In uk.net.news.config on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:37:25 +0100, Just zis
Guy, you know?  wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:38:39 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Oh me! Oh my! 20% of the posts were abusive? Wow!!!
>
> Yes.  You might not care but around half the regulars have left as a
> result.

That's their problem, not Usenet's. You need a thick skin for Usenet
nowadays, just as you did in the 80s and 90s. I don't favour changing
Usenet to accommodate the wishes of people who don't like Usenet's
traditions.

> And Google Groups does not have killfiles.

There are alternatives to Google Groups, including several fine GUI
newsreaders that are as easy to install and use as popular software
like Firefox and Thunderbird. My current top recommendation is XPN:
<http://xpn.altervista.org/index-en.html>

-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

>Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
>exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might as
>well make all of Usenet moderated right now.

Wot he said.


-- 
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Put thecat out to email

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

>Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
>exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might as
>well make all of Usenet moderated right now.

That's your view, and you're entitled to it, but a few minutes of
Googling shows that you have a higher than usual tolerance for being
maligned by fuckwits.  Kudos to you for that, but don't make the error
of believing that everybody is as tolerant of trolling, and don't
forget that a large number of urc regulars - who we'd love to have
back - have already been driven away by the never-ending torrent of
spitefulness.


Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
 - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:41:01  
uk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow 

>On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
>>exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might as
>>well make all of Usenet moderated right now.
>
>Wot he said.

He said "irruption", Geoff.

Maybe it is a familiar word to you up north but here in Lunnen I've not 
herded it spoke ... I can only guess what it means; it sounds like it 
would hurt a lot and possibly be terminal.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote ...

> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
> >exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might as
> >well make all of Usenet moderated right now.
>
> That's your view, and you're entitled to it, but a few minutes of
> Googling shows that you have a higher than usual tolerance for being
> maligned by fuckwits.  Kudos to you for that, but don't make the error
> of believing that everybody is as tolerant of trolling, and don't
> forget that a large number of urc regulars - who we'd love to have
> back - have already been driven away by the never-ending torrent of
> spitefulness.

It does however take two to tango, and it seems URC members must take
responsibility for perpetuating the problem. If regulars are being driven
out it's either that they haven't kill-filed or spillage through such
engagement has become intolerable.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

>In uk.net.news.config on Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:39:41 +0100, jms
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:43:59 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 19:56:13 +0100, Mark McNeill
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>She puts me in mind of Daffy Duck; and it's not *just* that word.
>>>
>>>More like Mafalda Hopkirk.  Daffy Duck is funny.
>>>
>>>Guy
>>
>> Do you think it is funny to lie to your friends?
>
>I think it's funny that a halfwit like you is having so much success
>as a troll. I'm having fun pointing and laughing at your idiocy, but
>it seems that some URC posters are under the impression that what you
>write about them is worth refuting. This makes them almost as funny as
>you.
>
>Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
>exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might as
>well make all of Usenet moderated right now.


Thanks for your considered opinion.

I missed the odd post where you think that you may have pointed
out/laughed at anything I have said.

Oh - was it the one where you swallowed the "I don't repeat myself"
bait which was just for you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yeees - a bite.
Well done - I knew you were not bright.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry I made you look silly there.


Now what is it that makes you jump to the conclusion that I am a
half-wit?

Don't be shy?  Are you medically qualified?


What you say is  what I have told them for over a year.

I have already won fifty quid - and it looks like the vote will
provide another twenty - perhaps even thirty.

Love it.

--        
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.

In uk.net.news.config on Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:04:05 +0100, Just zis
Guy, you know?  wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
>>exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might as
>>well make all of Usenet moderated right now.
>
> That's your view, and you're entitled to it, but a few minutes of
> Googling shows that you have a higher than usual tolerance for being
> maligned by fuckwits.

Being maligned by fuckwits, and laughing at their efforts, is part of
the fun of Usenet. And anybody can join in!

> Kudos to you for that, but don't make the error
> of believing that everybody is as tolerant of trolling, and don't
> forget that a large number of urc regulars - who we'd love to have
> back - have already been driven away by the never-ending torrent of
> spitefulness.

But they've been driven away because they don't really like the
traditional Usenet ethos, which is based on reading what you want to
read and ignoring the rest, while never taking anything seriously
enough to be angered by it. 

People who want to read only stuff that won't make them angry are
already well-served by Web forums. 


-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

In uk.net.news.config on Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:37:03 +0100, jms
 wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>In uk.net.news.config on Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:39:41 +0100, jms
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:43:59 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 19:56:13 +0100, Mark McNeill
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>She puts me in mind of Daffy Duck; and it's not *just* that word.
>>>>
>>>>More like Mafalda Hopkirk.  Daffy Duck is funny.
>>>>
>>>>Guy
>>>
>>> Do you think it is funny to lie to your friends?
>>
>>I think it's funny that a halfwit like you is having so much success
>>as a troll. I'm having fun pointing and laughing at your idiocy, but
>>it seems that some URC posters are under the impression that what you
>>write about them is worth refuting. This makes them almost as funny as
>>you.
>>
>>Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
>>exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might as
>>well make all of Usenet moderated right now.
>
> Thanks for your considered opinion.

You're welcome.

<...>

-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:37:03  
uk.net.news.config jms 

>I have already won fifty quid - and it looks like the vote will
>provide another twenty - perhaps even thirty.

Is this real money?  If so I'd like a part in the stakes.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

"Wm..."  wrote in message 
news:DvvmSd8FlKgKFwRN@[127.0.0.1]...
> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:37:03  
> uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>I have already won fifty quid - and it looks like the vote will
>>provide another twenty - perhaps even thirty.
>
> Is this real money?  If so I'd like a part in the stakes.

Doesn't look like a very good return for time invested though - well below 
minimum wage.

Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> considered Mon, 10 Aug 2009
22:32:32 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>In uk.net.news.config on Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:39:41 +0100, jms
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:43:59 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 19:56:13 +0100, Mark McNeill
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>She puts me in mind of Daffy Duck; and it's not *just* that word.
>>>
>>>More like Mafalda Hopkirk.  Daffy Duck is funny.
>>>
>>>Guy
>>
>> Do you think it is funny to lie to your friends?
>
>I think it's funny that a halfwit like you is having so much success
>as a troll. I'm having fun pointing and laughing at your idiocy, but
>it seems that some URC posters are under the impression that what you
>write about them is worth refuting. This makes them almost as funny as
>you.
>
>Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
>exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might as
>well make all of Usenet moderated right now.

You propose that, I'd vote for it.
A troll free usenet would be a wonderful thing.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:38:08 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> But they've been driven away because they don't really like the
> traditional Usenet ethos, which is based on reading what you want to
> read and ignoring the rest, while never taking anything seriously
> enough to be angered by it.

That depends.  Your description doesn't really describe the Usenet ethos
when I started reading before the Great Renaming.  Your ethos best describes
a conversationalist group, there are more technical groups in which people 
were always less tolerant of such chaff.

-- 
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" 
   - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Wm... said:
> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:41:01 
> uk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow 
>
>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross
>> <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
>>> exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might
>>> as well make all of Usenet moderated right now.
>>
>> Wot he said.
>
> He said "irruption", Geoff.
>
> Maybe it is a familiar word to you up north but here in Lunnen I've
> not herded it spoke ... I can only guess what it means; it sounds
> like it would hurt a lot and possibly be terminal.


You might get drowneded.
http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Irruption


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

kat wrote:
> Wm... said:
>> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:41:01 
>> uk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow 
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross
>>> <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
>>>> exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might
>>>> as well make all of Usenet moderated right now.
>>> Wot he said.
>> He said "irruption", Geoff.
>>
>> Maybe it is a familiar word to you up north but here in Lunnen I've
>> not herded it spoke ... I can only guess what it means; it sounds
>> like it would hurt a lot and possibly be terminal.
> 
> 
> You might get drowneded.
> http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Irruption
> 
> 
Maybe "irruption" is a collective noun for a halfwitted 
trollery(whatever a 'trollery' is)?

Bod wrote:
> kat wrote:
>> Wm... said:
>>> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:41:01 
>>> uk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow 
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross
>>>> <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
>>>>> exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might
>>>>> as well make all of Usenet moderated right now.
>>>> Wot he said.
>>> He said "irruption", Geoff.
>>>
>>> Maybe it is a familiar word to you up north but here in Lunnen I've
>>> not herded it spoke ... I can only guess what it means; it sounds
>>> like it would hurt a lot and possibly be terminal.
>>
>>
>> You might get drowneded.
>> http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Irruption
>>
>>
> Maybe "irruption" is a collective noun for a halfwitted 
> trollery(whatever a 'trollery' is)?
> 
Out of interest,the word "irrupt" is identical in meaning to "erupt",
or is there a subtle difference?

On 2009-08-11, Bod  wrote:
> Bod wrote:
>> kat wrote:
>>> Wm... said:
>>>> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:41:01 
>>>> uk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow 
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross
>>>>> <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
>>>>>> exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might
>>>>>> as well make all of Usenet moderated right now.
>>>>> Wot he said.
>>>> He said "irruption", Geoff.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it is a familiar word to you up north but here in Lunnen I've
>>>> not herded it spoke ... I can only guess what it means; it sounds
>>>> like it would hurt a lot and possibly be terminal.
>>>
>>>
>>> You might get drowneded.
>>> http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Irruption
>>>
>>>
>> Maybe "irruption" is a collective noun for a halfwitted 
>> trollery(whatever a 'trollery' is)?
>> 
> Out of interest,the word "irrupt" is identical in meaning to "erupt",
> or is there a subtle difference?

It would mean "to break into" rather than "to break out of". Like the
difference between implode and explode.

Bod said:
> Bod wrote:
>> kat wrote:
>>> Wm... said:
>>>> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:41:01
>>>>  uk.net.news.config
>>>> Geoff Berrow 
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross
>>>>> <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as
>>>>>> jms exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup,
>>>>>> we might as well make all of Usenet moderated right now.
>>>>> Wot he said.
>>>> He said "irruption", Geoff.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it is a familiar word to you up north but here in Lunnen I've
>>>> not herded it spoke ... I can only guess what it means; it sounds
>>>> like it would hurt a lot and possibly be terminal.
>>>
>>>
>>> You might get drowneded.
>>> http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Irruption
>>>
>>>
>> Maybe "irruption" is a collective noun for a halfwitted
>> trollery(whatever a 'trollery' is)?
>>
> Out of interest,the word "irrupt" is identical in meaning to "erupt",
> or is there a subtle difference?

Erupt is to break out, irrupt is to break into.   As far as I can see 
anyway.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

kat wrote:
> Bod said:
>> Bod wrote:
>>> kat wrote:
>>>> Wm... said:
>>>>> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:41:01
>>>>>  uk.net.news.config
>>>>> Geoff Berrow 
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross
>>>>>> <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as
>>>>>>> jms exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup,
>>>>>>> we might as well make all of Usenet moderated right now.
>>>>>> Wot he said.
>>>>> He said "irruption", Geoff.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe it is a familiar word to you up north but here in Lunnen I've
>>>>> not herded it spoke ... I can only guess what it means; it sounds
>>>>> like it would hurt a lot and possibly be terminal.
>>>>
>>>> You might get drowneded.
>>>> http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Irruption
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Maybe "irruption" is a collective noun for a halfwitted
>>> trollery(whatever a 'trollery' is)?
>>>
>> Out of interest,the word "irrupt" is identical in meaning to "erupt",
>> or is there a subtle difference?
> 
> Erupt is to break out, irrupt is to break into.   As far as I can see 
> anyway.
> 
> 
Ah yes,thanks.

