselves to that.
>
>So "Roland doesn't like you, and he's a very (self)important man." is
>generally correct, but not (directly) in this particular instance.
enough confidence in their opinions that they could state them other
than through this sock-puppet-alike.
>Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>Spite?
forged name).
--
Roland Perry
Brian Reay
Oct 11, 2016, 3:49:06 AM10/11/16
to
Presumeably, he could claim anyone didn't really exist and the mods
would discard their posts.
Hardly a moderation policy to inspire confidence, especially if the
'informant' who whines has a proven track record of lying.
Jerry Stuckle
Oct 11, 2016, 3:49:21 AM10/11/16
to
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:34:58 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <nti2od$sur$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:01:33 on Tue, 11 Oct
> 2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
> In message <nti2od$sur$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:01:33 on Tue, 11 Oct
> 2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>>So "Roland doesn't like you, and he's a very (self)important man." is
>>generally correct, but not (directly) in this particular instance.
>
> I don't dislike the forger, only his methods. I wish they had enough
> enough confidence in their opinions that they could state them other
> than through this sock-puppet-alike.
Clintonian hair-splitting.
>>generally correct, but not (directly) in this particular instance.
>
> I don't dislike the forger, only his methods. I wish they had enough
> enough confidence in their opinions that they could state them other
> than through this sock-puppet-alike.
>
>>Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>>Spite?
>
> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
> forged name).
up.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 11, 2016, 3:52:53 AM10/11/16
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>> Spite?
>
> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
> forged name).
How long has this definition of "content" been used in ulm moderation?
>
>
>> Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>> Spite?
>
> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
> forged name).
Ian Jackson
Oct 11, 2016, 3:55:00 AM10/11/16
to
In message <e62cuv...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
<the_...@icloud.com> writes
>
>But mischievously impersonating other posters is a very different
>thing. People notice the name, but not the email address.
>
This is certainly true. A few years ago, one of the regular contributors
to this area of Newsnet posted a long, detailed, rather vitriolic
castigation of me. While this appeared to be in direct response to one
of my posts, it was not in any way related to what I had said - or, in
fact, to anything I had ever said or been involved in, anywhere. I
hadn't the slightest clue what he was on about, so I concluded that his
attack must have been aimed at something one of my namesakes (of which,
at the time, there were at least two 'regulars') had done or posted
elsewhere. As my attacker was not one noted for issuing grovelling
apologies, I though it best not to embarrass him, and I made no comment.
--
Ian
<the_...@icloud.com> writes
>
>But mischievously impersonating other posters is a very different
>thing. People notice the name, but not the email address.
>
to this area of Newsnet posted a long, detailed, rather vitriolic
castigation of me. While this appeared to be in direct response to one
of my posts, it was not in any way related to what I had said - or, in
fact, to anything I had ever said or been involved in, anywhere. I
hadn't the slightest clue what he was on about, so I concluded that his
attack must have been aimed at something one of my namesakes (of which,
at the time, there were at least two 'regulars') had done or posted
elsewhere. As my attacker was not one noted for issuing grovelling
apologies, I though it best not to embarrass him, and I made no comment.
--
Ian
Roland Perry
Oct 11, 2016, 4:04:41 AM10/11/16
to
In message <nti54b$e4f$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:42:19 on Tue, 11 Oct
2016, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:
>> And as I've previously pointed out, the moderation policy has been clear
>> on this subject for more than 2 years.
>
>If that is the policy, why hasn't it been enforced?
>
>There have been multiple obvious posts by the 'forger' but it is only
>when someone 'with the ear' of the moderators whines a post is
>discarded.
The workflow is the other way round. The very first thing to happen is a
moderator deciding whether the post should be discarded (and that
process is not 100% watertight) and then later the complaint about that
arrives.
>Oddly it seems not for pretending to be someone else, at least not as
>far as can be seen.
The reasoning has been explained, here, yesterday.
--
Roland Perry
2016, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:
>> And as I've previously pointed out, the moderation policy has been clear
>> on this subject for more than 2 years.
>
>If that is the policy, why hasn't it been enforced?
>
>There have been multiple obvious posts by the 'forger' but it is only
>when someone 'with the ear' of the moderators whines a post is
>discarded.
moderator deciding whether the post should be discarded (and that
process is not 100% watertight) and then later the complaint about that
arrives.
>Oddly it seems not for pretending to be someone else, at least not as
>far as can be seen.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 11, 2016, 4:04:41 AM10/11/16
to
In message <nti5h1$fap$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:05 on Tue, 11 Oct
moot.
--
Roland Perry
>> Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>> Spite?
>>
>It seems because someone with the ear of the moderators whined.
>
>Presumeably, he could claim anyone didn't really exist and the mods
>would discard their posts.
>
>Hardly a moderation policy to inspire confidence, especially if the
>'informant' who whines has a proven track record of lying.
As that isn't what happened, further discussion of your allegation is
>> Spite?
