-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

             delete moderated newsgroup uk.business.telework

Newsgroup line:
uk.business.telework    Teleworkers and their employers (Moderated)


      *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: remove uk.business.telework

The moderated newsgroup uk.business.telework has not had any posts
since 2005 on groups.google.co.uk or news.demon.co.uk, except for
the one by the proponent detailed below.

It should be noted that a previous attempt to remove the group -
in 2005 - failed as the attempt to remove the group sparked some
life into it, which has now died down.

An attempt to contact the moderator via uk-business-telework-request
(at) usenet.org.uk resulted in a 'bounce' stating that
ukbt-mods@sandj.demon.co.uk is undeliverable.   Mailing the moderation
address uk-business-telework (at) usenet.org.uk also resulted in a
'bounce'.  On Tuesday, 29th September, the proponent posted to the
group, bypassing the moderation system, looking for volunteers; none
have come forward.

The group is clearly 'dead'.  Removing it seems the only viable option.

END RATIONALE


PROPOSAL: remove uk.business.telework

That the newsgroup uk.business.telework be rmgroup'ed.


CHARTER: uk.business.telework

uk.business.telework is a moderated newsgroup for the discussion
and dissemination of information in the field of telework, as it
relates to the United Kingdom.

The term 'telework' concerns the use of information and communication
technologies (ICTs) to enable work to be carried out at a distance
from where it is needed or where it may have conventionally taken
place. Such a role may include (but is not limited to) :

    * Home-based telework, or telecommuting.
    * Mobile telework.
    * Telecentres.
    * Telecottages.
    * Relocated business functions.
    * Outsourcing.
    * Dispersed team working.
    * Governments, researchers and other interested individuals.

It is intended that the emphasis of newsgroup discussions will
concern 'work-related' issues as opposed to 'technical' issues which
may be more suitably answered in another newsgroup, however, this
does not preclude technical issues from being raised if they relate
to the field of telework.

This group will not accept postings which are:

    * related to specific hardware or software problems,
    * binaries,
    * solicitations for employment or job offers (which are more suitable
      for the uk.job.* hierarchies),
    * of a direct and commercial nature, which includes postings offering
      commercial products or services, or those containing self-promotion
      material,
    * not in English,
    * crossposted to more than 4 other newsgroups.

Moderation policy: uk.business.telework

uk.business.telework employs a combination of human and robomoderation.

The robomoderator will initially screen all posts, automatically
rejecting *any* article which:

    * is crossposted to more than 4 other newsgroups
    * contains encoded binary files

The robomoderator will then forward all new poster's submissions
to the moderation team, who will review them for compliance with
the group's charter. If the moderation team approves their first
post, the poster will be added to the robomoderators 'white list'.

Individuals who are placed on the 'white list' will have all further
posts automatically accepted by the robomoderator, unless the article
fails the robomoderators initial screening (above).

From time to time individuals may violate the charter of the
newsgroup, in which case they will be removed from the robomoderator's
'white list' and all further posts forwarded to the moderation team
for review.

The moderation team will reply to individuals regarding articles
which have been rejected. However posters should be aware that if
they are using an invalid Reply To: address, they should clearly
state a valid address for correspondence within the article itself,
in such circumstances the moderation team will make no extra effort
to communicate with the poster.

The moderation team may cancel articles which have been posted to
the group, due to forgery and errors in moderation scripts.  Appeal
of rejected submissions: uk.business.telework If you feel your
article has been wrongly rejected you should reword your post and
re-submit to the submission address .

If this article is also rejected, you may appeal directly to the
support team at  where
your article will be considered for acceptance. If a majority of
the ubt-team decides to accept the article, it will be forwarded
to the newsgroup. If the article is rejected again, the person
appealing the rejection will be sent a summary of the ubt-team's
ruling.  Structure: uk.business.telework The ubt-team is made up
of four moderators who are collectively known as the 'moderation
team' and five facilitators who are collectively known as the
'support-team'. They provide expertise and help with administrative
tasks and other services which may be required to assist the
moderation team.

Anyone may volunteer for the moderation team, should a position
become available. Appointments can only be made by a majority
decision of the full ubt-team.