jms wrote:

> 
> I have already won fifty quid - and it looks like the vote will
> provide another twenty - perhaps even thirty.
> 

Sad, that one's entire existance relies on betting.
Even sadder is the amount of time spent of proving your game and going 
'Nyah, Nyah'

meh

(again)

-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Wm... wrote:
> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:41:01  
> uk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow 
> 
>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
>>> exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might as
>>> well make all of Usenet moderated right now.
>>
>> Wot he said.
> 
> He said "irruption", Geoff.
> 
> Maybe it is a familiar word to you up north but here in Lunnen I've not 
> herded it spoke ... I can only guess what it means; it sounds like it 
> would hurt a lot and possibly be terminal.
> 

Can I reccommend watching the re-runs of The Sweeney.
Shouting Jack Regan is fond of such words.
Eg, "There's gonna be an irruption" meaning that Jack will be come even 
angrier than the usual state, more veins appear on the forehead and even 
more sweat on the troubled (but tough) brow.
('Git yer trahziz on, yer nicked' seems to be common in most 'real life' 
cop shows these days.)




-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Wm... wrote:
> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:37:03  
> uk.net.news.config jms 
> 
>> I have already won fifty quid - and it looks like the vote will
>> provide another twenty - perhaps even thirty.
> 
> Is this real money?  If so I'd like a part in the stakes.
> 
Can I hold part of the stake?

-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:29:41  
uk.rec.cycling Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>

>Wm... wrote:
>> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:37:03 
>>  uk.net.news.config jms 
>>
>>
>>> I have already won fifty quid - and it looks like the vote will
>>> provide another twenty - perhaps even thirty.
>>  Is this real money?  If so I'd like a part in the stakes.
>>
>Can I hold part of the stake?

The jms may have bet against urcm being created, it wasn't exactly clear 
which way it had betted.

I'll be clear and say I think urcm will be created and I'm prepared to 
put money on that.

If Keith is going to hold our money on this bet my reply address works.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:24:43  
uk.rec.cycling Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>

>Wm... wrote:
>> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:41:01 
>>  uk.net.news.config Geoff 
>>Berrow 
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross 
>>><pjr@example.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
>>>> exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might as
>>>> well make all of Usenet moderated right now.
>>>
>>> Wot he said.
>>  He said "irruption", Geoff.
>>  Maybe it is a familiar word to you up north but here in Lunnen I've 
>>not  herded it spoke ... I can only guess what it means; it sounds 
>>like it  would hurt a lot and possibly be terminal.
>>
>
>Can I reccommend watching the re-runs of The Sweeney.

You can recommend anything you like :)

>Shouting Jack Regan is fond of such words.
>Eg, "There's gonna be an irruption" meaning that Jack will be come even 
>angrier than the usual state, more veins appear on the forehead and 
>even more sweat on the troubled (but tough) brow.
>('Git yer trahziz on, yer nicked' seems to be common in most 'real 
>life' cop shows these days.)

I may be wrong but I think that was eruption rather than irruption.

Maybe we talk different?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Quoting  The Happy Hippy :
>It does however take two to tango, and it seems URC members must take
>responsibility for perpetuating the problem. If regulars are being driven
>out it's either that they haven't kill-filed

I think we're still, some months on, missing an explanation of how we are
to killfile people who change socks constantly.
-- 
David Damerell  Oil is for sissies
Yesterday was Leicesterday, July.
Today is Brieday, July.
Tomorrow will be Gouday, July.

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:43:29 <bWf*G1fOs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> 
uk.rec.cycling David Damerell 

>Quoting  The Happy Hippy :
>>It does however take two to tango, and it seems URC members must take
>>responsibility for perpetuating the problem. If regulars are being driven
>>out it's either that they haven't kill-filed
>
>I think we're still, some months on, missing an explanation of how we are
>to killfile people who change socks constantly.

Have you heard about UKV and uk.* ? :)

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wm... wrote:
> Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:24:43  
> uk.rec.cycling Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>
> 
>> Wm... wrote:
>>> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:41:01 
>>>   uk.net.news.config 
>>> Geoff Berrow 
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
>>>>> exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might as
>>>>> well make all of Usenet moderated right now.
>>>>
>>>> Wot he said.
>>>  He said "irruption", Geoff.
>>>  Maybe it is a familiar word to you up north but here in Lunnen I've 
>>> not  herded it spoke ... I can only guess what it means; it sounds 
>>> like it  would hurt a lot and possibly be terminal.
>>>
>>
>> Can I reccommend watching the re-runs of The Sweeney.
> 
> You can recommend anything you like :)
> 
>> Shouting Jack Regan is fond of such words.
>> Eg, "There's gonna be an irruption" meaning that Jack will be come 
>> even angrier than the usual state, more veins appear on the forehead 
>> and even more sweat on the troubled (but tough) brow.
>> ('Git yer trahziz on, yer nicked' seems to be common in most 'real 
>> life' cop shows these days.)
> 
> I may be wrong but I think that was eruption rather than irruption.
> 

I do belive that was what I was illustrating.
Admittedly Jack Reagan never wore the customary pearly king outfit as 
expected by visitors to Lunnun but the dialect was right. O.K. he wasn't 
doing the Morse accent so most of Middle England(tm) wouldn't have 
understood, either.

"We're the sweeney son an' we aint 'ad any dinna!"




