As described here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc.com/faq/

...so as long as you don't see them in the UK, and the department that
sells the adds is separate from the department which prepares the news
reports, that's alright then?!

I sense the BBC's own public service argument going up in smoke...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/advertising.shtml

Cheers,
David.

I just re-read an email I sent earlier. It included the words, 'The cherry 
picker put two grooves in the grass I'm afraid. Sorry about that. If anyone 
grumbles I'll go round with a bag of soil and fill them in.'

Bill

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:11:18 +0100, "Bill Wright"
 wrote:

>I just re-read an email I sent earlier. It included the words, 'The cherry 
>picker put two grooves in the grass I'm afraid. Sorry about that. If anyone 
>grumbles I'll go round with a bag of soil and fill them in.'

And serve them right, although bags of soil are a bit unwieldy. I find
half a brick in a sock far more effective.

Cheers,

Colin.

"Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
news:nr-dnYWZFsjc4f_VnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@pipex.net...
>I just re-read an email I sent earlier. It included the words, 'The cherry 
>picker put two grooves in the grass I'm afraid. Sorry about that. If anyone 
>grumbles I'll go round with a bag of soil and fill them in.'

If this 'soil' was from your blocked drains episode, I wouldn't bother...

>
> Bill
>

"Colin Stamp"  wrote in message 
news:tb0564tt8lq3gkvca9q0lqd060jrc2mubf@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:11:18 +0100, "Bill Wright"
>  wrote:
>
>>I just re-read an email I sent earlier. It included the words, 'The cherry
>>picker put two grooves in the grass I'm afraid. Sorry about that. If 
>>anyone
>>grumbles I'll go round with a bag of soil and fill them in.'
>
> And serve them right, although bags of soil are a bit unwieldy. I find
> half a brick in a sock far more effective.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Colin.

Indeed. You can't get a good swing with a bag of soil. Much too heavy. 
Snooker balls in a sock work well for this kind of activity.

"Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
news:nr-dnYWZFsjc4f_VnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@pipex.net...
>I just re-read an email I sent earlier. It included the words, 'The cherry 
>picker put two grooves in the grass I'm afraid. Sorry about that. If anyone 
>grumbles I'll go round with a bag of soil and fill them in.'
>
> Bill
>
More people complain about your continual off-topic posts.
Perhaps you should look at the title of the newsgroups you
post to before pressing send.

On 2008-06-25, john m <john@nospam.2net> wrote:
>
> "Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
> news:nr-dnYWZFsjc4f_VnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>I just re-read an email I sent earlier. It included the words, 'The cherry 
>>picker put two grooves in the grass I'm afraid. Sorry about that. If anyone 
>>grumbles I'll go round with a bag of soil and fill them in.'
>>
>> Bill
>>
> More people complain about your continual off-topic posts.
> Perhaps you should look at the title of the newsgroups you
> post to before pressing send.

Perhaps you should FOAD?

-- 
David Taylor

In article <g3ue3d$glb$1@news.albasani.net>, John m wrote:
> >I just re-read an email I sent earlier. It included the words, 'The cherry 
> >picker put two grooves in the grass I'm afraid. Sorry about that. If anyone 
> >grumbles I'll go round with a bag of soil and fill them in.'
> >
> > Bill
> >
> More people complain about your continual off-topic posts.
> Perhaps you should look at the title of the newsgroups you
> post to before pressing send.

Who's complaining? I haven't complained, and I haven't seen any compliants from 
anybody else either.

Except you of course.

Rod.

In article <g3ue3d$glb$1@news.albasani.net>,
   john m <john@nospam.2net> wrote:

> "Bill Wright"  wrote in message
> news:nr-dnYWZFsjc4f_VnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@pipex.net...
> >I just re-read an email I sent earlier. It included the words, 'The
> >cherry picker put two grooves in the grass I'm afraid. Sorry about
> >that. If anyone grumbles I'll go round with a bag of soil and fill
> >them in.'
> >
> > Bill
> >
> More people complain about your continual off-topic posts.
> Perhaps you should look at the title of the newsgroups you
> post to before pressing send.

Good grief. Perhaps you should learn how to killfile.