Moderators may also be removed by a majority decision of the full
ubt-team. Moderators wishing to retire/resign should make a statement
to this effect on the newsgroup, giving at least one months notice
so that a replacement may be appointed.

Positions on the support team are usually made by invitation only,
to ensure a good mix of skills/experience is available in support
of the group. However you may wish to register your interest with
the ubt-team, so your skills/experience may be considered in the
event of any vacancy.

Submission advice: uk.business.telework
Submissions may be posted directly through your news reader software
(which will then be forwarded to the moderation team), or mailed
directly to our submission address .

Please try to use a descriptive 'subject' field in your article,
and only quote relevant text in follow-ups. Try starting a new
thread, by changing the subject field when a topic has begun to
wander. Please observe reasonable netiquette on signatures.  Moderation
submission address

    uk-business-telework@usenet.org.uk

The formal arrangements for modification established when the group
was created have collapsed, and the moderation has now been taken
over by Simon Reed, with the approval of the last remaining moderator
from the original team. It is anticipated that a formal review of
the charter will follow. The current moderator is

Simon Reed
    

Moderator contact address

    uk-business-telework-request@usenet.org.uk

END CHARTER

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved.  The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until October 15th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method.  Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website).  Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
        uk.net.news.announce
        uk.net.news.config
        uk.business.telework

Proponent:
        Mike Bristow <mike(at)urgle.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.4.9-(Cygwin)
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBSsj062OfGXkh8vHZAQJDBwP7B4yD+a7fijGA84glONdiUZO3iKFfhqe3
I6bV7sfBoRXYhgK768mt+MkoyY2GIZtpVVJY8Yq1T1qvkWOlYgcHj5AUKvFV1nJW
VS55FWI0IvM8JU+kJhMwK+ssiin4VjpS1y2r7ELVxlwQeXtmsdwqONUqAzrTXICq
ingcFTr8A5k=
=uWB4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
> wrote:
>>I think the confusion over what a binary _is_ speaks for itself.
>Non sequitur.  The rules /are/ documented

The no-HTML rule is not documented.
-- 
David Damerell  Distortion Field!
Yesterday was Second Gloucesterday, September.
Today is Second Leicesterday, September.
Tomorrow will be Second Brieday, September.

On 05 Oct 2009 David Damerell  wrote 
in news:Vgd*BsLSs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:

> Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>> wrote:
>>>I think the confusion over what a binary _is_ speaks for itself.
>>Non sequitur.  The rules /are/ documented
> 
> The no-HTML rule is not documented.

There is no "no-HTML" rule.

There are a lot of people within unn* who are likely to vote against a 
group that allows HTML so the advice is to ban it unless you really 
have a good need.

-- 
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/

On 05 Oct 2009 02:57:03 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>>>I think the confusion over what a binary _is_ speaks for itself.
>>Non sequitur.  The rules /are/ documented
>
>The no-HTML rule is not documented.

The rules, such as they are, are documented.

The option to change this situation is available to you.  

How many more times do you need to be reminded?
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

"Graham Drabble"  wrote ...

> On 05 Oct 2009 David Damerell  wrote
> in news:Vgd*BsLSs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>
>> Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>>> wrote:
>>>>I think the confusion over what a binary _is_ speaks for itself.
>>>Non sequitur.  The rules /are/ documented
>>
>> The no-HTML rule is not documented.
>
> There is no "no-HTML" rule.
>
> There are a lot of people within unn* who are likely to vote against a
> group that allows HTML so the advice is to ban it unless you really
> have a good need.

Hang on ... it is apparently in the rules; under "Binaries are not 
permitted" in the guidelines with it being implied that this rule includes 
HTML as a binary, though not explicitly stated as such in the guidelines.

Seems to me that it gets spun any and every which way to justify the rules 
as being correct, and documented correctly, no matter what the argument 
presented is.