>>
>It seems because someone with the ear of the moderators whined.
>
>Presumeably, he could claim anyone didn't really exist and the mods
>would discard their posts.
>
>Hardly a moderation policy to inspire confidence, especially if the
>'informant' who whines has a proven track record of lying.
moot.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 11, 2016, 4:11:15 AM10/11/16
to
In message <nti5o5$fvt$1...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 07:52:37 on Tue,
11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
remarked:
--
Roland Perry
11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
remarked:
>>> Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>>> Spite?
>>
>> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
>> forged name).
>
>How long has this definition of "content" been used in ulm moderation?
The Todal has said "more than two years".
>>> Spite?
>>
>> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
>> forged name).
>
>How long has this definition of "content" been used in ulm moderation?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 11, 2016, 4:11:15 AM10/11/16
to
In message <nti5i0$1196$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:49:20 on Tue, 11 Oct
their views without hiding behind this series of fake IDs.
>>>Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>>>Spite?
>>
>> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
>> forged name).
>
>So, it was to show "the forger" who's boss. I'm glad we've cleared that
>up.
If it's the boss's job to enforce the rules, so be it.
--
Roland Perry
2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>> I don't dislike the forger, only his methods. I wish they had enough
>> enough confidence in their opinions that they could state them other
>> than through this sock-puppet-alike.
>
>Clintonian hair-splitting.
The forger is apparently a deeply insecure person who can't express
>> enough confidence in their opinions that they could state them other
>> than through this sock-puppet-alike.
>
>Clintonian hair-splitting.
their views without hiding behind this series of fake IDs.
>>>Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>>>Spite?
>>
>> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
>> forged name).
>
>So, it was to show "the forger" who's boss. I'm glad we've cleared that
>up.
--
Roland Perry
Jerry Stuckle
Oct 11, 2016, 4:16:06 AM10/11/16
to
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:06:26 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <nti5i0$1196$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:49:20 on Tue, 11 Oct
> 2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>
>>> I don't dislike the forger, only his methods. I wish they had enough
>>> enough confidence in their opinions that they could state them other
>>> than through this sock-puppet-alike.
>>
>>Clintonian hair-splitting.
>
> The forger is apparently a deeply insecure person who can't express
> their views without hiding behind this series of fake IDs.
Strawman.
> In message <nti5i0$1196$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:49:20 on Tue, 11 Oct
> 2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>
>>> I don't dislike the forger, only his methods. I wish they had enough
>>> enough confidence in their opinions that they could state them other
>>> than through this sock-puppet-alike.
>>
>>Clintonian hair-splitting.
>
> The forger is apparently a deeply insecure person who can't express
> their views without hiding behind this series of fake IDs.
>>>>Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>>>>Spite?
>>>
>>> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
>>> forged name).
>>
>>So, it was to show "the forger" who's boss. I'm glad we've cleared that
>>up.
>
> If it's the boss's job to enforce the rules, so be it.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 11, 2016, 4:24:55 AM10/11/16
to
"more than two years", though? If so, I must have missed it and will
happily stand corrected.
Roland Perry
Oct 11, 2016, 5:03:47 AM10/11/16
to
In message <nti7k6$lsq$1...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 08:24:38 on Tue,
"But mischievously impersonating other posters is a very
different thing. People notice the name, but not the email
address.
Roland Perry
11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
remarked:
>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <nti5o5$fvt$1...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 07:52:37 on Tue,
>> 11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
>> remarked:
>>>>> Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>>>>> Spite?
>>>>
>>>> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
>>>> forged name).
>>>
>>> How long has this definition of "content" been used in ulm moderation?
>>
>> The Todal has said "more than two years".
>
>Did he explicitly say that ulm has defined "content" as you describe it for
>"more than two years", though? If so, I must have missed it and will
>happily stand corrected.
How explicit do you need? And it was only yesterday, goldfish-brain.
remarked:
>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <nti5o5$fvt$1...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 07:52:37 on Tue,
>> 11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
>> remarked:
>>>>> Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>>>>> Spite?
>>>>
>>>> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
>>>> forged name).
>>>
>>> How long has this definition of "content" been used in ulm moderation?
>>
>> The Todal has said "more than two years".
>
>Did he explicitly say that ulm has defined "content" as you describe it for
>"more than two years", though? If so, I must have missed it and will
>happily stand corrected.
"But mischievously impersonating other posters is a very
different thing. People notice the name, but not the email
address.
And as I've previously pointed out, the moderation policy has
been clear on this subject for more than 2 years."
--
been clear on this subject for more than 2 years."
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 11, 2016, 5:03:47 AM10/11/16
to
In message <nti745$14aj$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:16:05 on Tue, 11 Oct
strategy.
>>>>>Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>>>>>Spite?
>>>>
>>>> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
>>>> forged name).
>>>
>>>So, it was to show "the forger" who's boss. I'm glad we've cleared that
>>>up.