-- 
*I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"john m" <john@nospam.2net> wrote in message 
news:g3ue3d$glb$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> "Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
> news:nr-dnYWZFsjc4f_VnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>I just re-read an email I sent earlier. It included the words, 'The cherry 
>>picker put two grooves in the grass I'm afraid. Sorry about that. If 
>>anyone grumbles I'll go round with a bag of soil and fill them in.'
>>
>> Bill
>>
> More people complain about your continual off-topic posts.
> Perhaps you should look at the title of the newsgroups you
> post to before pressing send.

Fair enough. Let's you and I have a little competition. Let's see which of 
us can post the biggest number of on-topic, helpful, knowledgeable posts 
during the next month. You go first. Use 'On topic post' as your subject 
line. When you've contributed something acceptable I'll try to do the same. 
Then it will be back to you.

Bill

In article <g3ue3d$glb$1@news.albasani.net>, john m <john@nospam.2net>
scribeth thus
>
>"Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
>news:nr-dnYWZFsjc4f_VnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>I just re-read an email I sent earlier. It included the words, 'The cherry 
>>picker put two grooves in the grass I'm afraid. Sorry about that. If anyone 
>>grumbles I'll go round with a bag of soil and fill them in.'
>>
>> Bill
>>
>More people complain about your continual off-topic posts.
>Perhaps you should look at the title of the newsgroups you
>post to before pressing send.
>
>

And your contribution to all this is -what- exactly?...
-- 
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:10:47 GMT, "-<GB>-Carpy"
 wrote:

>
>"Colin Stamp"  wrote in message 
>news:tb0564tt8lq3gkvca9q0lqd060jrc2mubf@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:11:18 +0100, "Bill Wright"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>I just re-read an email I sent earlier. It included the words, 'The cherry
>>>picker put two grooves in the grass I'm afraid. Sorry about that. If 
>>>anyone
>>>grumbles I'll go round with a bag of soil and fill them in.'
>>
>> And serve them right, although bags of soil are a bit unwieldy. I find
>> half a brick in a sock far more effective.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Colin.
>
>Indeed. You can't get a good swing with a bag of soil. Much too heavy. 
>Snooker balls in a sock work well for this kind of activity. 
>

<Ray Winston>

Bill Wright, he's the Daddy now.


</Ray Winston>
-- 

Tim

I understand very little of what's being discussed
but for some reason it's fascinating.

(Jon Thompson, urs)

john m wrote:
> "Bill Wright"  wrote in message
> news:nr-dnYWZFsjc4f_VnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> I just re-read an email I sent earlier. It included the words, 'The
>> cherry picker put two grooves in the grass I'm afraid. Sorry about
>> that. If anyone grumbles I'll go round with a bag of soil and fill
>> them in.' Bill
>>
> More people complain about your continual off-topic posts.
> Perhaps you should look at the title of the newsgroups you
> post to before pressing send.

Perhaps you should slit your throat!
-- 
 >^..^< This is Kitty. Copy and paste Kitty into your signature to help
her wipe out Bunny's world domination.

In message g3ue3d$glb$1@news.albasani.net,
john m <john@nospam.2net> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> "Bill Wright"  wrote in message
> news:nr-dnYWZFsjc4f_VnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> I just re-read an email I sent earlier. It included the words, 'The
>> cherry picker put two grooves in the grass I'm afraid. Sorry about
>> that. If anyone grumbles I'll go round with a bag of soil and fill
>> them in.' Bill
>>
> More people complain about your continual off-topic posts.
> Perhaps you should look at the title of the newsgroups you
> post to before pressing send.

Hehheh!

I love it when some random stranger posts a moan about Bill's OT posts.
It's always guaranteed to provoke a stream of abuse in return...

- for what it's worth, I enjoy the OT posts, they're often more interesting 
than half the OnTopic mosts here... and usually guaranteed to raise a giggle 
:)

Oh, and message to 'john m' - Who are you? Are you a regular here, or just 
some saddo that 'patrols' the newsgroups looking for OT posts to complain 
about...? Maybe you should try getting out more, or p'raps take up a more 
constructive hobby. You might feel less bitter about life(??)


-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

ChrisM wrote:

> Oh, and message to 'john m' - Who are you? Are you a regular here, or just 
> some saddo that 'patrols' the newsgroups looking for OT posts to complain 
> about...? 

Google "Tiscali Idiot" ...