-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Wm... wrote:
> Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:29:41  
> uk.rec.cycling Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>
> 
>> Wm... wrote:
>>> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:37:03 
>>>   uk.net.news.config jms 
>>> 
>>>
>>>> I have already won fifty quid - and it looks like the vote will
>>>> provide another twenty - perhaps even thirty.
>>>  Is this real money?  If so I'd like a part in the stakes.
>>>
>> Can I hold part of the stake?
> 
> The jms may have bet against urcm being created, it wasn't exactly clear 
> which way it had betted.
> 
> I'll be clear and say I think urcm will be created and I'm prepared to 
> put money on that.
> 
> If Keith is going to hold our money on this bet my reply address works.
> 

I was thinking more on the 'Vlad the Impaler' sort of stake.

(O.K. for those who like leather - Kate Beckinsale (or Hugh Jackman))


-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

On 11 Aug 2009 14:43:29 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>Quoting  The Happy Hippy :
>>It does however take two to tango, and it seems URC members must take
>>responsibility for perpetuating the problem. If regulars are being driven
>>out it's either that they haven't kill-filed
>
>I think we're still, some months on, missing an explanation of how we are
>to killfile people who change socks constantly.

I think we're much more lacking an explanation of how a
self-important, odiously unpleasant, and wildly deranged 'tard like
you could possibly be considered as a moderator. But hey ho, YMMV and
all that...

In message , Peter J Ross 
<pjr@example.invalid> writes
>In uk.net.news.config on Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:04:05 +0100, Just zis
>Guy, you know?  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:32:32 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as jms
>>>exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we might as
>>>well make all of Usenet moderated right now.
>>
>> That's your view, and you're entitled to it, but a few minutes of
>> Googling shows that you have a higher than usual tolerance for being
>> maligned by fuckwits.
>
>Being maligned by fuckwits, and laughing at their efforts, is part of
>the fun of Usenet. And anybody can join in!

Not everybodies idea of fun coincides with yours.
>
>> Kudos to you for that, but don't make the error
>> of believing that everybody is as tolerant of trolling, and don't
>> forget that a large number of urc regulars - who we'd love to have
>> back - have already been driven away by the never-ending torrent of
>> spitefulness.
>
>But they've been driven away because they don't really like the
>traditional Usenet ethos, which is based on reading what you want to
>read and ignoring the rest, while never taking anything seriously
>enough to be angered by it.

Are yes 'tradition' always such a good argument for not changing 
something.
-- 
Chris French

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:34:00  
uk.rec.cycling Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>

>"We're the sweeney son an' we aint 'ad any dinna!"

Is dinner an evening or lunch time meal?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:36:42  
uk.rec.cycling Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>

>I was thinking more on the 'Vlad the Impaler' sort of stake.

My apologies.

>(O.K. for those who like leather - Kate Beckinsale (or Hugh Jackman))

I've got it now, thank you.

P.S. do you think there are many fetishists here?  As a cyclist I'm 
wondering what could be so interesting about my bicycle or my clothes.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

In news:zFvKYZVGEagKFw1I@[127.0.0.1],
Wm...  tweaked the Babbage-Engine to 
tell us:
> Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:34:00 
> uk.rec.cycling Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>
>
>> "We're the sweeney son an' we aint 'ad any dinna!"
>
> Is dinner an evening or lunch time meal?

Jack Regan was from Manchester, so probably the former.

-- 
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I have always maintained that one can never have too many
pictures of cats playing table tennis.

In uk.net.news.config on Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:22:29 -0500, Andy
Leighton  wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:38:08 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> But they've been driven away because they don't really like the
>> traditional Usenet ethos, which is based on reading what you want to
>> read and ignoring the rest, while never taking anything seriously
>> enough to be angered by it.
>
> That depends.  Your description doesn't really describe the Usenet ethos
> when I started reading before the Great Renaming.  Your ethos best describes
> a conversationalist group, there are more technical groups in which people 
> were always less tolerant of such chaff.

Sure. I have different standards for "rec" and "comp" groups. But the
traditional tolerance for "noise" in "rec" groups is an argument
*against* making a "uk.rec" group moderated.



-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

In uk.net.news.config on 11 Aug 2009 14:43:29 +0100 (BST), David
Damerell  wrote:

> Quoting  The Happy Hippy :
>>It does however take two to tango, and it seems URC members must take
>>responsibility for perpetuating the problem. If regulars are being driven
>>out it's either that they haven't kill-filed
>
> I think we're still, some months on, missing an explanation of how we are
> to killfile people who change socks constantly.

By adjusting your killfile from time to time.

People who morph *a lot* are probably in violation of their news
providers' AUP/TOS anyway.


-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

In uk.net.news.config on Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:16:13 +0100, Wm...
 wrote:

> Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:43:29 <bWf*G1fOs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> 
> uk.rec.cycling David Damerell 
>
>>Quoting  The Happy Hippy :
>>>It does however take two to tango, and it seems URC members must take
>>>responsibility for perpetuating the problem. If regulars are being driven
>>>out it's either that they haven't kill-filed
>>
>>I think we're still, some months on, missing an explanation of how we are
>>to killfile people who change socks constantly.
>
> Have you heard about UKV and uk.* ? :)

They walked into a pub with a twelve-inch pianist?

Y'know, the committee and the vote-taker are doing a good job. The
only reason to continue participating in these threads is to point and
laugh at the funny wee kooks.


-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:15:16 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

<snip>


>
>Y'know, the committee and the vote-taker are doing a good job. The
>only reason to continue participating in these threads is to point and
>laugh at the funny wee kooks.


Spot on.

I thought the "big tits" comment was one of the best I had seen for
some time.  So much thought must have gone in to it - and it really
showed your maturity.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:09:58 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

>In uk.net.news.config on 11 Aug 2009 14:43:29 +0100 (BST), David
>Damerell  wrote:
>
>> Quoting  The Happy Hippy :
>>>It does however take two to tango, and it seems URC members must take
>>>responsibility for perpetuating the problem. If regulars are being driven
>>>out it's either that they haven't kill-filed
>>
>> I think we're still, some months on, missing an explanation of how we are
>> to killfile people who change socks constantly.
>
>By adjusting your killfile from time to time.
>
>People who morph *a lot* are probably in violation of their news
>providers' AUP/TOS anyway.