>>
>> If it's the boss's job to enforce the rules, so be it.
>
>Like I said: I'm glad we cleared that up.
You sound a lot like Judith.
--
Roland Perry
2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:06:26 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <nti5i0$1196$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:49:20 on Tue, 11 Oct
>> 2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>>
>>>> I don't dislike the forger, only his methods. I wish they had enough
>>>> enough confidence in their opinions that they could state them other
>>>> than through this sock-puppet-alike.
>>>
>>>Clintonian hair-splitting.
>>
>> The forger is apparently a deeply insecure person who can't express
>> their views without hiding behind this series of fake IDs.
>
>Strawman.
Yes, the forger is a man of straw. Otherwise he'd be using a different
>On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:06:26 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <nti5i0$1196$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:49:20 on Tue, 11 Oct
>> 2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>>
>>>> I don't dislike the forger, only his methods. I wish they had enough
>>>> enough confidence in their opinions that they could state them other
>>>> than through this sock-puppet-alike.
>>>
>>>Clintonian hair-splitting.
>>
>> The forger is apparently a deeply insecure person who can't express
>> their views without hiding behind this series of fake IDs.
>
>Strawman.
strategy.
>>>>>Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>>>>>Spite?
>>>>
>>>> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
>>>> forged name).
>>>
>>>So, it was to show "the forger" who's boss. I'm glad we've cleared that
>>>up.
>>
>> If it's the boss's job to enforce the rules, so be it.
>
>Like I said: I'm glad we cleared that up.
--
Roland Perry
Jerry Stuckle
Oct 11, 2016, 5:09:15 AM10/11/16
to
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:54:01 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <nti745$14aj$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:16:05 on Tue, 11 Oct
> 2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>>On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:06:26 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> In message <nti5i0$1196$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:49:20 on Tue, 11 Oct
>>> 2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> I don't dislike the forger, only his methods. I wish they had enough
>>>>> enough confidence in their opinions that they could state them other
>>>>> than through this sock-puppet-alike.
>>>>
>>>>Clintonian hair-splitting.
>>>
>>> The forger is apparently a deeply insecure person who can't express
>>> their views without hiding behind this series of fake IDs.
>>
>>Strawman.
>
> Yes, the forger is a man of straw. Otherwise he'd be using a different
> strategy.
Strawtwins.
> In message <nti745$14aj$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:16:05 on Tue, 11 Oct
> 2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>>On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:06:26 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> In message <nti5i0$1196$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:49:20 on Tue, 11 Oct
>>> 2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> I don't dislike the forger, only his methods. I wish they had enough
>>>>> enough confidence in their opinions that they could state them other
>>>>> than through this sock-puppet-alike.
>>>>
>>>>Clintonian hair-splitting.
>>>
>>> The forger is apparently a deeply insecure person who can't express
>>> their views without hiding behind this series of fake IDs.
>>
>>Strawman.
>
> Yes, the forger is a man of straw. Otherwise he'd be using a different
> strategy.
>>>>>>Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>>>>>>Spite?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
>>>>> forged name).
>>>>
>>>>So, it was to show "the forger" who's boss. I'm glad we've cleared
>>>>that up.
>>>
>>> If it's the boss's job to enforce the rules, so be it.
>>
>>Like I said: I'm glad we cleared that up.
>
> You sound a lot like Judith.
The Todal
Oct 11, 2016, 5:20:44 AM10/11/16
to
If a poster chooses a posting name that is similar to the posting name
used by another person and in the moderator's opinion has the effect of
mocking or taunting that other person, the post may be rejected.
The Todal
Oct 11, 2016, 5:23:08 AM10/11/16
to
On 11/10/2016 08:49, Brian Reay wrote:
> On 11/10/2016 08:01, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 07:39:54 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> In message <nth0rc$1k6o$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 21:22:52 on Mon, 10 Oct
>>> 2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>>>>>>> Why was my post "discarded"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roland doesn't like you, and he's a very (self)important man.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't discard it, so that's not the reason.
>>>>
>>>> Clean hands in this particular instance, Rolly, but is your
>>>> influence at
>>>> work?
>>>
>>> The only thing I'm influencing is clarity in who is posting to ulm.
>>>
>>> The forger makes things less clear by adopting various names used by
>>> regular posters, but they are also posting in their own "regular name",
>>> and they should restrict themselves to that.
>>
>> So "Roland doesn't like you, and he's a very (self)important man." is
>> generally correct, but not (directly) in this particular instance.
>>
>> Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>> Spite?
>>
>>
>>
> It seems because someone with the ear of the moderators whined.
You wish. In fact I'm not aware that anyone has complained.
> On 11/10/2016 08:01, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 07:39:54 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> In message <nth0rc$1k6o$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 21:22:52 on Mon, 10 Oct
>>> 2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>>>>>>> Why was my post "discarded"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roland doesn't like you, and he's a very (self)important man.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't discard it, so that's not the reason.