-- 
Adrian C

In message 6chc1dF3fr2v9U1@mid.individual.net,
Adrian C <email@here.invalid> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> ChrisM wrote:
>
>> Oh, and message to 'john m' - Who are you? Are you a regular here,
>> or just some saddo that 'patrols' the newsgroups looking for OT
>> posts to complain about...?
>
> Google "Tiscali Idiot" ...

oh, it's that...??!

-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

<uk.tech.digital-tv>
<Bill Wright>
<Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:37:39 +0100>


> Fair enough. Let's you and I have a little competition. Let's see which of 
> us can post the biggest number of on-topic, helpful, knowledgeable posts 
> during the next month.
> 

Did you ask any users on this newsgroup if that was the benchmark 
guideline that should be used for being allowed to make OT posts to this 
newsgroup .

If not - then does that mean that you own this newsgroup ? .

For surely you didnt make up a rule like that just because it happened 
to suit your posting habits .


-- 
www.krustov.co.uk

In message MPG.22cdaeec974ecb3e98b6a3@news.newsreader.com,
Krustov  Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> <uk.tech.digital-tv>
> <Bill Wright>
> <Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:37:39 +0100>
> 
>
>> Fair enough. Let's you and I have a little competition. Let's see
>> which of us can post the biggest number of on-topic, helpful,
>> knowledgeable posts during the next month.
>>
>
> Did you ask any users on this newsgroup if that was the benchmark
> guideline that should be used for being allowed to make OT posts to
> this newsgroup .
>
> If not - then does that mean that you own this newsgroup ? .
>
> For surely you didnt make up a rule like that just because it happened
> to suit your posting habits .

AFAIK, there is no 'benchmark' guideline about making OT posts. As long as 
the posts are marked as such, and are not spam, and are not excessive (for 
the sake of argument, say several posts per day) and most importantly are 
not pi**ing off the MAJORITY of the group then I can see no problem...

Though he's more than capable of defending himself, I think Bill's point was 
that as one of the major contributors of useful and on-topic posts to this 
group, and certainly being a more useful member of the group than 'john m' 
it is a little bit rich for 'john m' to critisise Bill for his OT posts. 
(especially when the vocal majority of the group seem to side with Bill...)

(JMTPW)

-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

<uk.tech.digital-tv>
<ChrisM>
<Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:09:17 +0100>


> I think Bill's point was 
> that as one of the major contributors of useful and on-topic posts to this 
> group, and certainly being a more useful member of the group than 'john m' 
> it is a little bit rich for 'john m' to critisise Bill for his OT posts. 
> 

John m thinks bills OT posts are a bit rich .

Or perhaps you only agree with everybody having the same freedom of 
speech rights on usenet *only* if the opinion given happens to agree 
with your own .


-- 
www.krustov.co.uk

In message , Krustov 
 writes
><uk.tech.digital-tv>
><ChrisM>
><Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:09:17 +0100>
>
>
>> I think Bill's point was
>> that as one of the major contributors of useful and on-topic posts to this
>> group, and certainly being a more useful member of the group than 'john m'
>> it is a little bit rich for 'john m' to critisise Bill for his OT posts.
>>
>
>John m thinks bills OT posts are a bit rich .
>
>Or perhaps you only agree with everybody having the same freedom of
>speech rights on usenet *only* if the opinion given happens to agree
>with your own .
>
>
The vast majority of subscribers to this N/G are happy with Bill's OT 
posts.

That's the only validation he needs.
-- 
Ian

<uk.tech.digital-tv>
<Ian>
<Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:22:15 +0100>


> >John m thinks bills OT posts are a bit rich .
> >
> >Or perhaps you only agree with everybody having the same freedom of
> >speech rights on usenet *only* if the opinion given happens to agree
> >with your own .
> >
> >
> The vast majority of subscribers to this N/G are happy with Bill's OT 
> posts.
> 
> That's the only validation he needs.
> 

I see .

So in effect a clique has been created for the purpose of ganging up to 
victimise and harass a individual user whenever the clique doesnt like 
what somebody says - and to try to make them feel unwelcome .


