On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 22:14:38 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>jms wrote:
>>>> I think that it is perfectly clear to everyone that, while I might
>>>> share Judith's expressed views on some subjects (there is little
>>>> evidence that Judith's expressed views and actual views are the
>>>> same), I think that she is pitiful.
>>> Most of us would not bother referencing a stopped clock twice a day.
>> Most of us do not believe the words of a liar.
>
>That's another reason to ignore you, true enough.


Ho, ho, ho - that's rich coming from  you - the one who is so
spineless he cannot answer a question without fear of upsetting his
god and getting a lightning bolt up the arse.

Don't you think that decent people will now have realised why you
won't answer?

I'll tell you what:

I'll produce  a list of ten lies which you have told.
You try and do the same -  of things I have said.

You really are a fuckwit - kill-file broken again?????

--          

I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)

In article ,
one of our trolls wrote:
>[more vacuous vitriol]

I've been dutifully reading this group without the benefit of a
killfile since being told that it was essential for a proponent, but I
think the time has come for me to return to a more sensible
newsreading approach.

So from now on, please do not infer anything in particular if I fail
to respond to trolls even if it seems that their posting could
usefully benefit from a contribution from me.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

On 06 Oct 2009 11:20:53 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>I've been dutifully reading this group without the benefit of a
>killfile since being told that it was essential for a proponent, but I
>think the time has come for me to return to a more sensible
>newsreading approach.


No worries Ian, that requirement ended long ago.
-- 
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 11:20:53 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In article ,
>one of our trolls wrote:
>>[more vacuous vitriol]
>
>I've been dutifully reading this group without the benefit of a
>killfile since being told that it was essential for a proponent, but I
>think the time has come for me to return to a more sensible
>newsreading approach.
>
>So from now on, please do not infer anything in particular if I fail
>to respond to trolls even if it seems that their posting could
>usefully benefit from a contribution from me.


You what?

So someone posts something and there could be a useful contribution
response  from you  (perhaps more people benefiting from the post and
your  response)  - but you won't make it - as the person who made the
post was a "troll".

Yes - a very mature attitude - many thanks.

I guess it enables you to ignore those difficult questions as well>

Have you tried test messages to the two moderator email addresses yet?

You know the sort of thing - do they accept emails from all type of
email systems for example?



--    

Members of the medical profession refer to cyclists as "donors".
(Daily Mail)

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 03:39:05 -0700 (PDT), RudiL 
wrote:

>On 6 Oct, 11:20, Ian Jackson  wrote:
>> In article ,
>> one of our trolls wrote:
>>
>> >[more vacuous vitriol]
>>
>> I've been dutifully reading this group without the benefit of a
>> killfile since being told that it was essential for a proponent, but I
>> think the time has come for me to return to a more sensible
>> newsreading approach.
>>
>> So from now on, please do not infer anything in particular if I fail
>> to respond to trolls even if it seems that their posting could
>> usefully benefit from a contribution from me.
>>
>
>Don't blame you. And indeed there is no need for you to read
>everything on this group any longer as the discussion about the new
>group is now over. It would be nice if the new group came soon though.
>By the way be prepared for posts apparently from long standing members
>of urc but actually from you know who. I was caught out by an email
>like this recently. It may be worth considering PGP authentication
>
>Rudi


Did you spill any beans?

Who was it from?

--  

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

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 02:06:59 -0700 (PDT), RudiL 
wrote:

<snip>


> I was caught out by an email
>> >like this recently. It may be worth considering PGP authentication
>>
>> >Rudi
>>
>> Did you spill any beans?
>>
>> Who was it from?
>
>It was from a nym-shifting trolling hotmail user who for some reason
>was clearly very very worried by what I might or might not know about
>the trolling nym-shifting jms
>
>Rudi

Is it true you told someone to  "Try googling Judith smith wheelchair
uk and you will find her".

Any particular reason why *you* were doing that?

" If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas" - 

how is Wm.. by the way?




--  

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

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 04:00:21 -0700 (PDT), RudiL 
wrote:

>On 7 Oct, 11:50, Judith M Smith  wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 02:06:59 -0700 (PDT), RudiL 
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > I was caught out by an email
>> >> >like this recently. It may be worth considering PGP authentication
>>
>> >> >Rudi
>>
>> >> Did you spill any beans?
>>
>> >> Who was it from?
>>
>> >It was from a nym-shifting trolling hotmail user who for some reason
>> >was clearly very very worried by what I might or might not know about
>> >the trolling nym-shifting jms
>>
>> >Rudi
>>
>> Is it true you told someone to  "Try googling Judith smith wheelchair
>> uk and you will find her".
>>
>
>Yes I told the very worried nym-shifting trolling hotmail user. As I
>said I have not used anything other than publicly available
>information, which may or may not be accurate.


You will of course then be able to point out what suggested to you ,
from the public domain,  that you should google for "Judith smith
wheelchair uk"


and then perhaps you could add precisely why you had done  so, and
then suggested that someone else should.

Are you in regular contact with Wm..   - could you perhaps share your
agenda?

--  

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

In  Judith M Smith  writes:

>I guess it enables you to ignore those difficult questions as well>

>Have you tried test messages to the two moderator email addresses yet?

>You know the sort of thing - do they accept emails from all type of
>email systems for example?

Why don't you try it yourself, if you're so bothered?

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:14:14 GMT, "Charles Lindsey"
 wrote:

>In  Judith M Smith  writes:
>
>>I guess it enables you to ignore those difficult questions as well>
>
>>Have you tried test messages to the two moderator email addresses yet?
>
>>You know the sort of thing - do they accept emails from all type of
>>email systems for example?
>
>Why don't you try it yourself, if you're so bothered?


I'm awfully sorry - I was just asking if Jackson had tested a key part
of the user interface.

I believe that this may be the norm with IT systems - but I am not
sure.

The customer/users  tell the provider what they want.
The provider implements the system.
The provider tests the key parts of the system
The provider tells the user that the system is working as requested.
The customer then tests the system themselves - before it goes live.

The fact that you told him to ensure that they do - I would have
expected him to set it up and test it.

I have tried  - with no success.

Hence my question to Jackson.

I would like him to confirm that he has tested it and it works

Seems reasonable to me.