>>>>
>>>> Clean hands in this particular instance, Rolly, but is your
>>>> influence at
>>>> work?
>>>
>>> The only thing I'm influencing is clarity in who is posting to ulm.
>>>
>>> The forger makes things less clear by adopting various names used by
>>> regular posters, but they are also posting in their own "regular name",
>>> and they should restrict themselves to that.
>>
>> So "Roland doesn't like you, and he's a very (self)important man." is
>> generally correct, but not (directly) in this particular instance.
>>
>> Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>> Spite?
>>
>>
>>
> It seems because someone with the ear of the moderators whined.
You presumably hoped that your habit of impersonating other posters
would indeed have the effect of mocking, taunting and irritating those
posters.
Pelican
Oct 11, 2016, 5:41:38 AM10/11/16
to
Roland Perry
Oct 11, 2016, 5:42:43 AM10/11/16
to
In message <ntia7q$1a0b$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:09:14 on Tue, 11 Oct
>>>>>>>Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>>>>>>>Spite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
>>>>>> forged name).
>>>>>
>>>>>So, it was to show "the forger" who's boss. I'm glad we've cleared
>>>>>that up.
>>>>
>>>> If it's the boss's job to enforce the rules, so be it.
>>>
>>>Like I said: I'm glad we cleared that up.
>>
>> You sound a lot like Judith.
>
>You sound a lot like a pompous prig.
Interesting that you don't deny it.
--
Roland Perry
2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>>>> The forger is apparently a deeply insecure person who can't express
>>>> their views without hiding behind this series of fake IDs.
>>>
>>>Strawman.
>>
>> Yes, the forger is a man of straw. Otherwise he'd be using a different
>> strategy.
>
>Strawtwins.
Straw-socks perhaps?
>>>> their views without hiding behind this series of fake IDs.
>>>
>>>Strawman.
>>
>> Yes, the forger is a man of straw. Otherwise he'd be using a different
>> strategy.
>
>Strawtwins.
>>>>>>>Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>>>>>>>Spite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
>>>>>> forged name).
>>>>>
>>>>>So, it was to show "the forger" who's boss. I'm glad we've cleared
>>>>>that up.
>>>>
>>>> If it's the boss's job to enforce the rules, so be it.
>>>
>>>Like I said: I'm glad we cleared that up.
>>
>> You sound a lot like Judith.
>
>You sound a lot like a pompous prig.
--
Roland Perry
Roger Hayter
Oct 11, 2016, 5:57:18 AM10/11/16
to
name is part of moderating on content. I shall spell out (boringly) why
this is a completely dishonest argument. Firstly, I agree that from the
privacy point of view the poster's name is clearly part of the content.
From the logical information theory POV so are a number of other
headers. But the whole discussion of moderating on content rather than
poster is based on another definition of content, a definition which
specifically excludes and counterposes poster ID with content.
So to make the trite observation that poster name is part of the content
is no answer at all to the charge of reversing a previous policy based
on a different, and perfectly valid in the context, definition of
content to specifically exclude poster name.
Notice I have deliberately failed to distinguish between poster name and
poster identity here, and it is in this area that I think those that
want to discard the forger's posts will have to develop their
justification.
--
Roger Hayter
Roland Perry
Oct 11, 2016, 6:35:07 AM10/11/16
to
In message <1muyb3g.1afls8njludfyN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 10:57:18 on
Tue, 11 Oct 2016, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>It is a particularly egregious false argument to say that moderating on
>name is part of moderating on content.
The Todal has explained the reasons for the policy. Blathering at us
here, isn't going to change that.
--
Roland Perry
Tue, 11 Oct 2016, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>It is a particularly egregious false argument to say that moderating on
>name is part of moderating on content.
here, isn't going to change that.
--
Roland Perry
Roger Hayter
Oct 11, 2016, 7:09:34 AM10/11/16
to
it). I was remarking on the frankly dishonest statement that the
poster's name was simply part of the content on which you are
moderating.
--
Roger Hayter
Roland Perry
Oct 11, 2016, 7:34:34 AM10/11/16
to
In message <1muyf0t.1egmfac4loqilN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 12:09:33 on
There's a whole list of reasons why the content could cause a posting to
fail moderation, and that's just one of them.
--
Roland Perry
Tue, 11 Oct 2016, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>> >It is a particularly egregious false argument to say that moderating on
>> >name is part of moderating on content.
>>
>> The Todal has explained the reasons for the policy. Blathering at us
>> here, isn't going to change that.
>
>I wasn't remarking on Todal's clear policy (whether or not I agree with
>it). I was remarking on the frankly dishonest statement that the
>poster's name was simply part of the content on which you are
>moderating.
It's not a dishonest claim - it's happening!
>> >It is a particularly egregious false argument to say that moderating on
>> >name is part of moderating on content.
>>
>> The Todal has explained the reasons for the policy. Blathering at us
>> here, isn't going to change that.