-- 
www.krustov.co.uk

Ian wrote:
> In message , Krustov
>  writes
>> <uk.tech.digital-tv>
>> <ChrisM>
>> <Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:09:17 +0100>
>> 
>>
>>> I think Bill's point was
>>> that as one of the major contributors of useful and on-topic posts
>>> to this group, and certainly being a more useful member of the
>>> group than 'john m' it is a little bit rich for 'john m' to
>>> critisise Bill for his OT posts.
>>
>> John m thinks bills OT posts are a bit rich .
>>
>> Or perhaps you only agree with everybody having the same freedom of
>> speech rights on usenet *only* if the opinion given happens to agree
>> with your own .
>>
>>
> The vast majority of subscribers to this N/G are happy with Bill's OT
> posts.
>
> That's the only validation he needs.

Whereas some have killfiled Krustov for being such a prat.
-- 
 >^..^< This is Kitty. Copy and paste Kitty into your signature to help
her wipe out Bunny's world domination.

"Krustov"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.22cdc96afd593cdd98b6a6@news.newsreader.com...
> <uk.tech.digital-tv>
> <Ian>
> <Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:22:15 +0100>
> 
>
>> >John m thinks bills OT posts are a bit rich .
>> >
>> >Or perhaps you only agree with everybody having the same freedom of
>> >speech rights on usenet *only* if the opinion given happens to agree
>> >with your own .
>> >
>> >
>> The vast majority of subscribers to this N/G are happy with Bill's OT
>> posts.
>>
>> That's the only validation he needs.
>>
>
> I see .
>
> So in effect a clique has been created for the purpose of ganging up to
> victimise and harass a individual user whenever the clique doesnt like
> what somebody says - and to try to make them feel unwelcome .
>
>
> -- 
> www.krustov.co.uk

I don't think you see at all, actually.  In fact I think you might have the 
beginnings of a persecution complex.  Anything that, by amusing us, makes 
this (or any other NG) a more human place is (IMHO) a good thing.   Life 
without humour and OT content is a very dull place.

Chas

<uk.tech.digital-tv>
<Chas Gill>
<Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:10:59 +0100>


> > So in effect a clique has been created for the purpose of ganging up to
> > victimise and harass a individual user whenever the clique doesnt like
> > what somebody says - and to try to make them feel unwelcome .
> >
> 
> I don't think you see at all, actually.  In fact I think you might have the 
> beginnings of a persecution complex.  Anything that, by amusing us, makes 
> this (or any other NG) a more human place is (IMHO) a good thing.   Life 
> without humour and OT content is a very dull place.
> 

To the people who say John M should be put into a killfilter - its a 
pity they dont practice what they preach .


-- 
www.krustov.co.uk

In article ,
   Krustov  wrote:
> <uk.tech.digital-tv>
> <Ian>
> <Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:22:15 +0100>
> 

> > >John m thinks bills OT posts are a bit rich .
> > >
> > >Or perhaps you only agree with everybody having the same freedom of
> > >speech rights on usenet *only* if the opinion given happens to agree
> > >with your own .
> > >
> > >
> > The vast majority of subscribers to this N/G are happy with Bill's OT 
> > posts.
> > 
> > That's the only validation he needs.
> > 

> I see .

> So in effect a clique has been created for the purpose of ganging up to 
> victimise and harass a individual user whenever the clique doesnt like 
> what somebody says - and to try to make them feel unwelcome .

A clique is a small exclusive group. There is no way of knowing how many
lurk here, so if the majority have a different view all they have to do is
post it. And be ignored, probably.

-- 
*I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

<uk.tech.digital-tv>
<Dave Plowman (News)>
<Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:29:33 +0100>


> > So in effect a clique has been created for the purpose of ganging up to 
> > victimise and harass a individual user whenever the clique doesnt like 
> > what somebody says - and to try to make them feel unwelcome .
> 
> A clique is a small exclusive group. There is no way of knowing how many
> lurk here
> 

What does a newsgroup clique have to do with lurkers ? .


-- 
www.krustov.co.uk

"Krustov"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.22cdaeec974ecb3e98b6a3@news.newsreader.com...
> <uk.tech.digital-tv>
> <Bill Wright>
> <Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:37:39 +0100>
> 
>
>> Fair enough. Let's you and I have a little competition. Let's see which 
>> of
>> us can post the biggest number of on-topic, helpful, knowledgeable posts
>> during the next month.
>>
>
> Did you ask any users on this newsgroup if that was the benchmark
> guideline that should be used for being allowed to make OT posts to this
> newsgroup .

