In article ,
.m    wrote:
>Look you fucking idiot, it's simple, and should even be understood by
>a complete twunt like you:  The Committee offerede advice that enabled
>the RFD to be posted in a way that would cause less agrument.  

This is complete nonsense - almost the opposite of what happened.

No-one had made any comment about the wording of prohibition of
binaries during the many weeks of discussion.  Binaries were not
mentioned at all in the 1st RFD.  In the 2nd RFD they were mentioned
in the moderation policy.  During that time no-one, including the
Committee, saw fit to mention that there was any problem, let alone
suggest that it was vital that some standard boilerplate should be
used.

_The only people arguing were the Committee_, at the eleventh hour
during final stages of preparation of the CFV.  If Mark Goodge had
simply said `yes that's fine' as he should have done, there would have
been no argument at all.

So when the Committeed claim that there would be a massive argument
about this supposed problem if I insisted on my preferred wording, it
seemed clear to me that they meant _they_ would argue and make trouble
(as indeed they were doing right there and then).

The Committee bikeshedded using the hammer of their authority and the
privilege of private (and thus unaccountable) `advice' to the
proponent, to make sure they got their own way, thus saving us from
their very own bikeshedding.

-- 
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 09 Oct 2009 11:17:34 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>So when the Committeed claim that there would be a massive argument
>about this supposed problem if I insisted on my preferred wording, it
>seemed clear to me that they meant _they_ would argue and make trouble
>(as indeed they were doing right there and then).

Individual members may well have argued (as they are entitled to do
so) as would a good many other people.  You saved yourself an argument
thanks to this advice.  Disinterested parties may well be wondering
why you find this a problem.

>
>The Committee bikeshedded using the hammer of their authority and the
>privilege of private (and thus unaccountable) `advice' to the
>proponent,

Private?  You can publish what the hell you like as far as I'm
concerned.

> to make sure they got their own way, thus saving us from
>their very own bikeshedding.

Tell me, are you having treatment for this persecution complex?

Perhaps you and Damerell could get a special deal?
-- 
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 09 Oct 2009 11:17:34 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>This is complete nonsense - almost the opposite of what happened.

[Snip rest of paranoid fuckwitterings]

You're being a total cock.  Even Cummins makes more sense.

I see no point in further encouraging your particularly odd form of
masturbation.

Should you have anything further to comment, may I refer you to Arkell
v Pressdram.

Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
> wrote:
>>So when the Committeed claim that there would be a massive argument
>>about this supposed problem if I insisted on my preferred wording, it
>>seemed clear to me that they meant _they_ would argue and make trouble
>>(as indeed they were doing right there and then).
>Individual members may well have argued (as they are entitled to do
>so) as would a good many other people.

As Ian points out, that is simply not true; his wording went quite
undisputed for weeks.
-- 
David Damerell  Oil is for sissies
Yesterday was Second Chedday, September - a weekend.
Today is Second Stilday, September - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be First Potmos, October.

Quoting  .m   :
> wrote:
>>This is complete nonsense - almost the opposite of what happened.
>[Snip rest of paranoid fuckwitterings]

I notice a distinct lack of any indication of what's wrong with it. This
is because it's true. Anyone who goes back and reads the RFD discussion
can see that the mandatory optional wording was simply not mentioned and
that Ian's wording was uncontentious.

Still, I guess the current Committee finds it easier to swear at people
than to tell the truth, right?
-- 
David Damerell  Oil is for sissies
Yesterday was Second Chedday, September - a weekend.
Today is Second Stilday, September - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be First Potmos, October.

On 09 Oct 2009 13:20:57 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>Still, I guess the current Committee finds it easier to swear at people
>than to tell the truth, right?

Wrong.  You wouldn't know the 'truth' if a 747 with TRUTH encrusted in
diamonds along the side in 10 foot high letters flew up your arse.

You will know, without any doubt, if I ever post officially, until
then, I'm just another poster telling you to fuck off, that's all.

Now, I'll just refer you to my last comment to the twat Jackson.

On 09 Oct 2009 Ian Jackson  wrote
in news:6Fj*Vn8Ss@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk: 

> No-one had made any comment about the wording of prohibition of
> binaries during the many weeks of discussion.  Binaries were not
> mentioned at all in the 1st RFD. 

That was a mistake both by the proponent in not following the 
guidelines and the committee for not noticing the mistake. However it 
was mentioned during the 1st RFD.

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

On 09 Oct 2009 12:52:24 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>> wrote:
>>>So when the Committeed claim that there would be a massive argument
>>>about this supposed problem if I insisted on my preferred wording, it
>>>seemed clear to me that they meant _they_ would argue and make trouble
>>>(as indeed they were doing right there and then).
>>Individual members may well have argued (as they are entitled to do
>>so) as would a good many other people.
>
>As Ian points out, that is simply not true; his wording went quite
>undisputed for weeks.

The first time the committee saw anything of the RFD was on 26 May.
This was explicitly stated by the proponent to be the "current draft",
rather than the finished article, and there was nothing wrong with it
as a draft - it clearly needed some fleshing out and tidying up, but
the proponent was planning to do that anyway so there wasn't any need
for us to get involved at that stage in discussing the detailed
wording.

We didn't see the proposed final copy until 12 June. The fact that it
didn't include a clause banning binaries was first pointed out two
days later, on 14 June. The proponent responded with his choice of
wording two days after that, on 16 June, and my reply to that, stating
that I would prefer to see the usual wording employed, was made the
same day.

So to state that the proponent's wording "went quite undisputed for
weeks" is simply false.

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

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:29:34 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>On 09 Oct 2009 12:52:24 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>
>>Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>>> wrote:
>>>>So when the Committeed claim that there would be a massive argument
>>>>about this supposed problem if I insisted on my preferred wording, it
>>>>seemed clear to me that they meant _they_ would argue and make trouble
>>>>(as indeed they were doing right there and then).
>>>Individual members may well have argued (as they are entitled to do
>>>so) as would a good many other people.
>>
>>As Ian points out, that is simply not true; his wording went quite
>>undisputed for weeks.
>
>The first time the committee saw anything of the RFD was on 26 May.
>This was explicitly stated by the proponent to be the "current draft",
>rather than the finished article, and there was nothing wrong with it
>as a draft - it clearly needed some fleshing out and tidying up, but
>the proponent was planning to do that anyway so there wasn't any need
>for us to get involved at that stage in discussing the detailed
>wording.
>
>We didn't see the proposed final copy until 12 June. The fact that it
>didn't include a clause banning binaries was first pointed out two
>days later, on 14 June. The proponent responded with his choice of
>wording two days after that, on 16 June, and my reply to that, stating
>that I would prefer to see the usual wording employed, was made the
>same day.
>
>So to state that the proponent's wording "went quite undisputed for
>weeks" is simply false.
>
>Mark



The problem which you and others are experiencing is commonly known as
the "urc approach".

You are not part of the select little clique - therefore whatever you
say is against the clique by definition and hence plain "wrong".

You will get no-where with sensible discussion - re-iterating what you
have previously  said in order to provide clarity.

You are wasting your time.

 
--  

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