Do you think Chapman would have been when he posted as Lou Knee?

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:25:37  
uk.net.news.config jms 

>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:09:58 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In uk.net.news.config on 11 Aug 2009 14:43:29 +0100 (BST), David
>>Damerell  wrote:
>>
>>> Quoting  The Happy Hippy :
>>>>It does however take two to tango, and it seems URC members must take
>>>>responsibility for perpetuating the problem. If regulars are being driven
>>>>out it's either that they haven't kill-filed
>>>
>>> I think we're still, some months on, missing an explanation of how we are
>>> to killfile people who change socks constantly.
>>
>>By adjusting your killfile from time to time.
>>
>>People who morph *a lot* are probably in violation of their news
>>providers' AUP/TOS anyway.
>
>
>Do you think Chapman would have been when he posted as Lou Knee?

No

Don't ask questions you don't really want answers to.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:09:13 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:25:37  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:09:58 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In uk.net.news.config on 11 Aug 2009 14:43:29 +0100 (BST), David
>>>Damerell  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Quoting  The Happy Hippy :
>>>>>It does however take two to tango, and it seems URC members must take
>>>>>responsibility for perpetuating the problem. If regulars are being driven
>>>>>out it's either that they haven't kill-filed
>>>>
>>>> I think we're still, some months on, missing an explanation of how we are
>>>> to killfile people who change socks constantly.
>>>
>>>By adjusting your killfile from time to time.
>>>
>>>People who morph *a lot* are probably in violation of their news
>>>providers' AUP/TOS anyway.
>>
>>
>>Do you think Chapman would have been when he posted as Lou Knee?
>
>No



Why not?

In uk.net.news.config on Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:24:51 +0100, jms
 wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:15:16 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>Y'know, the committee and the vote-taker are doing a good job. The
>>only reason to continue participating in these threads is to point and
>>laugh at the funny wee kooks.
>
> Spot on.
>
> I thought the "big tits" comment was one of the best I had seen for
> some time.  So much thought must have gone in to it - and it really
> showed your maturity.

Now playing:
Rolling Stones - Get Yer Ya-Yas Out


Christ, are you hilarious or what?



-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

In article ,
Peter J Ross   wrote:
>People who morph *a lot* are probably in violation of their news
>providers' AUP/TOS anyway.
>
 Which aren't enforced.

-- 
Jonathan Amery.   People need hope, People need loving,
   #####            People need trust from a fellow man.
  #######__o      People need love to make a good living,     - "People need
  #######'/         People need faith and a helping hand.        love", ABBA

In uk.rec.cycling Peter J Ross twisted the electrons to say:
> Sure. I have different standards for "rec" and "comp" groups. But the
> traditional tolerance for "noise" in "rec" groups is an argument
> *against* making a "uk.rec" group moderated.

I wasn't aware that anyone was proposing making a uk.rec.* group
moderated?  When was the RFD for that posted?
-- 
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:54:26 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

>In uk.net.news.config on Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:24:51 +0100, jms
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:15:16 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>>Y'know, the committee and the vote-taker are doing a good job. The
>>>only reason to continue participating in these threads is to point and
>>>laugh at the funny wee kooks.
>>
>> Spot on.
>>
>> I thought the "big tits" comment was one of the best I had seen for
>> some time.  So much thought must have gone in to it - and it really
>> showed your maturity.
>
>Now playing:
>Rolling Stones - Get Yer Ya-Yas Out
>
>
>Christ, are you hilarious or what?

Are you trying for the most childish poster in unnc ever?

You're getting there.

I blame these social-interaction  shortcomings in people like yourself
on failings in the education system.

Have you much longer to do at school?

Are you considering a long term future on the dole?

--     

The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.  Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

Quoting  Peter J Ross  :
>Damerell  wrote:
>>I think we're still, some months on, missing an explanation of how we are
>>to killfile people who change socks constantly.
>By adjusting your killfile from time to time.

You mean, constantly. The current outbreak of socks is one-per-post.
What's the use of killfiling a one-per-post sock?

>People who morph *a lot* are probably in violation of their news
>providers' AUP/TOS anyway.

Mmm. It takes me an average of three weeks to explain to BT Internet:

a) what USENET is
b) that what I have sent them is really not an email
c) that unmoderated newsgroups do not have administrators
d) that their news service is outsourced to Giganews but they still handle
   abuse reports
e) that no headers are missing from a news article I forward them
f) that the IP address of the poster is not found in any header of a news
   article from their system
g) that while it is found in emails from their system, it's still not an
   email
h) that the X-Trace header does contain this information
i) that Giganews can interpret it for them.

Then, apparently, they do nothing.
-- 
David Damerell  Distortion Field!
Yesterday was Gouday, July.
Today is Chedday, July.
Tomorrow will be Stilday, July - a weekend.

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting  Peter J Ross  :
>> Damerell  wrote:
>>> I think we're still, some months on, missing an explanation of how we are
>>> to killfile people who change socks constantly.
>> By adjusting your killfile from time to time.
> 
> You mean, constantly. The current outbreak of socks is one-per-post.
> What's the use of killfiling a one-per-post sock?

Why bother - just ignore them if you don't want to read them.  What do 
you about the articles or letters in free magazines or newspapers that 
you aren't interested in?

>> People who morph *a lot* are probably in violation of their news
>> providers' AUP/TOS anyway.
> 
> Mmm. It takes me an average of three weeks to explain to BT Internet:
> ...

Why bother?  Live and let live.  You sound like a good reason why the 
details of who delivered the message on behalf of the poster should not 
be made known.

Free speech should be cherished - not suppressed.