Of course not, and I would never say that the posting of 'good' messages 
justifies the posting of 'bad' ones (be they judged bad due to being off 
topic, obscene, boring, or written by an environmentalist), but it does seem 
to me that some of us contribute more to the life of this newsgroup than 
these people who pop up occasionally just to cry 'off topic'.

Incidentally my original message was in fact not really off topic at all. 
Those of us who actually work in the TV reception industry are always 
interested to hear of difficulties caused by working at heights.

Bill

"Krustov"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.22cdc96afd593cdd98b6a6@news.newsreader.com...
> So in effect a clique has been created for the purpose of ganging up to
> victimise and harass a individual user whenever the clique doesnt like
> what somebody says - and to try to make them feel unwelcome .

It isn't so much a clique as a sort of general loose consensus, I think. 
Most people on here are happy to see the occasional off-topic post, 
especially if it is of interest to them. Either that or it doesn't bother 
them, and they have a 'live and let live' attitude.

Antics with cherry pickers and the writing of reports to management agencies 
are topics of interest to aerial installers, of which there are several in 
this group.

I don't think that disagreeing with someone amounts to victimisation, even 
if a lot of people do it in chorus. And frankly, if someone pops up from 
nowhere to say something mildly antagonistic then I think many people's 
reaction will be to make them feel unwelcome, because that's what they are.

Bill

"Chas Gill"  wrote in message 
news:mdGdnTqRp-4VIv7VnZ2dnUVZ8srinZ2d@bt.com...
> I don't think you see at all, actually.  In fact I think you might have 
> the beginnings of a persecution complex.  Anything that, by amusing us, 
> makes this (or any other NG) a more human place is (IMHO) a good thing. 
> Life without humour and OT content is a very dull place.

How very true! Everyone in business knows that a meeting goes much better if 
there's a pleasant atmosphere, with the occasional little bit of whimsy 
thrown in just to lighten things.

Bill

<uk.tech.digital-tv>
<Bill Wright>
<Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:45:59 +0100>


> >> Fair enough. Let's you and I have a little competition. Let's see which 
> >> of
> >> us can post the biggest number of on-topic, helpful, knowledgeable posts
> >> during the next month.
> >>
> >
> > Did you ask any users on this newsgroup if that was the benchmark
> > guideline that should be used for being allowed to make OT posts to this
> > newsgroup .
> 
> Of course not, and I would never say that the posting of 'good' messages 
> justifies the posting of 'bad' ones (be they judged bad due to being off 
> topic, obscene, boring, or written by an environmentalist), but it does seem 
> to me that some of us contribute more to the life of this newsgroup than 
> these people who pop up occasionally just to cry 'off topic'.
> 

Does the newsgroup charter say anything about how many posts a user 
needs to make before they are allowed to cry 'off topic' ? .


-- 
www.krustov.co.uk

<uk.tech.digital-tv>
<Bill Wright>
<Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:02:00 +0100>


> > I don't think you see at all, actually.  In fact I think you might have 
> > the beginnings of a persecution complex.  Anything that, by amusing us, 
> > makes this (or any other NG) a more human place is (IMHO) a good thing. 
> > Life without humour and OT content is a very dull place.
> 
> How very true! Everyone in business knows that a meeting goes much better if 
> there's a pleasant atmosphere, with the occasional little bit of whimsy 
> thrown in just to lighten things.
> 

Perhaps the point the other poster is making is that you make far too 
many OT posts .

It could even be argued that if you cut down on them - then people 
wouldnt actually have any cause for complaint .

TMK your own website says that you yourself cant be bothered or arsed 
with certain things .


-- 
www.krustov.co.uk

<uk.tech.digital-tv>
<Bill Wright>
<Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:55:38 +0100>


> > So in effect a clique has been created for the purpose of ganging up to
> > victimise and harass a individual user whenever the clique doesnt like
> > what somebody says - and to try to make them feel unwelcome .
> 
> It isn't so much a clique as a sort of general loose consensus, I think. 
> Most people on here are happy to see the occasional off-topic post, 
> especially if it is of interest to them. Either that or it doesn't bother 
> them, and they have a 'live and let live' attitude.
> 
> Antics with cherry pickers and the writing of reports to management agencies 
> are topics of interest to aerial installers, of which there are several in 
> this group.
> 
> I don't think that disagreeing with someone amounts to victimisation, even 
> if a lot of people do it in chorus. And frankly, if someone pops up from 
> nowhere to say something mildly antagonistic then I think many people's 
> reaction will be to make them feel unwelcome, because that's what they are.
> 

So its the old school playgound mentality then .

i.e. your either in my gang or you arnt .