On 05 Oct 2009 "The Happy Hippy" 
wrote in news:j2lym.101835$OO7.64141@text.news.virginmedia.com: 

> 
> "Graham Drabble"  wrote ...
> 
>> On 05 Oct 2009 David Damerell 
>> wrote in news:Vgd*BsLSs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>>
>>> Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>I think the confusion over what a binary _is_ speaks for
>>>>>itself. 
>>>>Non sequitur.  The rules /are/ documented
>>>
>>> The no-HTML rule is not documented.
>>
>> There is no "no-HTML" rule.
>>
>> There are a lot of people within unn* who are likely to vote
>> against a group that allows HTML so the advice is to ban it
>> unless you really have a good need.
> 
> Hang on ... it is apparently in the rules; under "Binaries are not
> permitted" in the guidelines with it being implied that this rule
> includes HTML as a binary, though not explicitly stated as such in
> the guidelines. 

I stand by what I said, there is no "no-HTML" rule, the no binaries 
clause does not cover HTML in my opinion.

-- 
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:04:30 +0100, Graham Drabble
 wrote:

>>> There are a lot of people within unn* who are likely to vote
>>> against a group that allows HTML so the advice is to ban it
>>> unless you really have a good need.
>> 
>> Hang on ... it is apparently in the rules; under "Binaries are not
>> permitted" in the guidelines with it being implied that this rule
>> includes HTML as a binary, though not explicitly stated as such in
>> the guidelines. 
>
>I stand by what I said, there is no "no-HTML" rule, the no binaries 
>clause does not cover HTML in my opinion.

I agree with Graham.  Opinion is, of course, divided and if you've
been reading the discussion you'll see why.

All we've ever said (and by we I mean most of those who were around
when this was first discussed) is that if you deviate from what has
become the standard wording then an argument is likely to ensue.  

As it happens, it appears we have such a shortage of good arguments in
here these days, that we've decided to have one anyway.

Hey-ho...
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:28:23 +0100, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>I agree with Graham.  Opinion is, of course, divided and if you've
>been reading the discussion you'll see why.

I agree with Geoff and Graham, and moreso Kat who sums it up perfectly
in her analysis of "does it matter?".

>As it happens, it appears we have such a shortage of good arguments in
>here these days, that we've decided to have one anyway.

It's all mildly amusing and of some limited interest in terms of good
governance, but the reality is, I fear, that nobody really thinks it's
important enough to get off their arse to actually RFD any change.

Quoting  Graham Drabble  :
>On 05 Oct 2009 David Damerell  wrote 
>>Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>>> wrote:
>>>>I think the confusion over what a binary _is_ speaks for itself.
>>>Non sequitur.  The rules /are/ documented
>>The no-HTML rule is not documented.
>There is no "no-HTML" rule.

... it's just if you don't have the mandatory optional wording, you'll be
told you won't get your group.

>There are a lot of people within unn* who are likely to vote against a 
>group that allows HTML so the advice is to ban it unless you really 
>have a good need.

If only there were some provision in the Guidelines for the case where "in
all but exceptional or unusual cases an RFD ought to follow this
guideline".
-- 
David Damerell  Kill the tomato!
Yesterday was Second Leicesterday, September.
Today is Second Brieday, September.
Tomorrow will be Second Gouday, September.

On 06 Oct 2009 17:04:14 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>Quoting  Graham Drabble  :
>>On 05 Oct 2009 David Damerell  wrote 
>>>Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>I think the confusion over what a binary _is_ speaks for itself.
>>>>Non sequitur.  The rules /are/ documented
>>>The no-HTML rule is not documented.
>>There is no "no-HTML" rule.
>
>... it's just if you don't have the mandatory optional wording, you'll be
>told you won't get your group.

Judith, is that you?
>
>>There are a lot of people within unn* who are likely to vote against a 
>>group that allows HTML so the advice is to ban it unless you really 
>>have a good need.
>
>If only there were some provision in the Guidelines for the case where "in
>all but exceptional or unusual cases an RFD ought to follow this
>guideline".

Or is it Krusty?
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

On 06 Oct 2009 17:04:14 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Quoting  Graham Drabble  :
>>On 05 Oct 2009 David Damerell  wrote 
>>>Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>I think the confusion over what a binary _is_ speaks for itself.
>>>>Non sequitur.  The rules /are/ documented
>>>The no-HTML rule is not documented.
>>There is no "no-HTML" rule.
>
>... it's just if you don't have the mandatory optional wording, you'll be
>told you won't get your group.

...because a lot of people who otherwise would have voted for it will
instead vote against it. 