-- 
Matt B

On 13 Aug 2009 18:03:10 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>Quoting  Peter J Ross  :
>>Damerell  wrote:
>>>I think we're still, some months on, missing an explanation of how we are
>>>to killfile people who change socks constantly.
>>By adjusting your killfile from time to time.
>
>You mean, constantly. The current outbreak of socks is one-per-post.
>What's the use of killfiling a one-per-post sock?
>
>>People who morph *a lot* are probably in violation of their news
>>providers' AUP/TOS anyway.
>
>Mmm. It takes me an average of three weeks to explain to BT Internet:
>
>a) what USENET is
>b) that what I have sent them is really not an email
>c) that unmoderated newsgroups do not have administrators
>d) that their news service is outsourced to Giganews but they still handle
>   abuse reports
>e) that no headers are missing from a news article I forward them
>f) that the IP address of the poster is not found in any header of a news
>   article from their system
>g) that while it is found in emails from their system, it's still not an
>   email
>h) that the X-Trace header does contain this information
>i) that Giganews can interpret it for them.
>
>Then, apparently, they do nothing.


and what sort of things do you like to police on usenet?

--     

The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.  Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

In uk.net.news.config on Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:36:30 +0000 (UTC),
Alistair Gunn  wrote:

> In uk.rec.cycling Peter J Ross twisted the electrons to say:
>> Sure. I have different standards for "rec" and "comp" groups. But the
>> traditional tolerance for "noise" in "rec" groups is an argument
>> *against* making a "uk.rec" group moderated.
>
> I wasn't aware that anyone was proposing making a uk.rec.* group
> moderated?  When was the RFD for that posted?

The plan is for URC posters to decamp to URCM. Or are people saying
"I'll continue using URC" or "I'll use both groups"? I haven't seen
people saying that.

Y'know, if URC is genuinely unusable, it would be appropriate to
propose removing it.

-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:36:50 +0100
Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:

> In uk.net.news.config on Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:36:30 +0000 (UTC),
> Alistair Gunn  wrote:
> 
> > In uk.rec.cycling Peter J Ross twisted the electrons to say:
> >> Sure. I have different standards for "rec" and "comp" groups. But
> >> the traditional tolerance for "noise" in "rec" groups is an
> >> argument *against* making a "uk.rec" group moderated.
> >
> > I wasn't aware that anyone was proposing making a uk.rec.* group
> > moderated?  When was the RFD for that posted?
> 
> The plan is for URC posters to decamp to URCM.

But an existing unmoderated group is not going to be made moderated,
is it?

> Or are people saying
> "I'll continue using URC" or "I'll use both groups"? I haven't seen
> people saying that.
> 
I'm pretty sure it's been said.

> Y'know, if URC is genuinely unusable, it would be appropriate to
> propose removing it.
> 
But it's not unusable.

In uk.net.news.config on 13 Aug 2009 13:23:56 +0100 (BST), Jonathan
Amery  wrote:

> In article ,
> Peter J Ross   wrote:
>>People who morph *a lot* are probably in violation of their news
>>providers' AUP/TOS anyway.
>>
>  Which aren't enforced.

If people are driven to use providers whose AUP/TOS is too lax to be
generally acceptable, the Path: header is available for killfiling
purposes.


-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

On 2009-08-15, Peter J Ross wrote:

> In uk.net.news.config on 13 Aug 2009 13:23:56 +0100 (BST), Jonathan
> Amery  wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> Peter J Ross   wrote:
>>>People who morph *a lot* are probably in violation of their news
>>>providers' AUP/TOS anyway.
>>>
>>  Which aren't enforced.
>
> If people are driven to use providers whose AUP/TOS is too lax to be
> generally acceptable, the Path: header is available for killfiling
> purposes.

Expensive scoring!!!

Peter J Ross wrote:
> In uk.net.news.config on Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:36:30 +0000 (UTC),
> Alistair Gunn  wrote:
> 
>> In uk.rec.cycling Peter J Ross twisted the electrons to say:
>>> Sure. I have different standards for "rec" and "comp" groups. But the
>>> traditional tolerance for "noise" in "rec" groups is an argument
>>> *against* making a "uk.rec" group moderated.
>> I wasn't aware that anyone was proposing making a uk.rec.* group
>> moderated?  When was the RFD for that posted?
> 
> The plan is for URC posters to decamp to URCM. Or are people saying
> "I'll continue using URC" or "I'll use both groups"? I haven't seen
> people saying that.
> 
> Y'know, if URC is genuinely unusable, it would be appropriate to
> propose removing it.
> 
Oh,URC is perfectly useable, so long as you want to discuss Critical 
Mass, bad driving, bad cycling, fatal accidents............

-- 
Roger Thorpe

Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....

In article ,
Peter J Ross   wrote:
>In uk.net.news.config on 13 Aug 2009 13:23:56 +0100 (BST), Jonathan
>Amery  wrote:
>>  Which aren't enforced.
>
>If people are driven to use providers whose AUP/TOS is too lax to be
>generally acceptable, the Path: header is available for killfiling
>purposes.
>
 If I killfiled every provider who didn't enforce their news AUP then
I might as well just go away and read a good book.

-- 
Jonathan Amery.      Oh, Master, grant that I may never seek
   #####                So much to be consoled as to console;
  #######__o         To be understood as to understand;
  #######'/             To be loved as to love with all my soul.

Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> wrote in 
news:slrnh8e3ii.t5e.pjr@pjr.gotdns.org:

> In uk.net.news.config on Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:36:30 +0000 (UTC),
> Alistair Gunn  wrote:
> 
>> In uk.rec.cycling Peter J Ross twisted the electrons to say:
>>> Sure. I have different standards for "rec" and "comp" groups. But the
>>> traditional tolerance for "noise" in "rec" groups is an argument
>>> *against* making a "uk.rec" group moderated.
>>
>> I wasn't aware that anyone was proposing making a uk.rec.* group
>> moderated?  When was the RFD for that posted?
> 
> The plan is for URC posters to decamp to URCM. Or are people saying
> "I'll continue using URC" or "I'll use both groups"? I haven't seen
> people saying that.