-- 
www.krustov.co.uk

On 2008-06-26, Krustov  wrote:
>
> Does the newsgroup charter say anything about how many posts a user 
> needs to make before they are allowed to cry 'off topic' ? .

Crying "off topic" is also "off topic" under the newsgroup charter.

HTH,

-- 
David Taylor

In article , Krustov wrote:
> > >
> > The vast majority of subscribers to this N/G are happy with Bill's OT 
> > posts.
> > 
> > That's the only validation he needs.
> > 
> 
> I see .
> 
> So in effect a clique has been created for the purpose of ganging up to 
> victimise and harass a individual user whenever the clique doesnt like 
> what somebody says - and to try to make them feel unwelcome .

Yes it's a clique if you like, but one that anyone is welcome to join if they 
contribute something worthwhile, i.e. informative or amusing. Wading straight 
in with a complaint is not going to endear a newcomer to any group. I've been 
here a while but never seen anytthing I'd describe as "ganging up".

Rod.

In article , Krustov wrote:
> > I don't think that disagreeing with someone amounts to victimisation, 
even 
> > if a lot of people do it in chorus. And frankly, if someone pops up from 
> > nowhere to say something mildly antagonistic then I think many people's 
> > reaction will be to make them feel unwelcome, because that's what they 
are.
> > 
> 
> So its the old school playgound mentality then .
> 
> i.e. your either in my gang or you arnt .

You still haven't quite got it. Anybody can be in the "gang" if they want to 
be, but starting with an antagonistic attitude isn't the best approach. Would 
you wany anybody in *your* gang if the first thing they said was a complaint?

Rod.

In article , Krustov
 scribeth thus
><uk.tech.digital-tv>
><Bill Wright>
><Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:02:00 +0100>
>
>
>> > I don't think you see at all, actually.  In fact I think you might have 
>> > the beginnings of a persecution complex.  Anything that, by amusing us, 
>> > makes this (or any other NG) a more human place is (IMHO) a good thing. 
>> > Life without humour and OT content is a very dull place.
>> 
>> How very true! Everyone in business knows that a meeting goes much better if 
>> there's a pleasant atmosphere, with the occasional little bit of whimsy 
>> thrown in just to lighten things.
>> 
>
>Perhaps the point the other poster is making is that you make far too 
>many OT posts .
>
>It could even be argued that if you cut down on them - then people 
>wouldnt actually have any cause for complaint .
>
>TMK your own website says that you yourself cant be bothered or arsed 
>with certain things .
>
>

Can you try making a relevant one to the ng then?..
-- 
Tony Sayer

"Krustov"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.22ce09f07747061598b6b1@news.newsreader.com...
> So its the old school playgound mentality then .
>
> i.e. your either in my gang or you arnt .

If that's the way you would conceptualise the thing, then yes. But I think 
most of us see these matters in a more adult framework.

Bill

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in 
message news:VA.00000432.006bf1d6@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...
> You still haven't quite got it. Anybody can be in the "gang" if they want 
> to
> be, but starting with an antagonistic attitude isn't the best approach. 
> Would
> you wany anybody in *your* gang if the first thing they said was a 
> complaint?

It's a basic lesson of living. If you want people to listen to you and 
respect you then first you have to let them get to know you, and bursting in 
and being horrid won't achieve that. The reason is that you will alienate 
them right from the start. That might not be fair or rational, but it's the 
way humans are.

Suppose you move house and walk into the nearby pub for the first time, 
thinking that it would be very convenient for this pub to become become your 
local. There's a crowd of locals in there, but they're a bit drunk and 
they're noisy, and you've got a bit of a headache. They're really a bit out 
of order, and you'd be justified in asking the landlord to tell them to tone 
it down. Would you do it?