>
>I wasn't remarking on Todal's clear policy (whether or not I agree with
>it). I was remarking on the frankly dishonest statement that the
>poster's name was simply part of the content on which you are
>moderating.
There's a whole list of reasons why the content could cause a posting to
fail moderation, and that's just one of them.
--
Roland Perry
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 11, 2016, 9:27:27 AM10/11/16
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <nti7k6$lsq$1...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 08:24:38 on Tue,
> 11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <nti5o5$fvt$1...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 07:52:37 on Tue,
>>> 11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
>>> remarked:
>>>>>> Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>>>>>> Spite?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
>>>>> forged name).
>>>>
>>>> How long has this definition of "content" been used in ulm moderation?
>>>
>>> The Todal has said "more than two years".
>>
>> Did he explicitly say that ulm has defined "content" as you describe it for
>> "more than two years", though? If so, I must have missed it and will
>> happily stand corrected.
>
> How explicit do you need? And it was only yesterday, goldfish-brain.
>
> "But mischievously impersonating other posters is a very
> different thing. People notice the name, but not the email
> address.
>
> And as I've previously pointed out, the moderation policy has
> been clear on this subject for more than 2 years."
>
At no point there did he say what you said he had said WRT to the
> In message <nti7k6$lsq$1...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 08:24:38 on Tue,
> 11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <nti5o5$fvt$1...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 07:52:37 on Tue,
>>> 11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
>>> remarked:
>>>>>> Why was Harriette's post discarded? To show "the forger" who's boss?
>>>>>> Spite?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would expect that it was discarded because of the content (ie the
>>>>> forged name).
>>>>
>>>> How long has this definition of "content" been used in ulm moderation?
>>>
>>> The Todal has said "more than two years".
>>
>> Did he explicitly say that ulm has defined "content" as you describe it for
>> "more than two years", though? If so, I must have missed it and will
>> happily stand corrected.
>
> How explicit do you need? And it was only yesterday, goldfish-brain.
>
> "But mischievously impersonating other posters is a very
> different thing. People notice the name, but not the email
> address.
>
> And as I've previously pointed out, the moderation policy has
> been clear on this subject for more than 2 years."
>
definition of "content".
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 11, 2016, 9:27:28 AM10/11/16
to
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 11, 2016, 9:27:28 AM10/11/16
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1muyf0t.1egmfac4loqilN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 12:09:33 on
> Tue, 11 Oct 2016, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>
>>>> It is a particularly egregious false argument to say that moderating on
>>>> name is part of moderating on content.
>>>
>>> The Todal has explained the reasons for the policy. Blathering at us
>>> here, isn't going to change that.
>>
>> I wasn't remarking on Todal's clear policy (whether or not I agree with
>> it). I was remarking on the frankly dishonest statement that the
>> poster's name was simply part of the content on which you are
>> moderating.
>
> It's not a dishonest claim - it's happening!
Then it is an affront to all that the Great And Good once upon a time
> In message <1muyf0t.1egmfac4loqilN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 12:09:33 on
> Tue, 11 Oct 2016, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>
>>>> It is a particularly egregious false argument to say that moderating on
>>>> name is part of moderating on content.
>>>
>>> The Todal has explained the reasons for the policy. Blathering at us
>>> here, isn't going to change that.
>>
>> I wasn't remarking on Todal's clear policy (whether or not I agree with
>> it). I was remarking on the frankly dishonest statement that the
>> poster's name was simply part of the content on which you are
>> moderating.
>
> It's not a dishonest claim - it's happening!
loudly proclaimed ulm for. I doubt they are grateful for the egg you have
thrown on their faces.
> There's a whole list of reasons why the content could cause a posting to
> fail moderation, and that's just one of them.
or Usenet-cultured way, anyway.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 11, 2016, 9:27:28 AM10/11/16
to
part of the content of a post are two entirely separate things.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 11, 2016, 9:27:28 AM10/11/16
to
it.
Roland Perry
Oct 11, 2016, 9:56:33 AM10/11/16
to
In message <ntipbf$hvu$5...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 13:27:11 on Tue,
11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
with me.
>> There's a whole list of reasons why the content could cause a posting to
>> fail moderation, and that's just one of them.
>
>The poster name *isn't* part of the content of a post, not in any rational
>or Usenet-cultured way, anyway.
Of course it is. Godfrey won a lawsuit on that basis.
--
Roland Perry
11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
remarked:
>>>>> It is a particularly egregious false argument to say that moderating on
>>>>> name is part of moderating on content.
>>>>
>>>> The Todal has explained the reasons for the policy. Blathering at us
>>>> here, isn't going to change that.
>>>
>>> I wasn't remarking on Todal's clear policy (whether or not I agree with
>>> it). I was remarking on the frankly dishonest statement that the
>>> poster's name was simply part of the content on which you are
>>> moderating.
>>
>> It's not a dishonest claim - it's happening!