I can guarantee that *will* happen.  I will put money on it happening.  
Which makes you wonder why they want a moderated newsgroup.

In uk.rec.cycling Mr. Benn <%%@%%.%> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> wrote in 
> news:slrnh8e3ii.t5e.pjr@pjr.gotdns.org:

>> In uk.net.news.config on Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:36:30 +0000 (UTC),
>> Alistair Gunn  wrote:
>> 
>>> In uk.rec.cycling Peter J Ross twisted the electrons to say:
>>>> Sure. I have different standards for "rec" and "comp" groups. But the
>>>> traditional tolerance for "noise" in "rec" groups is an argument
>>>> *against* making a "uk.rec" group moderated.
>>>
>>> I wasn't aware that anyone was proposing making a uk.rec.* group
>>> moderated?  When was the RFD for that posted?
>> 
>> The plan is for URC posters to decamp to URCM. Or are people saying
>> "I'll continue using URC" or "I'll use both groups"? I haven't seen
>> people saying that.

> I can guarantee that *will* happen.  I will put money on it happening.  
> Which makes you wonder why they want a moderated newsgroup.

Your argument depends on the assumption that you're right. 

How much are you prepared to bet?

-- 
Chris Malcolm

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:42:54  
uk.net.news.config jms 

>Why not?

You might not like the answer.

P.S. please quote better in future.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:28:03 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:42:54  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>Why not?
>
>You might not like the answer.
>
>P.S. please quote better in future.



I know that you find long sentences and paragraphs testing.

Here it is again in a simpler form:

Please explain why you think Chapman would not have been in violation
of his newsproviders' AUP/TOSwhen he posted as Lou Knee - even if you
think I will not like the answer.

Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:42:57  
uk.net.news.config jms 

>On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:28:03 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:42:54 
>>uk.net.news.config jms 
>>
>>>Why not?
>>
>>You might not like the answer.
>>
>>P.S. please quote better in future.
>
>
>
>I know that you find long sentences and paragraphs testing.
>
>Here it is again in a simpler form:
>
>Please explain why you think Chapman would not have been in violation
>of his newsproviders' AUP/TOSwhen he posted as Lou Knee - even if you
>think I will not like the answer.

Because, like you, he may have been able to post using any address he 
liked.

I know that I can.  For unnc purposes an it isn't important unless it 
votes more than once.  I don't think GuyC will have done that.

Get it yet?

For clarity: my (more than one) ISP's allow me to be anonymous.

Lou Knee is an obsession of yours and not important.

I am Lou Knee, or perhaps more interestingly, I was Lou Knee.  Now you 
know.

Fucking idiot.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:44:18 +0100, "Wm...the fuckwit"
 wrote:

>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:42:57  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:28:03 +0100, "Wm..."
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:42:54 
>>>uk.net.news.config jms 
>>>
>>>>Why not?
>>>
>>>You might not like the answer.
>>>
>>>P.S. please quote better in future.
>>
>>
>>
>>I know that you find long sentences and paragraphs testing.
>>
>>Here it is again in a simpler form:
>>
>>Please explain why you think Chapman would not have been in violation
>>of his newsproviders' AUP/TOSwhen he posted as Lou Knee - even if you
>>think I will not like the answer.
>
>Because, like you, he may have been able to post using any address he 
>liked.

And you think that would be acceptable to his provider - using any
address he likes?

>I know that I can.  For unnc purposes an it isn't important unless it 
>votes more than once.  I don't think GuyC will have done that.

Ah - so you don't know  - "you don't think  (well we knew that) he
will have done it"

So you are allowed to post using different names/addresses   - can you
really ?

Isn't that against your  Ts&Cs.

Most odd
--        
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.

Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:53:22  
uk.net.news.config jms 


>>Because, like you, he may have been able to post using any address he
>>liked.
>
>And you think that would be acceptable to his provider - using any
>address he likes?

Yes

>>I know that I can.  For unnc purposes an it isn't important unless it
>>votes more than once.  I don't think GuyC will have done that.
>
>Ah - so you don't know  - "you don't think  (well we knew that) he
>will have done it"

You really are dumb.

>So you are allowed to post using different names/addresses   - can you
>really ?

Umpteen, unlimited, as many as I want.

>Isn't that against your  Ts&Cs.

Nope

>Most odd

Not really.

It is your mind that is limited.

I also know how to post anonymously.

plus I have a few other domians, just in case.

You're not very good at this.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:44:18 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>>Please explain why you think Chapman would not have been in violation
>>of his newsproviders' AUP/TOSwhen he posted as Lou Knee - even if you
>>think I will not like the answer.

>Because, like you, he may have been able to post using any address he 
>liked.

The Lou Knee poster used Google Groups. The Google ToS terms are here:
<http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS> and the groups ToS terms are
here:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/googlegroups/terms_of_service.html> - I
think those are the terms that would govern anyone using that account.
Google has a  web interface for reporting ToS violations.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
 - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:44:18 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>For unnc purposes an it isn't important unless it 
>votes more than once.  I don't think GuyC will have done that.

Given the relatively high chances of a joe-job I took the precaution
of asking the vote-taker to contact me if anyone else looked as if
they were me or purporting to be me in order to get my vote
discounted.  I know Pedt from the shed, to try to hoodwink him is
simply not something I would consider even if I thought I could get
away with it.

Quite why jms, who claims to have made multiple votes, would want to
stir up that particular muddy pool is another matter.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
 - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

In message , jms 
 writes
>On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:44:18 +0100, "Wm...the fuckwit"
> wrote:

>>Because, like you, he may have been able to post using any address he
>>liked.

>So you are allowed to post using different names/addresses   - can you
>really ?

>Isn't that against your  Ts&Cs.