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

In MsgID on Mon, 05 Oct 2009
20:22:36 +0100, in uk.net.news.config, '.m' wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:28:23 +0100, Geoff Berrow
> wrote:
>
>>I agree with Graham.  Opinion is, of course, divided and if you've
>>been reading the discussion you'll see why.
>
>I agree with Geoff and Graham, and moreso Kat who sums it up perfectly
>in her analysis of "does it matter?".

It's dear old 'Happy-Hip' - I've noticed he can never resist jumping onto
any mention of a rule or regulation (anywhere! in any group, on any
subject) in order to insist on a rigorous and absolute definition, so they
can be rigorously and absolutely obeyed.

Inclusion of the word 'hippy' in the nym must have been the result of one
too many whiskeys combined with a large dose of sarcasm juice. :-) 
I'm none too sure about the other part either.. If it's representative in
the same manner as 'hippy' then the poor fellow has my deepest sympathy.

Dave J.

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:32:47 +0100, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>On 06 Oct 2009 17:04:14 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:
>
>>Quoting  Graham Drabble  :
>>>On 05 Oct 2009 David Damerell  wrote 
>>>>Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>I think the confusion over what a binary _is_ speaks for itself.
>>>>>Non sequitur.  The rules /are/ documented
>>>>The no-HTML rule is not documented.
>>>There is no "no-HTML" rule.
>>
>>... it's just if you don't have the mandatory optional wording, you'll be
>>told you won't get your group.
>
>Judith, is that you?


Ho, ho, ho  - how we laughed - fuckwit.

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

"Dave J."  wrote ...

> In MsgID on Mon, 05 Oct 2009
> 20:22:36 +0100, in uk.net.news.config, '.m' wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:28:23 +0100, Geoff Berrow
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I agree with Graham.  Opinion is, of course, divided and if you've
>>>been reading the discussion you'll see why.
>>
>>I agree with Geoff and Graham, and moreso Kat who sums it up perfectly
>>in her analysis of "does it matter?".
>
> It's dear old 'Happy-Hip' - I've noticed he can never resist jumping onto
> any mention of a rule or regulation (anywhere! in any group, on any
> subject) in order to insist on a rigorous and absolute definition, so they
> can be rigorously and absolutely obeyed.

Lovely bit of hyperbole, and incorrect, so much so that it could be 
classified as a lie. Unless you'd like to prove otherwise ... ?


> Inclusion of the word 'hippy' in the nym must have been the result of one
> too many whiskeys combined with a large dose of sarcasm juice. :-)
> I'm none too sure about the other part either.. If it's representative in
> the same manner as 'hippy' then the poor fellow has my deepest sympathy.

Yes, I'm sure you're absolutely correct.

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:11:00 +0100, Dave J. 
wrote:

>Inclusion of the word 'hippy' in the nym must have been the result of one
>too many whiskeys combined with a large dose of sarcasm juice. :-) 

As an aside, and meant only to inject mild humour:

www.hopelesshippy.net

(me some 30 odd years ago, in Brighton not Belfast)

In article , 
blthecat@ckdog.co.uk says...
> >If only there were some provision in the Guidelines for the case where "in
> >all but exceptional or unusual cases an RFD ought to follow this
> >guideline".
> 
> Or is it Krusty?
> 

It's Bob Brenchly. "It definitely says 'no html' in the absolute catch-
all guidelines that the committee maintain round the back."

-- 
Alan LeHun

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 22:22:17 +0100, Alan LeHun  wrote:

>It's Bob Brenchly

OUCH!

Certainly something of a Renaissance going on in unn*



(The Trademark "Four Fuckwits of the Apocalypse" is the intellectual
property of Ali Hopkins)

D.M. Procida  wrote:

> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > > Then we get idiot crossposters, either from without (say, the likes of
> > > Steve Firth) or within (those 'defenders' once again), both of whom
> > > apparently actually believe they're not trolling.
> > 
> > So is this peevish attack on me by you not trolling? And if you're
> > aleging that I'm a habitual cross poster or even that I start
> > cross-posted flamewars I'll point out that you're a liar.
> 
> I'm alleging mainly that you're a twerp. 
> 
> You are a silly little man who has nothing better to do with his time
> than to stir up trouble on newsgroups he doesn't even read.