>
>Then it is an affront to all that the Great And Good once upon a time
>loudly proclaimed ulm for. I doubt they are grateful for the egg you have
>thrown on their faces.
I have no idea who these people are, or why you think they'd disagree
>>>>> It is a particularly egregious false argument to say that moderating on
>>>>> name is part of moderating on content.
>>>>
>>>> The Todal has explained the reasons for the policy. Blathering at us
>>>> here, isn't going to change that.
>>>
>>> I wasn't remarking on Todal's clear policy (whether or not I agree with
>>> it). I was remarking on the frankly dishonest statement that the
>>> poster's name was simply part of the content on which you are
>>> moderating.
>>
>> It's not a dishonest claim - it's happening!
>
>Then it is an affront to all that the Great And Good once upon a time
>loudly proclaimed ulm for. I doubt they are grateful for the egg you have
>thrown on their faces.
with me.
>> There's a whole list of reasons why the content could cause a posting to
>> fail moderation, and that's just one of them.
>
>The poster name *isn't* part of the content of a post, not in any rational
>or Usenet-cultured way, anyway.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 11, 2016, 9:56:33 AM10/11/16
to
In message <ntipbe$hvu$1...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 13:27:10 on Tue,
--
Roland Perry
>>>>> How long has this definition of "content" been used in ulm moderation?
>>>>
>>>> The Todal has said "more than two years".
>>>
>>> Did he explicitly say that ulm has defined "content" as you describe it for
>>> "more than two years", though? If so, I must have missed it and will
>>> happily stand corrected.
>>
>> How explicit do you need? And it was only yesterday, goldfish-brain.
>>
>> "But mischievously impersonating other posters is a very
>> different thing. People notice the name, but not the email
>> address.
>>
>> And as I've previously pointed out, the moderation policy has
>> been clear on this subject for more than 2 years."
>
>At no point there did he say what you said he had said WRT to the
>definition of "content".
It's implied in the "mischievous name" being "content".
>>>>
>>>> The Todal has said "more than two years".
>>>
>>> Did he explicitly say that ulm has defined "content" as you describe it for
>>> "more than two years", though? If so, I must have missed it and will
>>> happily stand corrected.
>>
>> How explicit do you need? And it was only yesterday, goldfish-brain.
>>
>> "But mischievously impersonating other posters is a very
>> different thing. People notice the name, but not the email
>> address.
>>
>> And as I've previously pointed out, the moderation policy has
>> been clear on this subject for more than 2 years."
>
>At no point there did he say what you said he had said WRT to the
>definition of "content".
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 11, 2016, 9:56:33 AM10/11/16
to
In message <ntipbf$hvu$4...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 13:27:11 on Tue,
11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
--
Roland Perry
11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
remarked:
>>> It is a particularly egregious false argument to say that moderating on
>>> name is part of moderating on content.
>>
>> The Todal has explained the reasons for the policy. Blathering at us
>> here, isn't going to change that.
>
>The policy that has been quoted and your claim that the poster name forms
>part of the content of a post are two entirely separate things.
No.
>>> It is a particularly egregious false argument to say that moderating on
>>> name is part of moderating on content.
>>
>> The Todal has explained the reasons for the policy. Blathering at us
>> here, isn't going to change that.
>
>The policy that has been quoted and your claim that the poster name forms
>part of the content of a post are two entirely separate things.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 11, 2016, 9:56:34 AM10/11/16
to
In message <ntipbf$hvu$3...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 13:27:11 on Tue,
--
Roland Perry
>Nail on the head, Roger.
Welcome to the blathering club.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Oct 11, 2016, 10:12:53 AM10/11/16
to
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:41:32 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> put
finger to keyboard and typed:
>In message <ntia7q$1a0b$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:09:14 on Tue, 11 Oct
>2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>
this isn't him.
Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com
finger to keyboard and typed:
>In message <ntia7q$1a0b$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:09:14 on Tue, 11 Oct
>2016, Jerry Stuckle <no....@thank.you> remarked:
>
>>> You sound a lot like Judith.
>>
>>You sound a lot like a pompous prig.
>
>Interesting that you don't deny it.
There is a real Jerry Stuckle, who is a regular contributor to Usenet. But
>>
>>You sound a lot like a pompous prig.
>
>Interesting that you don't deny it.
this isn't him.
Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 11, 2016, 10:16:46 AM10/11/16
to
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 11, 2016, 10:16:47 AM10/11/16
to
thread, Roland.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 11, 2016, 10:16:47 AM10/11/16
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ntipbf$hvu$5...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 13:27:11 on Tue,
> 11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
> remarked:
>>>>>> It is a particularly egregious false argument to say that moderating on
>>>>>> name is part of moderating on content.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Todal has explained the reasons for the policy. Blathering at us
>>>>> here, isn't going to change that.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't remarking on Todal's clear policy (whether or not I agree with
>>>> it). I was remarking on the frankly dishonest statement that the
>>>> poster's name was simply part of the content on which you are
>>>> moderating.