Not directly against Demon's (and I cannot say the post that you replied 
to was conclusively sent via Demon), apparently; however it hasn't 
always said this:

Forged Headers

There are several types of unacceptable behaviour involving the forgery of article headers or article addresses.

It is abuse to post articles with headers which would mislead recipients into believing that some other system or user had created the articles.
Demon Internet's systems will add header lines to try and foil such forgery, but articles will still be treated as abuse even if Demon Internet
actions make the attempted forgery apparent.

It is abuse to post articles with headers which would cause responses to these articles, solicited or otherwise, to be delivered to unwilling
third parties, or to inappropriate or unreasonable newsgroups. In particular, it is abuse to arrange for email replies to be delivered to an
email address which you do not have permission to use.

I have certainly posted with many different "from" addresses; and 
currently use perhaps 200 ... (but only one at the moment on Usenet)

It does depend upon what package one has with which ISP ... (or which 
Usenet provider)
-- 
Rex M F Smith

In message , "Just zis Guy, 
you know?"  writes

>Quite why jms, who claims to have made multiple votes, would want to
>stir up that particular muddy pool is another matter.

Paranoid checking sucks up the vote-taker's time and energy?

(Just a thought)
-- 
Rex M F Smith

On 2009-08-16, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Quite why jms, who claims to have made multiple votes, would want to
> stir up that particular muddy pool is another matter.


To try to nullify the CVF and delay the process?

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:52:42 <lBGaorEqhSiKFwG+@gehena.demon.co.uk> 
uk.net.news.config Rex M F Smith 

>In message , "Just zis Guy, 
>you know?"  writes
>
>>Quite why jms, who claims to have made multiple votes, would want to
>>stir up that particular muddy pool is another matter.
>
>Paranoid checking sucks up the vote-taker's time and energy?
>
>(Just a thought)

The votetaker was also ill during that time but seems to have soldiered 
on.  Thanks, Pedt.

Why jms and it's ilk do what they do?  I've no idea really but my guess 
is that they (if there is more than one person) figure they've lost the 
battle and will simply make life unpleasant for as many people as 
possible for as long as possible.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:59:41  
uk.net.news.config Adam Funk 

>On 2009-08-16, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> Quite why jms, who claims to have made multiple votes, would want to
>> stir up that particular muddy pool is another matter.
>
>
>To try to nullify the CVF and delay the process?

Successful multiple voting is, as people with foo know, actually quite 
difficult.  The numbers become large very soon and the effort enormous. 
Along with that there is money.  You need many accounts with many 
providers, they cost money.

So, jms (and friends if it has one) may have voted more than once but 
are unlikely to win and certainly won't recover their costs (time, etc)

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Rex M F Smith wrote:
> In message , "Just zis Guy, 
> you know?"  writes
> 
>> Quite why jms, who claims to have made multiple votes, would want to
>> stir up that particular muddy pool is another matter.
> 
> Paranoid checking sucks up the vote-taker's time and energy?
> 
> (Just a thought)

It's the game, remember?

Group created - jms wins
Group not created - jms wins

Yup, real wierd but that's the way it is - we are all prawns in the game 
of jms.

yeh, sad, real sad.



-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

In uk.net.news.config on Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:42:22 +0100, Rob Morley
 wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:36:50 +0100
> Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In uk.net.news.config on Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:36:30 +0000 (UTC),
>> Alistair Gunn  wrote:
>> 
>> > In uk.rec.cycling Peter J Ross twisted the electrons to say:
>> >> Sure. I have different standards for "rec" and "comp" groups. But
>> >> the traditional tolerance for "noise" in "rec" groups is an
>> >> argument *against* making a "uk.rec" group moderated.
>> >
>> > I wasn't aware that anyone was proposing making a uk.rec.* group
>> > moderated?  When was the RFD for that posted?
>> 
>> The plan is for URC posters to decamp to URCM.
>
> But an existing unmoderated group is not going to be made moderated,
> is it?

No, but it's going to lose a bunch of on-topic posters.

>> Or are people saying
>> "I'll continue using URC" or "I'll use both groups"? I haven't seen
>> people saying that.
>> 
> I'm pretty sure it's been said.

Where and when?

>> Y'know, if URC is genuinely unusable, it would be appropriate to
>> propose removing it.
>> 
> But it's not unusable.

So why not use it?

You folks must be getting fat and flabby, because you're busy here
when you could be out cycling



-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> writes:

>> But an existing unmoderated group is not going to be made moderated,
>> is it?
>
> No, but it's going to lose a bunch of on-topic posters.

Most of them have gone already.  Of the rest, half of us only hang
around for the troll-baiting - honestly, if I want to discuss cycling with
cyclists I'll use a web forum

> You folks must be getting fat and flabby, because you're busy here
> when you could be out cycling

Just got in, in fact


-dan

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:54:16 +0100
Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:

> In uk.net.news.config on Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:42:22 +0100, Rob Morley
>  wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:36:50 +0100
> > Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> The plan is for URC posters to decamp to URCM.
> >
> > But an existing unmoderated group is not going to be made moderated,
> > is it?
> 
> No, but it's going to lose a bunch of on-topic posters.

Some of them may remain.  I think the group has gained a few people
since the current silliness drove others away, so it's not necessarily
terminal yet. 
> 
> >> Or are people saying
> >> "I'll continue using URC" or "I'll use both groups"? I haven't seen
> >> people saying that.
> >> 
> > I'm pretty sure it's been said.
> 
> Where and when?

Look for yourself if you're bothered - that's what Google Groups is for.
> 
> >> Y'know, if URC is genuinely unusable, it would be appropriate to
> >> propose removing it.
> >> 
> > But it's not unusable.
> 
> So why not use it?

I do.
> 
> You folks must be getting fat and flabby, because you're busy here
> when you could be out cycling
> 
Knackered knee = little cycling