So all you have to add is name-calling? That doesn't surprise me, but it
does, once more, set the attitude of the regulars in urc in context.
You've denied, loudly, in the past that there is a bunker mentality in
urc, yet here you are demonstrating exactly the same attitude as the
other morons.

> In case you have forgotten doing it, by the way, you have crossposted to
> uk.rec.cycling hundreds of times in the last few months, almost
> invariably to spew your mouth off on the subject of cyclists.

Would you care to indicate the number of crossposted threads that I have
started in urc? I can save you the trouble, I've not initiated any
cross-posted thread to urc for years. There's no point, since any
discussion of cycling and cyclists started by anyone who is not part of
the in-group degenerates instantly into childish abuse, entrenched views
and bigotry masquerading as objective fact. The fact that posts by me
have appeared in urc has been because urc regulars have been demanding
the formation of a moderated newsgroup. I care deeply about the uk news
hierarchy and the administration of that hierarchy. Therefore I comment
on the issues, doing so in reply to posts made in unnc. As I'm doing
with this particular thread. If someone cross-posts I tend to assume
that the cross-post should be honoured unless there's overwhelming
evidence that the cross-post is malicious.

You're attempting to make a point that I am attempting to stir up
trouble in urc. That's a lie.


> > What your outburst indicates is that you consider that I should never be
> > permitted to post in urc. Ah, <sniff> censorship and hypocrisy, what a
> > fine smell they make.
> 
> You can post where you like, and to moderated newsgroups too, if you can
> learn not to make a nuisance of yourself. But in your usual mode it's
> like having a dysfunctional attention-seeking adolescent around when the
> adults are trying to have a conversation.

What a peevish, stupid response. You must remind me what world is it
where people like you may make childish attacks on individuals but the
individual you attack is not supposed to notice?

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> > In case you have forgotten doing it, by the way, you have crossposted to
> > uk.rec.cycling hundreds of times in the last few months, almost
> > invariably to spew your mouth off on the subject of cyclists.
> 
> Would you care to indicate the number of crossposted threads that I have
> started in urc? I can save you the trouble, I've not initiated any
> cross-posted thread to urc for years.

Then you're not just a blustering liar, you're an incompetent blustering
liar, since the ones you've started all by yourself are there for
everyone to see.

> I care deeply about the uk news hierarchy and the administration of that
> hierarchy. 

Your ludicrous pomposity deserves to be accompanied by violins.

> Therefore I comment on the issues, doing so in reply to posts made in
> unnc. As I'm doing with this particular thread. If someone cross-posts I
> tend to assume that the cross-post should be honoured unless there's
> overwhelming evidence that the cross-post is malicious.

Or when the malicious cross-posts are your own.

You're just like Doug, aren't you?

Daniele

D.M. Procida  wrote:

> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > > In case you have forgotten doing it, by the way, you have crossposted to
> > > uk.rec.cycling hundreds of times in the last few months, almost
> > > invariably to spew your mouth off on the subject of cyclists.
> > 
> > Would you care to indicate the number of crossposted threads that I have
> > started in urc? I can save you the trouble, I've not initiated any
> > cross-posted thread to urc for years.
> 
> Then you're not just a blustering liar, you're an incompetent blustering
> liar, since the ones you've started all by yourself are there for
> everyone to see.

<sigh> More abuse from the supposedly clean as the driven snow URC
regulars. Maybe it's a sign of how little urc interests me in the great
scheme of things that the couple of crossposts that I am responsible for
had escaped my memory.

> > I care deeply about the uk news hierarchy and the administration of that
> > hierarchy. 
> 
> Your ludicrous pomposity deserves to be accompanied by violins.

Coming from a member of a group that manages pomposity in spades, I'm
amused.
 
> > Therefore I comment on the issues, doing so in reply to posts made in
> > unnc. As I'm doing with this particular thread. If someone cross-posts I
> > tend to assume that the cross-post should be honoured unless there's
> > overwhelming evidence that the cross-post is malicious.
> 
> Or when the malicious cross-posts are your own.

I don't consider that my (few) crossposts are malicious.
 
> You're just like Doug, aren't you?

