On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:40:31 +0000, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>By the way, in the spirit of everything being open and above-board, it 
>occurs to  me to wonder whether you have a name?  

Yes

>Or do you always hide behind that nym?

Fals and/or.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:35:08 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>>By the way, in the spirit of everything being open and above-board, it 
>>occurs to  me to wonder whether you have a name?  
>
>Yes

And an account on chiark?

I'm actually now wondering if, given your expressed capability in
intellectual prowess, whether this is all some kind of Footlights
jape,

History is littered with the bodies of intellectuals who tried to
change the world, for the benefit of the uneducated, to suit that
shape that the intellectuals thought it should be.

.m  wrote:
>
>And an account on chiark?

Cherry Chapstick is a long standing uk.misc poster who doesn't have a
chiark account.  They do know some people with chiark accounts
through uk.misc: Matthew is a regular poster, though I don't think the
other candidates are.

It's fairly common not to use a real name on uk.misc, and although I
could put one to several posters I wouldn't want to "out" anyone.  It
does allow people to post without any fear of anything they say
affecting their jobs.

-- 
eleanor@the-blairs.co.uk                          http://lnr.livejournal.com/

On 02 Nov 2009 10:35:10 +0000 (GMT), Eleanor Blair
 wrote:

>It's fairly common not to use a real name on uk.misc, and although I
>could put one to several posters I wouldn't want to "out" anyone.  It
>does allow people to post without any fear of anything they say
>affecting their jobs.

While this is understandable, you/her must also recognise the
suspicion that will be raised when such an anonymous poster pops in
with what appears to be a wholly concomitant agenda to those of the
Chiark?

Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:

> >Not that my opinion is worth anything, I don't think you owe Steve 
> >Firth an apology.  On the other hand, neither do I think his 
> >rudeness is generally malicious, though he could be described as 
> >narrow-minded and bigotted, if only to annoy.
> 
> I think he's trying to set himself up as a rival to Huge, but not
> doing a very good job of it.  I'd be very surprised if it's anything
> other than a front.

I've read Firthy for years, even when he's on Altopia. I really don't
think he's in a pissing contest with Huge, he's just unable to suffer
fools gladly. Forthright righteous indignation is a powerful method 
of getting ones point over when compared with polite discussion; 
it's a lot more memorable.

Maybe it's all put on; who knows, who cares.

-- 
^Ï^.        Sn!pe        My pet rock Gordon just is.

Sn!pe  wrote:

> I really don't think he's in a pissing contest with Huge, he's just unable
> to suffer fools gladly.

And oodly enough URC is full of fools, and sometimes they escape. I used
to be very kind, careful and terminally patient with clueless wazzocks.
All it got me was that the people, often ones I had spend several hours
or days doing unpaid work to help, turned around and were sneeringly
nasty or dismissive of the effort involved. Best just to sandbag the
fuckwits from square one. It's not as if they are difficult to spot and
apart from a little whining from the likes of Chapman, in general it
leads to a quieter life.

In article <1j8lmw6.z6gcqz14r2psoN%snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>,
Sn!pe  wrote:
>I've read Firthy for years, even when he's on Altopia. I really don't
>think he's in a pissing contest with Huge, he's just unable to suffer
>fools gladly. Forthright righteous indignation is a powerful method 
>of getting ones point over when compared with polite discussion; 
>it's a lot more memorable.
>
 So long as the point that you're a person of extreme forthright
righteous indignation is the pont one is trying to make rather than
whatever point one was actually trying to make. 

 I have no idea what points Mr Firth actually wants to make, except
that he seems to believe that anyone who hasn't been posting in unn*
for over 5 years is unprintable in some manner, shape, or fashion.

-- 
Jonathan Amery.    Daughter of the Night, she walks again,
   #####              The ancient war, she yet fights.
  #######__o          Her new lover she seeks,
  #######'/        Who will serve her and die, yet serve still.    - R.Jordan.

Jonathan Amery  wrote:

[...]

>  I have no idea what points Mr Firth actually wants to make, except
> that he seems to believe that anyone who hasn't been posting in unn*
> for over 5 years is unprintable in some manner, shape, or fashion.

I'm new here this week! I'm still ploughing through 1813 articles, all
that my NSP could offer; I still have 634 to go. It's quite interesting
to read the whole group over a short period of time, one certainly gets
a good idea of the social dynamic.

BTW, just out of idle curiousity and to display my own prejudice, 
are you a cyclist?* I note also that you post from chiark, irrelevant 
as that no doubt is. I'm afraid I'm just the kind of chap who likes to
put people in boxes, all neatly labeled.



* JFTR I should declare that I have a strong dislike of those cyclists
who disregard the Highway Code; I cannot believe that if elected that
kind would not bring those thrusting attitudes to the committee. 

I do not intend to discuss my antipathy to the militant cyclism party 
in this place, maybe I should go to urcm.

-- 
^Ï^.        Sn!pe        My pet rock Gordon is not serious about urcm.

Jonathan Amery  wrote:

> 
>  I have no idea what points Mr Firth actually wants to make, 

Of course you don't. Because sticking one's head in the sand to provide
somewhere to park the bike seems to be common in the psycholing
newsgroups.

> except that he seems to believe that anyone who hasn't been posting in
> unn* for over 5 years is unprintable in some manner, shape, or fashion.

Absolute, unmitigated bullshit.

Jonathan Amery  wrote:

> In article <1j8lqef.15qzcth101ip0fN%snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>,
> Sn!pe  wrote:

> >BTW, just out of idle curiousity and to display my own prejudice, 
> >are you a cyclist?* I note also that you post from chiark, irrelevant
> >as that no doubt is. I'm afraid I'm just the kind of chap who likes to
> >put people in boxes, all neatly labeled.
> >
>  I am indeed a cyclist, in the sense that I own a bicycle and
> frequently use it for local travel.

[...]

Thank you for taking my question seriously, Jonathan. I note 
your comments and laud your attitude to the Highway Code.

-- 
^Ï^.        Sn!pe        My pet rock Gordon just is.

.m  wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:13:20 +0000, snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe)
> wrote:
> 
> >I cannot believe that if elected that
> >kind would not bring those thrusting attitudes to the committee.
> 
> Not sure I'd have used "thrusting" in that sentence!

I've just watched that cycling proficiency video.

-- 
^Ï^.        Sn!pe        My pet rock Gordon just is.

"Sn!pe"  wrote in message 
news:1j8lqef.15qzcth101ip0fN%snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk...
> Jonathan Amery  wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>  I have no idea what points Mr Firth actually wants to make, except
>> that he seems to believe that anyone who hasn't been posting in unn*
>> for over 5 years is unprintable in some manner, shape, or fashion.
>
> I'm new here this week! I'm still ploughing through 1813 articles, all
> that my NSP could offer; I still have 634 to go. It's quite interesting
> to read the whole group over a short period of time, one certainly gets
> a good idea of the social dynamic.
>
> BTW, just out of idle curiousity and to display my own prejudice,
> are you a cyclist?* I note also that you post from chiark, irrelevant
> as that no doubt is. I'm afraid I'm just the kind of chap who likes to
> put people in boxes, all neatly labeled.
>
>
>
> * JFTR I should declare that I have a strong dislike of those cyclists
> who disregard the Highway Code; I cannot believe that if elected that
> kind would not bring those thrusting attitudes to the committee.
>
> I do not intend to discuss my antipathy to the militant cyclism party
> in this place, maybe I should go to urcm.

I can assure you that you will not be allowed to discuss your antipathy in 
the moderated cycling newsgroup.  Such postings will be rejected by the 
moderators who are mostly sympathetic to militant cycling doctrines.  You 
are better off directing it to the unmoderated newsgroup.

Mr Benn <nospam@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > I do not intend to discuss my antipathy to the militant cyclism party
> > in this place, maybe I should go to urcm.
> 
> I can assure you that you will not be allowed to discuss your antipathy in
> the moderated cycling newsgroup.  Such postings will be rejected by the
> moderators who are mostly sympathetic to militant cycling doctrines.  You
> are better off directing it to the unmoderated newsgroup. 

To be honest, it isn't a battle that I would relish fighting again; 
I offer it out of courtesy to those whom I may have offended. 
I do wonder whether my submissions to urcm would be accepted,
although I'm not curious enough to test the matter.

-- 
^Ï^.        Sn!pe        My pet rock Gordon just is.

John Hall  wrote:

> >I'm afraid I'm just the kind of chap who likes to
> >put people in boxes, all neatly labeled.
> 
> Have you thought of becoming an undertaker?

I quite like the idea of a top hat with black ribbons.

-- 
^Ï^.        Sn!pe        My pet rock Gordon just is.

Jonathan Amery  wrote:

> In article <1j8lqz6.v3nlbq10ju5zkN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> >Jonathan Amery  wrote:
> >> except that he seems to believe that anyone who hasn't been posting in
> >> unn* for over 5 years is unprintable in some manner, shape, or fashion.
> >
> >Absolute, unmitigated bullshit.
> 
>  OK, OK, it isn't actually unprintable, as you demonstrate.  However I
> was attempting to avoid descending to your level.

Not even close to unprintable, nor even mildly offensive. You need to
(a) grow up and (b) get a slightly thicker skin. Oh, hang on, you're not
one of those god-botherers are you?