Bill

"Krustov"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.22ce0ae56b5aef1a98b6b2@news.newsreader.com...
> Perhaps the point the other poster is making is that you make far too
> many OT posts .
Ah well, far too many in whose opinion? The general attitude here seems to 
be that a fair proportion of off topic posts are actively welcomed, as long 
as they provide interest or amusement.

> TMK your own website says that you yourself cant be bothered or arsed
> with certain things .
Funnily enough, that characteristic is beginning to make itself felt right 
now. I feel a strange weariness. Anyone else?

Bill

>>TMK your own website says that you yourself cant be bothered or arsed
>>with certain things .

Thinking about it, I must ask you. Could you give me some examples of this?

Bill

In article , 
insertmybusinessname@f2s.com says...
> 
> "Krustov"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.22ce0ae56b5aef1a98b6b2@news.newsreader.com...
> > Perhaps the point the other poster is making is that you make far too
> > many OT posts .
> Ah well, far too many in whose opinion? The general attitude here seems to 
> be that a fair proportion of off topic posts are actively welcomed, as long 
> as they provide interest or amusement.
> 
> > TMK your own website says that you yourself cant be bothered or arsed
> > with certain things .
> Funnily enough, that characteristic is beginning to make itself felt right 
> now. I feel a strange weariness. Anyone else?

Bill - ignore these idiots please? ANY of your posts are welcome as far as 
I am concerned. Can I suggest these critics retire to moderated forums 
where they can remain OT post free - but perhaps not attention free?

Krustov wrote:

> Did you ask any users on this newsgroup if that was the benchmark 
> guideline that should be used for being allowed to make OT posts to this 
> newsgroup .

So under what conditions do you feel it's appropriate to make OT postings ?

I ask, because examining your posts in uk.media.tv.misc, in the last 7 days 
you have started off topic threads on the following subjects:-

Prostitution
Cancer
Tango Bottles
Fuel Cost
Pickled Eggs
Drugs

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In message MPG.22cdb7cb77a010d098b6a4@news.newsreader.com,
Krustov  Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> <uk.tech.digital-tv>
> <ChrisM>
> <Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:09:17 +0100>
> 
>
>> I think Bill's point was
>> that as one of the major contributors of useful and on-topic posts
>> to this group, and certainly being a more useful member of the group
>> than 'john m' it is a little bit rich for 'john m' to critisise Bill
>> for his OT posts.
>>
>
> John m thinks bills OT posts are a bit rich .
>
> Or perhaps you only agree with everybody having the same freedom of
> speech rights on usenet *only* if the opinion given happens to agree
> with your own .

Hang on a minute. Whether or not the opinion agrees with mine is not the 
issue here.

While I don't think there is a 'Usenet Charter', I think it is generally 
acceptable to post messages that are not related to the subject of the 
group, as long as
a) They are marked as OT or TOT
b) They are not pi**ing off the majority of the rest of the group.

Since john m is the only person that complained, and taking into 
consideration the fact that (as far as I'm aware) he's not a regular 
contributor to this NG (other than to complain).
I don't believe that his opinion (IN THIS SITUATION) should hold much 
weight.


-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

<uk.tech.digital-tv>
<Mark Carver>
<Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:56:36 +0100>


> examining your posts in uk.media.tv.misc
> 

***** STALKER ALERT *****


-- 
www.krustov.co.uk

Krustov wrote:
> <uk.tech.digital-tv>
> <Mark Carver>
> <Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:56:36 +0100>
> 
> 
>> examining your posts in uk.media.tv.misc
>>
> 
> ***** STALKER ALERT *****

Err, no. I lurk in, and contribute to that group. You post an awful lot 
of stuff in there, some of it off topic.
Now, calm down, and answer my question please.

<uk.tech.digital-tv>
<Mark Carver>
<Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:01:06 +0100>


> >> examining your posts in uk.media.tv.misc
> >>
> > 
> > ***** STALKER ALERT *****
> 
> Err, no. I lurk in, and contribute to that group. You post an awful lot 
> of stuff in there, some of it off topic.
> 

If you lurk and sometimes contribute to that group - then why not say 
that in the first place ? .