>>>
>>> It's not a dishonest claim - it's happening!
>>
>> Then it is an affront to all that the Great And Good once upon a time
>> loudly proclaimed ulm for. I doubt they are grateful for the egg you have
>> thrown on their faces.
>
> I have no idea who these people are, or why you think they'd disagree
> with me.
They know who they are, and they're keeping their heads down.
> In message <ntipbf$hvu$5...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 13:27:11 on Tue,
> 11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
> remarked:
>>>>>> It is a particularly egregious false argument to say that moderating on
>>>>>> name is part of moderating on content.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Todal has explained the reasons for the policy. Blathering at us
>>>>> here, isn't going to change that.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't remarking on Todal's clear policy (whether or not I agree with
>>>> it). I was remarking on the frankly dishonest statement that the
>>>> poster's name was simply part of the content on which you are
>>>> moderating.
>>>
>>> It's not a dishonest claim - it's happening!
>>
>> Then it is an affront to all that the Great And Good once upon a time
>> loudly proclaimed ulm for. I doubt they are grateful for the egg you have
>> thrown on their faces.
>
> I have no idea who these people are, or why you think they'd disagree
> with me.
>>> There's a whole list of reasons why the content could cause a posting to
>>> fail moderation, and that's just one of them.
>>
>> The poster name *isn't* part of the content of a post, not in any rational
>> or Usenet-cultured way, anyway.
>
> Of course it is. Godfrey won a lawsuit on that basis.
particularly with regards the "moderate on content, not poster" maxim, the
posting name attached to a post is not part of the content of the post.
Emily Roberts
Oct 11, 2016, 10:20:37 AM10/11/16
to
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:54:50 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <e62cuv...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
> <the_...@icloud.com> writes
> to this area of Newsnet posted a long, detailed, rather vitriolic
> castigation of me. While this appeared to be in direct response to one
> of my posts, it was not in any way related to what I had said - or, in
> fact, to anything I had ever said or been involved in, anywhere. I
> hadn't the slightest clue what he was on about, so I concluded that his
> attack must have been aimed at something one of my namesakes (of which,
> at the time, there were at least two 'regulars') had done or posted
> elsewhere. As my attacker was not one noted for issuing grovelling
> apologies, I though it best not to embarrass him, and I made no comment.
Was it the one where I called you a "Fuckwit"?
> In message <e62cuv...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
> <the_...@icloud.com> writes
>
>
>
>>But mischievously impersonating other posters is a very different thing.
>>People notice the name, but not the email address.
>>
> This is certainly true. A few years ago, one of the regular contributors
>
>
>>But mischievously impersonating other posters is a very different thing.
>>People notice the name, but not the email address.
>>
> to this area of Newsnet posted a long, detailed, rather vitriolic
> castigation of me. While this appeared to be in direct response to one
> of my posts, it was not in any way related to what I had said - or, in
> fact, to anything I had ever said or been involved in, anywhere. I
> hadn't the slightest clue what he was on about, so I concluded that his
> attack must have been aimed at something one of my namesakes (of which,
> at the time, there were at least two 'regulars') had done or posted
> elsewhere. As my attacker was not one noted for issuing grovelling
> apologies, I though it best not to embarrass him, and I made no comment.
Was it the one where I called you a "Fuckwit"?
The Todal
Oct 11, 2016, 11:12:18 AM10/11/16
to
On 11/10/2016 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
>
> So to make the trite observation that poster name is part of the content
> is no answer at all to the charge of reversing a previous policy based
> on a different, and perfectly valid in the context, definition of
> content to specifically exclude poster name.
>
> Notice I have deliberately failed to distinguish between poster name and
> poster identity here, and it is in this area that I think those that
> want to discard the forger's posts will have to develop their
> justification.
>
The moderators are free to reverse any of their moderation policies or
>
> So to make the trite observation that poster name is part of the content
> is no answer at all to the charge of reversing a previous policy based
> on a different, and perfectly valid in the context, definition of
> content to specifically exclude poster name.
>
> Notice I have deliberately failed to distinguish between poster name and
> poster identity here, and it is in this area that I think those that
> want to discard the forger's posts will have to develop their
> justification.
>
modify any policy, and if you imagine that back in 2004 the community of
Usenet voted for a specific moderation policy, then your memory plays
you false. The community voted for a group, based on the rationale offered.
I'm not "developing" any "justification". I shall leave it to the
barrack-room lawyers here to produce case summaries and skeleton
arguments to be presented to a non existent judge.
What does interest me is how many people here find it irritating to see
posts from (eg) judith m...@privacy.net and janet m...@privacy.net and how
many believe that we should allow them in the interests of freedom of
speech, and how many people are wholly indifferent.
The Todal
Oct 11, 2016, 11:15:25 AM10/11/16
to
On 11/10/2016 14:27, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> Then it is an affront to all that the Great And Good once upon a time
> loudly proclaimed ulm for. I doubt they are grateful for the egg you have
> thrown on their faces.