If you say so. Here's a suggestion, and it's how I dealt with Duhg. Add
my from: line to your killfile and you'll never have to read anything I
write ever again. Unlike the scum that you associate with I don't go in
for regular morphing of the from line. You can keep the likes of
spindrift and the other barking mad anti-car twits.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:43:43 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>  D.M. Procida  wrote:
> 
> > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > Would you care to indicate the number of crossposted threads that I have
> > > started in urc? I can save you the trouble, I've not initiated any
> > > cross-posted thread to urc for years.
> > 
> > Then you're not just a blustering liar, you're an incompetent blustering
> > liar, since the ones you've started all by yourself are there for
> > everyone to see.
> 
> <sigh> More abuse from the supposedly clean as the driven snow URC
>  regulars. Maybe it's a sign of how little urc interests me in the great
>  scheme of things that the couple of crossposts that I am responsible for
>  had escaped my memory.

Oooh look - teh Judith Smith defence.  "Yes I lied, but I it's _me_, 
and obviously it doesn't matter when _I_ lie".

regards,   Ian SMith
-- 
  |\ /|      no .sig
  |o o|
  |/ \|

Ian Smith  wrote:

> > > Then you're not just a blustering liar, you're an incompetent blustering
> > > liar, since the ones you've started all by yourself are there for
> > > everyone to see.
> > 
> > <sigh> More abuse from the supposedly clean as the driven snow URC
> >  regulars. Maybe it's a sign of how little urc interests me in the great
> >  scheme of things that the couple of crossposts that I am responsible for
> >  had escaped my memory.
> 
> Oooh look - teh Judith Smith defence.  "Yes I lied, but I it's _me_, 
> and obviously it doesn't matter when _I_ lie".

Well, never mind. Soon the moderated group will be up and running, and
all this will cease to be an issue. I still find it irritating that so
much of the damage caused to urc was done from the inside, rather than
the drive-by provocateurs.

Daniele

Ian Smith  wrote:

> > <sigh> More abuse from the supposedly clean as the driven snow URC
> >  regulars. Maybe it's a sign of how little urc interests me in the great
> >  scheme of things that the couple of crossposts that I am responsible for
> >  had escaped my memory.
> 
> Oooh look - teh Judith Smith defence.  "Yes I lied, but I it's _me_, 
> and obviously it doesn't matter when _I_ lie".

Do you have a reading disability? Or perhaps you're having problems
witht he definition of the word "lie". I'll help you out. Making a
statement that one believes to be true is not a lie. Hence I didn't lie.
However you have clearly claimed that I made a statement that I didn't.
Hence you lied.

Heck that was difficult, eh?

There's no interest to me in telling lies to the loons who inhabit urc.
I really don't care one way or the other for your opinion since you have
proved, almost to a man (and it's odd that you're almost all men) that
you are nuttier than a hazelnut brittle.

D.M. Procida  wrote:

> I still find it irritating that so
> much of the damage caused to urc was done from the inside, rather than
> the drive-by provocateurs.

How odd, one of the points I've made which apparently is "trolling". So
"trolling" is something that can only be done by people who don'\t own a
urc membership card, eh?

I'm going to be interested to see how moderation is done, because if
it's done as you seem to think it will be, the moderated group will go
the way of ulym.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:41:36 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>  Ian Smith  wrote:
[actually, Steve Firth said this bit]
> > >
> > > <sigh> More abuse from the supposedly clean as the driven snow 
> > > URC regulars. Maybe it's a sign of how little urc interests me 
> > > in the great scheme of things that the couple of crossposts that 
> > > I am responsible for had escaped my memory.
> > 
> > Oooh look - teh Judith Smith defence.  "Yes I lied, but I it's _me_, 
> > and obviously it doesn't matter when _I_ lie".
> 
>  Do you have a reading disability? Or perhaps you're having problems
>  witht he definition of the word "lie". I'll help you out. Making a
>  statement that one believes to be true is not a lie. Hence I didn't lie.

Yes, that's her other favourite - yes I lied, but I didn't mean to, so 
I didn't.  You've got it down pat, well done.

regards,   Ian SMith
-- 
  |\ /|      no .sig
  |o o|
  |/ \|