-- 
www.krustov.co.uk

Krustov wrote:
> <uk.tech.digital-tv>
> <Mark Carver>
> <Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:01:06 +0100>
> 
> 
>>>> examining your posts in uk.media.tv.misc
>>>>
>>> ***** STALKER ALERT *****
>> Err, no. I lurk in, and contribute to that group. You post an awful lot 
>> of stuff in there, some of it off topic.
>>
> 
> If you lurk and sometimes contribute to that group - then why not say 
> that in the first place ? .

Why should my presence or otherwise in that group be of relevance ? And 
you know damn well that I'm an active member of that group, you've even 
responded to posts I've made in there.

Anyway, I note that you still haven't answered my original question, 
it's just a perfectly reasonable one I think. Your profile in misc.tv is 
as high as Bill's is in here, that's the point I'm making. No need to be 
paranoid, just because I compiled a list of your OT posts in about 30 
secs using nothing more than Ctl-F in Thunderbird.

<uk.tech.digital-tv>
<Mark Carver>
<Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:33:01 +0100>


> >>>> examining your posts in uk.media.tv.misc
> >>>>
> >>> ***** STALKER ALERT *****
> >> Err, no. I lurk in, and contribute to that group. You post an awful lot 
> >> of stuff in there, some of it off topic.
> >>
> > 
> > If you lurk and sometimes contribute to that group - then why not say 
> > that in the first place ? .
> 
> Why should my presence or otherwise in that group be of relevance ? And 
> you know damn well that I'm an active member of that group, you've even 
> responded to posts I've made in there.
> 

I'll take your word for it that i've responded to posts you have made to 
uk.media.tv.misc but i would have to be honest and say i didnt recognise 
your username .

So obviously you made a zero impression at the time .


-- 
www.krustov.co.uk

Krustov wrote:
> <uk.tech.digital-tv>
> <Mark Carver>

>> Why should my presence or otherwise in that group be of relevance ? And 
>> you know damn well that I'm an active member of that group, you've even 
>> responded to posts I've made in there.
>>
> 
> I'll take your word for it that i've responded to posts you have made to 
> uk.media.tv.misc but i would have to be honest and say i didnt recognise 
> your username .
> 
> So obviously you made a zero impression at the time .

At the risk of being accused of stalking myself:-

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.media.tv.misc/search?q=carver&start=0&scoring=d&

I have no intention of progressing down a <paxman/howard> course with my 
original question, I'll let others form their own conclusions.

Bill Wright wrote:
> How very true! Everyone in business knows that a meeting goes much better if 
> there's a pleasant atmosphere, with the occasional little bit of whimsy 
> thrown in just to lighten things.

I read that as "occasional little bit of whisky"

That would lighten meetings too - or at least encourage a full and frank 
exchange of views

Owain

"Jim Mason"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.22ce468f56ee99fd98982a@news.individual.net...
> Bill - ignore these idiots please? ANY of your posts are welcome as far as
> I am concerned. Can I suggest these critics retire to moderated forums
> where they can remain OT post free - but perhaps not attention free?

It's fun though. It's like having those daft arguments with little children. 
Sort of like wrestling with one arm tied behind your back. Of course, it 
often ends in tears and sulks!

"Oh come on Tarquin, Daddy was only teasing!"

"I hate Daddy! He's a pig!"

Bill

In article ,
Bill Wright  wrote:
>"Oh come on Tarquin, Daddy was only teasing!"

Isn't calling your child Tarquin rather like calling him Adolf?

-- Richard
-- 
In the selection of the two characters immediately succeeding the numeral 9,
consideration shall be given to their replacement by the graphics 10 and 11 to
facilitate the adoption of the code in the sterling monetary area. (X3.4-1963)

"Richard Tobin"  wrote in message 
news:g42tvv$2vjl$2@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
> In article ,
> Bill Wright  wrote:
>>"Oh come on Tarquin, Daddy was only teasing!"
>
> Isn't calling your child Tarquin rather like calling him Adolf?

Possibly, in terms of the mockery he will face in later years. But they call 
their kids all sorts of names these days you know. I sometimes help a 
teacher prepare labels and so forth for the new starters, and I have to ring 
up and confirm some of the names. At one time it was John, Paul, George, and 
the occasional Ringo.

Our Paul says if the baby turns out to be a boy he will call it Boris. 
Strangely, I wrote a children's storybook many years ago about a rabbit 
called Red Ken. That was years before Mr Livingstone rose to notoriety.

Bill