Perhaps it's time you named the Great and the Good. I certainly have no
> Then it is an affront to all that the Great And Good once upon a time
> loudly proclaimed ulm for. I doubt they are grateful for the egg you have
> thrown on their faces.
idea whom you can be referring to. There are people who occasionally
contribute to this newsgroup whose views I respect, and who have been
involved in usenet for many decades. Were you hoping one day to be
numbered amongst them? Would you care to divulge your gap analysis?
The Todal
Oct 11, 2016, 11:17:40 AM10/11/16
to
On 11/10/2016 15:16, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ntipbf$hvu$3...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 13:27:11 on Tue,
>> 11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
>> remarked:
>>> Nail on the head, Roger.
>>
>> Welcome to the blathering club.
>
> It's very amusing watching you ducking and diving so energetically in this
> thread, Roland.
>
Although it's nice to think we've provided you with some amusement, all
> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ntipbf$hvu$3...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 13:27:11 on Tue,
>> 11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
>> remarked:
>>> Nail on the head, Roger.
>>
>> Welcome to the blathering club.
>
> It's very amusing watching you ducking and diving so energetically in this
> thread, Roland.
>
good things must come to an end. Do you have a games console that you
could now play with?
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 11, 2016, 11:42:33 AM10/11/16
to
The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2016 15:16, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ntipbf$hvu$3...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 13:27:11 on Tue,
>>> 11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
>>> remarked:
>>>> Nail on the head, Roger.
>>>
>>> Welcome to the blathering club.
>>
>> It's very amusing watching you ducking and diving so energetically in this
>> thread, Roland.
>>
>
> Although it's nice to think we've provided you with some amusement, all
> good things must come to an end.
I rather suspect that there'll not be an end to Roland's ducking and diving
> On 11/10/2016 15:16, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ntipbf$hvu$3...@stc.eternal-september.org>, at 13:27:11 on Tue,
>>> 11 Oct 2016, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
>>> remarked:
>>>> Nail on the head, Roger.
>>>
>>> Welcome to the blathering club.
>>
>> It's very amusing watching you ducking and diving so energetically in this
>> thread, Roland.
>>
>
> Although it's nice to think we've provided you with some amusement, all
> good things must come to an end.
over his "content" definition debacle anytime soon.
>Do you have a games console that you
> could now play with?
>
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 11, 2016, 11:42:34 AM10/11/16
to
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 11, 2016, 11:42:34 AM10/11/16
to
simply gives the imposter the validation they're seeking. If everybody, and
I mean everybody across the hierarchy, simply ignored it then, in time, the
imposter would get bored and do something else. Something trolly most
likely, but it'd be something different at least!
Paul Cummins
Oct 11, 2016, 11:43:28 AM10/11/16
to
In article <e64dqh...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com (The
Tracey Gauntlett and Harriette Edison, and I wonder who else will appear
next?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
Todal) wrote:
> What does interest me is how many people here find it irritating to
> see posts from (eg) judith m...@privacy.net and janet m...@privacy.net
> and how many believe that we should allow them in the interests of
> freedom of speech, and how many people are wholly indifferent.
I'm not concerned to see Janet or Judith, but I am concerned to see
> What does interest me is how many people here find it irritating to
> see posts from (eg) judith m...@privacy.net and janet m...@privacy.net
> and how many believe that we should allow them in the interests of
> freedom of speech, and how many people are wholly indifferent.
Tracey Gauntlett and Harriette Edison, and I wonder who else will appear
next?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
Ian Jackson
Oct 11, 2016, 11:43:32 AM10/11/16
to
In article <e64dqh...@mid.individual.net>,
moderators reject the postings. In particular, when forgeries are
approved, I often end up seeing them in quoted text. Some people's
newsreaders don't even quote the email address when quoting, and, as
you say, it takes effort to look at the email address and I only do so
when I do a double-take. No doubt some of the forgeries will slip by
my wetware and do damage to the impersonatee's reputation in my mind.
--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
>What does interest me is how many people here find it irritating to see
>posts from (eg) judith m...@privacy.net and janet m...@privacy.net and how
>many believe that we should allow them in the interests of freedom of
>speech, and how many people are wholly indifferent.
I killfile the nym-shifters even in ulm, but I still value it when the
>What does interest me is how many people here find it irritating to see
>posts from (eg) judith m...@privacy.net and janet m...@privacy.net and how
>many believe that we should allow them in the interests of freedom of
>speech, and how many people are wholly indifferent.
moderators reject the postings. In particular, when forgeries are
approved, I often end up seeing them in quoted text. Some people's
newsreaders don't even quote the email address when quoting, and, as
you say, it takes effort to look at the email address and I only do so
when I do a double-take. No doubt some of the forgeries will slip by
my wetware and do damage to the impersonatee's reputation in my mind.
--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages