This is a formal complaint to the chief moderator of the group
uk.rec.cycling.moderated.

 

I have emailed the moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated at the
address:  uk-rec-cycling-moderated-request (at) usenet.org.uk.

The email failed.

I understand that this is a known problem.

I request a statement from the lead moderator of the moderated group:

1) Are you already aware of this problem?

2) Do you think it is acceptable that some users cannot email the
moderators?

3) What are your time scales for correcting this problem?

I would like the chief moderator to reply to these questions in this
news group.

If he thinks that is not appropriate - I would ask that he replies to
the uk.* committee - who could then perhaps clarify to all users what
is the current situation.


If this post is inappropriate - I would be obliged if someone could
advise on the correct course of action for me to take to get this
problem resolved.

jms  wrote in 
news:9rsoe5te6nae9dgqp21psc4riq88ur7s80@4ax.com:

> This is a formal complaint to the chief moderator of the group
> uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
> 
>  
> 
> I have emailed the moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated at the
> address:  uk-rec-cycling-moderated-request (at) usenet.org.uk.
> 
> The email failed.
> 
> I understand that this is a known problem.
> 
> I request a statement from the lead moderator of the moderated 
group:
> 
> 1) Are you already aware of this problem?
> 
> 2) Do you think it is acceptable that some users cannot email the
> moderators?
> 
> 3) What are your time scales for correcting this problem?
> 
> I would like the chief moderator to reply to these questions in 
this
> news group.
> 
> If he thinks that is not appropriate - I would ask that he replies 
to
> the uk.* committee - who could then perhaps clarify to all users 
what
> is the current situation.
> 
> 
> If this post is inappropriate - I would be obliged if someone 
could
> advise on the correct course of action for me to take to get this
> problem resolved.
> 

So you have sent an email to the moderators of urcm so that you can 
complain that you cannot successfully send an email to the 
moderators of urcm.  This problem is easily solved by not sending 
them an email:  then you will not be able to complain it didn't get 
there, but you will be no worse off.  Simple.




-- 
Percy Picacity

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:26:45 +0000, jms 
wrote:

>I would like the chief moderator to reply to these questions in this
>news group.
>
>If he thinks that is not appropriate - I would ask that he replies to
>the uk.* committee - who could then perhaps clarify to all users what
>is the current situation.

Asking the mods of a group to respond to a complaint -via- the
committee isn't a very good way of doing it, as the committee have no
mandate or role in such matters.

The committee can only get involved if there's a formal complaint sent
to: committee(at)usenet.org.uk

>If this post is inappropriate - I would be obliged if someone could
>advise on the correct course of action for me to take to get this
>problem resolved.

IMO the post is totally appropriate here in uk.net.news.management as
it is to do with 'management'.

Don't let it go to your head though.

In message , Percy Picacity 
<key@under.the.invalid> writes
>jms  wrote in
>news:9rsoe5te6nae9dgqp21psc4riq88ur7s80@4ax.com:
>
>> This is a formal complaint to the chief moderator of the group
>> uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have emailed the moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated at the
>> address:  uk-rec-cycling-moderated-request (at) usenet.org.uk.
>>
>> The email failed.
>>
>> I understand that this is a known problem.
>>
>> I request a statement from the lead moderator of the moderated
>group:
>>
>> 1) Are you already aware of this problem?
>>
>> 2) Do you think it is acceptable that some users cannot email the
>> moderators?
>>
>> 3) What are your time scales for correcting this problem?
>>
>> I would like the chief moderator to reply to these questions in
>this
>> news group.
>>
>> If he thinks that is not appropriate - I would ask that he replies
>to
>> the uk.* committee - who could then perhaps clarify to all users
>what
>> is the current situation.
>>
>>
>> If this post is inappropriate - I would be obliged if someone
>could
>> advise on the correct course of action for me to take to get this
>> problem resolved.
>>
>
>So you have sent an email to the moderators of urcm so that you can
>complain that you cannot successfully send an email to the
>moderators of urcm.  This problem is easily solved by not sending
>them an email:  then you will not be able to complain it didn't get
>there, but you will be no worse off.  Simple.
>

Anyway, I fail to see where there is a problem.

So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod I think 
that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.
-- 
Chris French

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:29:13 +0000, Chris French
 wrote:

>So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod I think 
>that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.

It's deja-vu all over again.  During the RFD this precise point was
discussed.  The RFD passed with, I believe, the biggest majority in
recent history, *despite* this precise issue being documented in
detail.

For what it's worth, if I was Ian I would turn off the sender
verification for that address and then simply killfile the vexatious
complainant.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
GPG public ket at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

Just zis Guy, you know?  said:

> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:29:13 +0000, Chris French
>  wrote:
>
>> So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod I
>> think that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.
>
> It's deja-vu all over again.  During the RFD this precise point was
> discussed.  The RFD passed with, I believe, the biggest majority in
> recent history, *despite* this precise issue being documented in
> detail.
>
> For what it's worth, if I was Ian I would turn off the sender
> verification for that address and then simply killfile the vexatious
> complainant.
>

I was under the impression that something like that was what was supposed to 
happen.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:23 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? put finger
to keyboard and typed:

>For what it's worth, if I was Ian I would turn off the sender
>verification for that address and then simply killfile the vexatious
>complainant.

Yes, but that would be an entirely sensible and pragmatic response.

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

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:30:17 +0000, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>>For what it's worth, if I was Ian I would turn off the sender
>>verification for that address and then simply killfile the vexatious
>>complainant.
>
>Yes, but that would be an entirely sensible and pragmatic response.

You've spotted the fatal flaw in my cunning plan.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
GPG public ket at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:23 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:29:13 +0000, Chris French
> wrote:
>
>>So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod I think 
>>that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.
>
>It's deja-vu all over again.  During the RFD this precise point was
>discussed.  The RFD passed with, I believe, the biggest majority in
>recent history, *despite* this precise issue being documented in
>detail.
>
>For what it's worth, if I was Ian I would turn off the sender
>verification for that address and then simply killfile the vexatious
>complainant.
> 
>Guy




You would make a good moderator for URCM.  You seem to be reacting on
the fact that it was me that has made the complaint rather than the
substance of the complaint.

 It was raised in the RFD stage - and it was said that it would be
sorted before the group went live.

So you think it is acceptable that some people (not just me) cannot
email the moderators do you.


(I noticed your little about face over this matter when you realised
that your dishonesty would be spotted)

--    
As a pedestrian, you're more likely to be hit and injured by a moped than by a cyclist. (Guy Chapman)
Absolute rubbish (Judith Smith)

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:45:48 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:30:17 +0000, Mark Goodge
> wrote:
>
>>>For what it's worth, if I was Ian I would turn off the sender
>>>verification for that address and then simply killfile the vexatious
>>>complainant.
>>
>>Yes, but that would be an entirely sensible and pragmatic response.
>
>You've spotted the fatal flaw in my cunning plan.
> 
>Guy


The fatal flaw is that *you* do not accept that there is a problem.

Or do you?

--          

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)

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:30:02 +0000, .m  wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:26:45 +0000, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>I would like the chief moderator to reply to these questions in this
>>news group.
>>
>>If he thinks that is not appropriate - I would ask that he replies to
>>the uk.* committee - who could then perhaps clarify to all users what
>>is the current situation.
>
>Asking the mods of a group to respond to a complaint -via- the
>committee isn't a very good way of doing it, as the committee have no
>mandate or role in such matters.
>
>The committee can only get involved if there's a formal complaint sent
>to: committee(at)usenet.org.uk


Thanks - I will wait and see what the response is here first.

I don't hold out much hope.

In article , 
moderation2009@live.co.uk says...
> Thanks - I will wait and see what the response is here first.
> 
> I don't hold out much hope.
> 

And nor should you. Complaining in here about moderation issues 
is akin to complaining to your local MP about the quality of 
the "shrink-proof" T-shirts you bought whilst on holiday in 
Turkey.

But then, you already knew this before you posted, didn't you. 

Having said that, I doubt you would have had any more luck if 
you had posted to the correct group, but at least then your 
posts elsewhere might have had some semblance of credibility.

-- 
Alan LeHun

In article , Chris French wrote:
>
>So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod I think 
>that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.

More accurately, the moderators can't receive emails from her unless she
follows the instructions on how to send mail to the moderators.

On Oct 31, 9:29 pm, Chris French  wrote:
> In message , Percy Picacity
> <k...@under.the.invalid> writes
>
>
>
> >jms  wrote in
> >news:9rsoe5te6nae9dgqp21psc4riq88ur7s80@4ax.com:
>
> >> This is a formal complaint to the chief moderator of the group
> >> uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
>
> >> I have emailed the moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated at the
> >> address:  uk-rec-cycling-moderated-request (at) usenet.org.uk.
>
> >> The email failed.
>
> >> I understand that this is a known problem.
>
> >> I request a statement from the lead moderator of the moderated
> >group:
>
> >> 1) Are you already aware of this problem?
>
> >> 2) Do you think it is acceptable that some users cannot email the
> >> moderators?
>
> >> 3) What are your time scales for correcting this problem?
>
> >> I would like the chief moderator to reply to these questions in
> >this
> >> news group.
>
> >> If he thinks that is not appropriate - I would ask that he replies
> >to
> >> the uk.* committee - who could then perhaps clarify to all users
> >what
> >> is the current situation.
>
> >> If this post is inappropriate - I would be obliged if someone
> >could
> >> advise on the correct course of action for me to take to get this
> >> problem resolved.
>
> >So you have sent an email to the moderators of urcm so that you can
> >complain that you cannot successfully send an email to the
> >moderators of urcm.  This problem is easily solved by not sending
> >them an email:  then you will not be able to complain it didn't get
> >there, but you will be no worse off.  Simple.
>
> Anyway, I fail to see where there is a problem.
>
> So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod I think
> that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.
This thread wasn't started by JMS, it was a frogery. At least that's
what she'll say as her standard response when she realises it was a
humiliating failure that got her way out of her depth ;-)

I can only guess that she got a reply back from the UoC telling her to
get stuffed. Which meant she needed a new way of causing trouble for
her crush Ian Jackson (or "Ian Chapman" as she likes to call him). I'd
pay good money (up to £0.99) to see that reply.

Trollsworth

In article , Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> writes

>So you have sent an email to the moderators of urcm so that you can 
>complain that you cannot successfully send an email to the 
>moderators of urcm.

Just demonstrates the mentality of the jms entity.  She's completely
fucking barking: can't everyone (including the moderators) just block
her and ignore?

-- 
(\__/)   
(='.'=)  Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(")  http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

In article , Alan Braggins
 writes

>More accurately, the moderators can't receive emails from her unless she
>follows the instructions on how to send mail to the moderators.

That would be asking rather a lot, wouldn't it?  She's "special", she
(thinks she) deserves "special" attention.

-- 
(\__/)   
(='.'=)  Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(")  http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:21:24 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> 
> Just demonstrates the mentality of the jms entity.  She's completely
> fucking barking: can't everyone (including the moderators) just block
> her and ignore?

I do (and have for some time). Usenet becomes infinitely more peaceful so.

-- 
stillyet@googlemail.com (Simon Brooke) http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/
It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and 
every moderation decision is unexplained and final.

On 01 Nov 2009 08:46:43 +0000 (GMT), Alan Braggins put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>In article , Chris French wrote:
>>
>>So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod I think 
>>that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.
>
>More accurately, the moderators can't receive emails from her unless she
>follows the instructions on how to send mail to the moderators.

Nor can anyone else who uses a Hotmail address.

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

"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
news:630re5hbav86uiarlv7rlbj510gh66s26o@news.markshouse.net...
> On 01 Nov 2009 08:46:43 +0000 (GMT), Alan Braggins put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>>In article , Chris French 
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod I think
>>>that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.
>>
>>More accurately, the moderators can't receive emails from her unless she
>>follows the instructions on how to send mail to the moderators.
>
> Nor can anyone else who uses a Hotmail address.
>

Arbitrarily blocking mail from one of the biggest providers does seem a 
little odd.
When it's just for your personal use block whatever domains you want , but 
if you are acting in an official capacity then picking who you will allow to 
contact you seems wrong.

-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:21:24 +0000
Mike Tomlinson  wrote:

> In article , Percy
> Picacity <key@under.the.invalid> writes
> 
> >So you have sent an email to the moderators of urcm so that you can 
> >complain that you cannot successfully send an email to the 
> >moderators of urcm.
> 
> Just demonstrates the mentality of the jms entity.  She's completely
> fucking barking: can't everyone (including the moderators) just block
> her and ignore?
> 
That was my (and others people's) suggestion when the moderated cycling
group was suggested.  The unmoderated group looks quite reasonable
to me, but then I do have about fifty filter rules in place to make it
seem so.

"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote
in news:hck0tk$d0s$1@news.eternal-september.org: 

> "Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
> news:630re5hbav86uiarlv7rlbj510gh66s26o@news.markshouse.net...
>> On 01 Nov 2009 08:46:43 +0000 (GMT), Alan Braggins put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>>In article , Chris
>>>French wrote:
>>>>
>>>>So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod
>>>>I think that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.
>>>
>>>More accurately, the moderators can't receive emails from her
>>>unless she follows the instructions on how to send mail to the
>>>moderators. 
>>
>> Nor can anyone else who uses a Hotmail address.
>>
> 
> Arbitrarily blocking mail from one of the biggest providers does
> seem a little odd.
> When it's just for your personal use block whatever domains you
> want , but if you are acting in an official capacity then picking
> who you will allow to contact you seems wrong.
> 
It isn't being blocked arbitrarily.  It is being blocked because it 
does not comply with standards for a mailserver.  In this case, 
however, most people seem to think Microsoft are being reasonable.  
I suppose if Microsoft ignore enough standards they are bound to 
come to one that needs ignoring sometime.


-- 
Percy Picacity

In uk.net.news.management, Rob Morley  wrote:

>On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:21:24 +0000
>Mike Tomlinson  wrote:
>
>> In article , Percy
>> Picacity <key@under.the.invalid> writes
>> 
>> >So you have sent an email to the moderators of urcm so that you can 
>> >complain that you cannot successfully send an email to the 
>> >moderators of urcm.
>> 
>> Just demonstrates the mentality of the jms entity.  She's completely
>> fucking barking: can't everyone (including the moderators) just block
>> her and ignore?
 
>That was my (and others people's) suggestion when the moderated cycling
>group was suggested.  The unmoderated group looks quite reasonable
>to me, but then I do have about fifty filter rules in place to make it
>seem so.

If you continue to use your news reader in a responsible and adult fashion,
we'll be forced to take it away from you.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 13:38:44 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote
>in news:hck0tk$d0s$1@news.eternal-september.org: 

>> Arbitrarily blocking mail from one of the biggest providers does
>> seem a little odd.
>> When it's just for your personal use block whatever domains you
>> want , but if you are acting in an official capacity then picking
>> who you will allow to contact you seems wrong.
>> 
>It isn't being blocked arbitrarily.  It is being blocked because it 
>does not comply with standards for a mailserver. 

Whether it does or not is moot, because that's not the reason it's
being blocked.

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

In article , Mark Goodge wrote:
>On 01 Nov 2009 08:46:43 +0000 (GMT), Alan Braggins put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>>In article , Chris French wrote:
>>>
>>>So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod I think 
>>>that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.
>>
>>More accurately, the moderators can't receive emails from her unless she
>>follows the instructions on how to send mail to the moderators.
>
>Nor can anyone else who uses a Hotmail address.

More accurately, nor can anyone else who uses a Hotmail address unless
they follow the instructions on how to send mail to the moderators.
Including the bit that gives an address that doesn't block Hotmail.

On 01 Nov 2009 15:00:29 +0000 (GMT), Alan Braggins put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>In article , Mark Goodge wrote:
>>On 01 Nov 2009 08:46:43 +0000 (GMT), Alan Braggins put finger to
>>keyboard and typed:
>>>In article , Chris French wrote:
>>>>
>>>>So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod I think 
>>>>that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.
>>>
>>>More accurately, the moderators can't receive emails from her unless she
>>>follows the instructions on how to send mail to the moderators.
>>
>>Nor can anyone else who uses a Hotmail address.
>
>More accurately, nor can anyone else who uses a Hotmail address unless
>they follow the instructions on how to send mail to the moderators.
>Including the bit that gives an address that doesn't block Hotmail.

In that case, why not just publish an address that doesn't block
Hotmail? That way, everyone can get through, those could do so already
can still do so, while those who couldn't before now can.

Having one address that works for everyone except Hotmail users and
another that simply works for everyone (including Hotmail users) is a
bit like having two gates to your front yard, one locked and one
unlocked, with a note on the locked gate telling people without a key
to use the other one.

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

On 01 Nov 2009 08:46:43 +0000 (GMT), armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

>In article , Chris French wrote:
>>
>>So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod I think 
>>that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.
>
>More accurately, the moderators can't receive emails from her unless she
>follows the instructions on how to send mail to the moderators.


Well perhaps  as a moderator - you will actually have the decency to
explain what I have done incorrectly.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:23:00 +0000, Mike Tomlinson 
wrote:

>In article , Alan Braggins
> writes
>
>>More accurately, the moderators can't receive emails from her unless she
>>follows the instructions on how to send mail to the moderators.
>
>That would be asking rather a lot, wouldn't it?  She's "special", she
>(thinks she) deserves "special" attention.


Perhaps *you* can explain the error which *I*  have made - or are you
also  just a gobshite?

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:35:31 +0000, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>On 01 Nov 2009 08:46:43 +0000 (GMT), Alan Braggins put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>
>>In article , Chris French wrote:
>>>
>>>So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod I think 
>>>that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.
>>
>>More accurately, the moderators can't receive emails from her unless she
>>follows the instructions on how to send mail to the moderators.
>
>Nor can anyone else who uses a Hotmail address.
>
>Mark


Now them Mark - don't be bringing sensibility in to this discussion.

It  is of course interesting that the comment which you replied to was
made by one of the moderators.

He can see no wrong with the situation as it is.

No doubt he will have the guts to explain why it is all OK and exactly
what instructions are not being followed.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 13:38:44 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote
>in news:hck0tk$d0s$1@news.eternal-september.org: 
>
>> "Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
>> news:630re5hbav86uiarlv7rlbj510gh66s26o@news.markshouse.net...
>>> On 01 Nov 2009 08:46:43 +0000 (GMT), Alan Braggins put finger to
>>> keyboard and typed:
>>>
>>>>In article , Chris
>>>>French wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod
>>>>>I think that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.
>>>>
>>>>More accurately, the moderators can't receive emails from her
>>>>unless she follows the instructions on how to send mail to the
>>>>moderators. 
>>>
>>> Nor can anyone else who uses a Hotmail address.
>>>
>> 
>> Arbitrarily blocking mail from one of the biggest providers does
>> seem a little odd.
>> When it's just for your personal use block whatever domains you
>> want , but if you are acting in an official capacity then picking
>> who you will allow to contact you seems wrong.
>> 
>It isn't being blocked arbitrarily.  It is being blocked because it 
>does not comply with standards for a mailserver.  In this case, 
>however, most people seem to think Microsoft are being reasonable.  
>I suppose if Microsoft ignore enough standards they are bound to 
>come to one that needs ignoring sometime.


Feel free to explain how many other public organisations are also so
arrogant that Hotmail users cannot email them.

Do you actually know of just one?

Government departments accept them.

What is "special" about chiark?

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:21:24 +0000, Mike Tomlinson 
wrote:

>In article , Percy Picacity
><key@under.the.invalid> writes
>
>>So you have sent an email to the moderators of urcm so that you can 
>>complain that you cannot successfully send an email to the 
>>moderators of urcm.
>
>Just demonstrates the mentality of the jms entity.  She's completely
>fucking barking: can't everyone (including the moderators) just block
>her and ignore?

Thank you for bringing some grown up comments to the discussion

Forget about me for the moment (if you can).

Do you think it is acceptable that Hotmail users cannot contact the
moderators in the same way as everyone else?

On 01 Nov 2009 15:00:29 +0000 (GMT), armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

>In article , Mark Goodge wrote:
>>On 01 Nov 2009 08:46:43 +0000 (GMT), Alan Braggins put finger to
>>keyboard and typed:
>>>In article , Chris French wrote:
>>>>
>>>>So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod I think 
>>>>that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.
>>>
>>>More accurately, the moderators can't receive emails from her unless she
>>>follows the instructions on how to send mail to the moderators.
>>
>>Nor can anyone else who uses a Hotmail address.
>
>More accurately, nor can anyone else who uses a Hotmail address unless
>they follow the instructions on how to send mail to the moderators.
>Including the bit that gives an address that doesn't block Hotmail.


Is Hotmail mentioned in the instructions?

Do *you* as a moderator think it is acceptable that an email from a
Hotmail user is not delivered as it should be according to the
instruction given.

If one goes on to the official site of the Charter and follows those
instruction - then the email is not delivered.

That is wrong.

Please explain why you disagree.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 01:11:22 -0000, Alan LeHun  wrote:

>In article , 
>moderation2009@live.co.uk says...
>> Thanks - I will wait and see what the response is here first.
>> 
>> I don't hold out much hope.
>> 
>
>And nor should you. Complaining in here about moderation issues 
>is akin to complaining to your local MP about the quality of 
>the "shrink-proof" T-shirts you bought whilst on holiday in 
>Turkey.
>
>But then, you already knew this before you posted, didn't you. 
>
>Having said that, I doubt you would have had any more luck if 
>you had posted to the correct group, but at least then your 
>posts elsewhere might have had some semblance of credibility.


In which case *you* can advise me which was the correct group please.

You could ask one of the committee if you are unsure.

Did you miss the bit of my post where I said:

"If this post is inappropriate - I would be obliged if someone could
advise on the correct course of action for me to take to get this
problem resolved."


Looking forward to your kind help.

jms  wrote in
news:96dre5pphvmu1pabn75glpkh7b73lp8ah7@4ax.com: 


> 
> Forget about me for the moment (if you can).
> 
> Do you think it is acceptable that Hotmail users cannot contact
> the moderators in the same way as everyone else?

There you have a very good point.  So why several dozen posts asking 
how *you* can contact the moderators when you have already been 
told/read that you can do so via postmaster@*? You irritate everyone 
needlessly.  BTW, repeating the above endlessly is unlikely to make the 
point better, indeed if you say it enough everyone will be so bored 
they'll forget to challenge the urcm moderators about it.


-- 
Percy Picacity

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:59:41 +0000
Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

> In uk.net.news.management, Rob Morley  wrote:
> 
> >On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:21:24 +0000
> >Mike Tomlinson  wrote:
> >
> >> In article , Percy
> >> Picacity <key@under.the.invalid> writes
> >> 
> >> >So you have sent an email to the moderators of urcm so that you
> >> >can complain that you cannot successfully send an email to the 
> >> >moderators of urcm.
> >> 
> >> Just demonstrates the mentality of the jms entity.  She's
> >> completely fucking barking: can't everyone (including the
> >> moderators) just block her and ignore?
>  
> >That was my (and others people's) suggestion when the moderated
> >cycling group was suggested.  The unmoderated group looks quite
> >reasonable to me, but then I do have about fifty filter rules in
> >place to make it seem so.
> 
> If you continue to use your news reader in a responsible and adult
> fashion, we'll be forced to take it away from you.
> 
That's OK - I can recompile it from source.  :-)

At 16:14:18 on Sun, 1 Nov 2009, jms  wrote in 
:

>Now them Mark - don't be bringing sensibility in to this discussion.

Sensibility is not the quality of being sensible.  I suggest that you 
read a good manual on the difference between the two;  Austen, J. is 
generally considered the most useful reference work.
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

In article <hck440$s3i$4@news.eternal-september.org>, Tony
<tony@darkstorm.invalid> writes

>If you continue to use your news reader in a responsible and adult fashion,
>we'll be forced to take it away from you.

Oh, that made me laugh :) Thanks.  Considered putting yourself forward
for the Committee hustings?

-- 
(\__/)   
(='.'=)  Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(")  http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

In article , jms
 writes

>Perhaps *you* can explain the error which *I*  have made

It's already been pointed out to you several times, you stupid cow.  But
that skull of yours must be awfully difficult for cluons to penetrate.

> - or are you
>also  just a gobshite?

Interesting to see that you consider yourself a gobshite.  I had thought
until now that was exclusively in the male preserve.

-- 
(\__/)   
(='.'=)  Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(")  http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

In message , Percy Picacity 
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>> Arbitrarily blocking mail from one of the biggest providers does
>> seem a little odd.

>It isn't being blocked arbitrarily.  It is being blocked because it
>does not comply with standards for a mailserver.

Which standard? Please cite the relevant RFC or other recognized 
document.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                  | Home: 
Mobile: +44 7973 377646             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In uk.net.news.management, Mike Tomlinson  wrote:

>In article <hck440$s3i$4@news.eternal-september.org>, Tony
><tony@darkstorm.invalid> writes

>>If you continue to use your news reader in a responsible and adult fashion,
>>we'll be forced to take it away from you.

>Oh, that made me laugh :) Thanks.  Considered putting yourself forward
>for the Committee hustings?

Not since I stopped the heavy drinking.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:16:27 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

>>Oh, that made me laugh :) Thanks.  Considered putting yourself forward
>>for the Committee hustings?
>
>Not since I stopped the heavy drinking.

It's not the heavy drinking that's the problem.  For me it's what
happens when I stop heavy drinking...

"Percy Picacity" <key@under.the.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Xns9CB68AD061557perspicacity@208.90.168.18...
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote
> in news:hck0tk$d0s$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> "Mark Goodge"  wrote in message
>> news:630re5hbav86uiarlv7rlbj510gh66s26o@news.markshouse.net...
>>> On 01 Nov 2009 08:46:43 +0000 (GMT), Alan Braggins put finger to
>>> keyboard and typed:
>>>
>>>>In article , Chris
>>>>French wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>So, the moderators can't receive emails from JMS? If I was a mod
>>>>>I think that would be an entirely agreeable state of affairs.
>>>>
>>>>More accurately, the moderators can't receive emails from her
>>>>unless she follows the instructions on how to send mail to the
>>>>moderators.
>>>
>>> Nor can anyone else who uses a Hotmail address.
>>>
>>
>> Arbitrarily blocking mail from one of the biggest providers does
>> seem a little odd.
>> When it's just for your personal use block whatever domains you
>> want , but if you are acting in an official capacity then picking
>> who you will allow to contact you seems wrong.
>>
> It isn't being blocked arbitrarily.  It is being blocked because it
> does not comply with standards for a mailserver.

In what way?

Serious question , as I work in IT and run an email infrastructure that has 
always coped just fine with Hotmail addreses.


-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

In article , 
moderation2009@live.co.uk says...
> In which case *you* can advise me which was the correct group please.
> 
> You could ask one of the committee if you are unsure.
> 
> Did you miss the bit of my post where I said:
> 
> "If this post is inappropriate - I would be obliged if someone could
> advise on the correct course of action for me to take to get this
> problem resolved."
> 
> 
> Looking forward to your kind help.
> 

A post to uk.net.news.moderation is supposed to start up a 
discussion on any moderation issues. This kind of pre-empts any 
"formal" action.

AFA the committee AC, formal complaints need to be sent to the 
committee email address although I have heard rumours that they 
are frantically trying to migrate the whole lot onto chiark as 
we speak.

-- 
Alan LeHun

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:48:11 -0000, Alan LeHun  said:
> are frantically trying to migrate the whole lot onto chiark as 
> we speak.

I think we sent thr request via our hotmail account, though...


--
-- 
Sent from my phone (yes I know that may be sad)
Therefore please excuse errors in formatting,
spelling, typos, simple logic or reasoning.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:47:37 +0000, Mike Tomlinson 
wrote:

>In article , jms
> writes
>
>>Perhaps *you* can explain the error which *I*  have made
>
>It's already been pointed out to you several times, you stupid cow.  But
>that skull of yours must be awfully difficult for cluons to penetrate.


OK - so it is because I use a Hotmail account.

I though you were suggesting that I was doing something wrong.


Do you think it is acceptable that Hotmail users cannot contact the
moderators on their official address?

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:08:56 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>jms  wrote in
>news:96dre5pphvmu1pabn75glpkh7b73lp8ah7@4ax.com: 
>
>
>> 
>> Forget about me for the moment (if you can).
>> 
>> Do you think it is acceptable that Hotmail users cannot contact
>> the moderators in the same way as everyone else?
>
>There you have a very good point.  So why several dozen posts asking 
>how *you* can contact the moderators when you have already been 
>told/read that you can do so via postmaster@*? You irritate everyone 
>needlessly.  BTW, repeating the above endlessly is unlikely to make the 
>point better, indeed if you say it enough everyone will be so bored 
>they'll forget to challenge the urcm moderators about it.


To me - it is totally unacceptable that there is one way of contacting
the moderators by one group of people - and a totally different way
for the rest of the world to contact the moderators.

To me - this seems both wrong and insane.

It would of course have been useful if you had answered the question I
asked.

I am glad that you are happy with the situation.


PS - I am impressed that you know that I irritate *everyone*.  If it
is causing *you* so much of a problem  - please look up "kill-file"
and how to implement.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:48:11 -0000, Alan LeHun  wrote:

>In article , 
>moderation2009@live.co.uk says...
>> In which case *you* can advise me which was the correct group please.
>> 
>> You could ask one of the committee if you are unsure.
>> 
>> Did you miss the bit of my post where I said:
>> 
>> "If this post is inappropriate - I would be obliged if someone could
>> advise on the correct course of action for me to take to get this
>> problem resolved."
>> 
>> 
>> Looking forward to your kind help.
>> 
>
>A post to uk.net.news.moderation is supposed to start up a 
>discussion on any moderation issues. 


I am awfully sorry - I had though that a discussion about not being
able to contact the moderators was a moderation issue.

My mistake.

Are you going to tell the other 40+ posters that they are in the wrong
room for a discussion  - or shall I?

In article , 
moderation2009@live.co.uk says...

> >A post to uk.net.news.moderation is supposed to start up a 
> >discussion on any moderation issues. 
> 
> 
> I am awfully sorry - I had though that a discussion about not being
> able to contact the moderators was a moderation issue.
> 

????

Have you been drinking?

A discussion about not being able to contact the moderators is 
itself not a moderation issue. It is a discussion Unless, of 
course, said discussion is happening in a moderated group. 
uk.net.news.moderation is an unmoderated newsgroups where 
people can discuss problems and issues regarding moderated 
groups in the uk* hierarchy.

You have an issue in contacting the moderators for one 
particular moderated uk* group. This is a moderation issue. It 
belongs in uk.net.news.moderation.

I apologise if I have mis-read what you are trying to say but 
I'm afraid it didn't make sense to me.

It does makes sense if a "not" is inserted between "had" and 
"though"(sic).



-- 
Alan LeHun

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 23:56:38  
uk.net.news.moderation jms 


>PS - I am impressed that you know that I irritate *everyone*.  If it
>is causing *you* so much of a problem  - please look up "kill-file"
>and how to implement.

List the people you know you don't irritate.  I expect it will be short 
but try anyway.

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

On Nov 2, 9:36 am, "Wm..."  wrote:
> Sun, 1 Nov 2009 23:56:38 
> uk.net.news.moderation jms 
>
> >PS - I am impressed that you know that I irritate *everyone*.  If it
> >is causing *you* so much of a problem  - please look up "kill-file"
> >and how to implement.
>
> List the people you know you don't irritate.  I expect it will be short
> but try anyway.

It doesn't irritate me as much as those who insist on responding to
everything it says.

(Mainly cos it lives in the killfile and they do not yet, of course.)

James

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:25:56 
 
uk.net.news.management James 

>On Nov 2, 9:36 am, "Wm..."  wrote:
>> Sun, 1 Nov 2009 23:56:38 
>> uk.net.news.moderation jms 
>>
>> >PS - I am impressed that you know that I irritate *everyone*.  If it
>> >is causing *you* so much of a problem  - please look up "kill-file"
>> >and how to implement.
>>
>> List the people you know you don't irritate.  I expect it will be short
>> but try anyway.
>
>It doesn't irritate me as much as those who insist on responding to
>everything it says.
>
>(Mainly cos it lives in the killfile and they do not yet, of course.)

You are not the only person to have tried that.  I think I and many 
other people should read almost everything in some groups.  You could 
ask but I think a lot of people turn off their filters when it is 
election time.  That is, of course, no reason for me to reply to the jms 
but it is my explanation.

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

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:25:56 -0800, James wrote:

> On Nov 2, 9:36 am, "Wm..."  wrote:
>> Sun, 1 Nov 2009 23:56:38 
>> List the people you know you don't irritate.  I expect it will be short
>> but try anyway.
> 
> It doesn't irritate me as much as those who insist on responding to
> everything it says.
> 
> (Mainly cos it lives in the killfile and they do not yet, of course.)

Exactly. Those who never have anything useful to say may be easily kill-
filed. It's the people who sometimes have something useful to say, but 
who are also inveterate shit stirrers, who give more problems.

-- 
stillyet@googlemail.com (Simon Brooke) http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/
It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and 
every moderation decision is unexplained and final.