Yesterday, I tried to post my "Compensation claim" message
to uk.legal.moderated.

Not only did it not appear but on checking my mailbox at
yahoo.co.uk there was no rejection notice. I checked on the
moderation site and found this

Post Id:82277
Reject reason given -->
Blacklisted

and at the bottom of my message

man-reject-769956qafda

The charter of the newsgroup at http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm
states

The moderators will try to return any rejected message to the sender
via email, except in the case of spam and articles without a valid
return address. The email includes the reason for the rejection and the
the email address to which any subsequent discussion can be directed.
The moderators will on request try to assist posters in rephrasing
articles so  that they can be approved.

But they did not do that. They just blacklisted me after only one
attempt to post to their newsgroup.

They have failed to comply with their charter.

They are out of control.

Can they be removed and a new set of moderators installed
who WILL comply with the charter?

Hugh_Jampton wrote:

> Yesterday, I tried to post my "Compensation claim" message
> to uk.legal.moderated.
>
> Not only did it not appear but on checking my mailbox at
> yahoo.co.uk there was no rejection notice. I checked on the
> moderation site and found this
>
> Post Id:82277
> Reject reason given -->
> Blacklisted

Hey join the club, Marshall rice wets himself when he sees my posts to
*moderated* and he jerks off as he rejects it, no matter what you post.
Once one of the moderators takes offense at you, the wanker will
blacklist you forever it seemsnow one of the wamkers will no doubt come
on and explain that a person may earn redemption over time, but its
nonsense of course, once a moderator, always a wanker.

"Hugh_Jampton" wrote (whinge snipped)

> But they did not do that. They just blacklisted me after only one
> attempt to post to their newsgroup.
>
> They have failed to comply with their charter.
>
> They are out of control.
>
> Can they be removed and a new set of moderators installed
> who WILL comply with the charter?

No.

They are a fine body of men and women. They know a troll when they see one. 
At themoment well over half of submissions atre spam or other crap from what 
I can see.

Unfunny trolls should take their shafts of wit elsewhere (copyright Dr. 
Spooner).

Bystander wrote:

> No.

Shame and un democratic

>
> They are a fine body of men and women. They know a troll when they see one.
> At themoment well over half of submissions atre spam or other crap from what
> I can see.

Only a person who is on the *whitelist* would say such a thing

>
> Unfunny trolls should take their shafts of wit elsewhere (copyright Dr.
> Spooner).

At least you admit you can laugh then, and here was I thinking you were
just some stiff ole beak (berk) with a grudge against the world who did
not think like you.

andre wrote:
> Bystander wrote:
> > They are a fine body of men and women. They know a troll when they see one.
> > At themoment well over half of submissions atre spam or other crap from what
> > I can see.
>
> Only a person who is on the *whitelist* would say such a thing

Only a fool would make such a comment about
someone who is obviously one of the moderators!
Did you not notice how he completely failed to
address even one of the points raised by the
priapic Hugh?




If you have been, did it stay up?
 
-- 
 x
/|\

Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> andre wrote:
>> Bystander wrote:
>>> They are a fine body of men and women. They know a troll when
>>> they see one. At themoment well over half of submissions atre
>>> spam or other crap from what I can see.
>>
>> Only a person who is on the *whitelist* would say such a thing
>
> Only a fool would make such a comment about
> someone who is obviously one of the moderators!
> Did you not notice how he completely failed to
> address even one of the points raised by the
> priapic Hugh?

No, but I noticed something else interesting :

jampton2006<at>yahoo.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.195.0.101

Theo_Delight<at>yahoo.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.195.0.101

Perhaps this is an extraordinary coincidence, and you're both posting from 
the same web cafe?   I'm sure you wouldn't resort to using sock-puppets to 
discuss yourself in the third person, which would be the other explanation.

In message , 
Hugh_Jampton  writes
>
>But they did not do that. They just blacklisted me after only one
>attempt to post to their newsgroup.

How much of your tedious drivel do you think we should have had to 
reject before canning you permanently?

>They have failed to comply with their charter.
>
>They are out of control.

On the contrary, it was a good call and the moderator concerned is to be 
congratulated on identifying and blacklisting your various sockpuppets 
too.

-- 
Marshall Rice

(Put the bin out to email me)

Steve Walker wrote:
> Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > andre wrote:
> >> Bystander wrote:
> >>> They are a fine body of men and women. They know a troll when
> >>> they see one. At themoment well over half of submissions atre
> >>> spam or other crap from what I can see.
> >> Only a person who is on the *whitelist* would say such a thing
> > Only a fool would make such a comment about
> > someone who is obviously one of the moderators!
> > Did you not notice how he completely failed to
> > address even one of the points raised by the
> > priapic Hugh?
>
> No, but I noticed something else interesting :
> jampton2006<at>yahoo.co.uk
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.195.0.101
> Theo_Delight<at>yahoo.co.uk
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.195.0.101
> Perhaps this is an extraordinary coincidence, and you're both posting from
> the same web cafe?   I'm sure you wouldn't resort to using sock-puppets to
> discuss yourself in the third person, which would be the other explanation.

Do yourself and the world a favour and look up or run
a traceroute on that IP address before you post more piffle.
You will find that it is the webcache of a certain service
provider and thus all you have proved is that the latter-day
Jake the Peg and I use the same service provider.
http://www.samspade.org/t/lookat?a=193.195.0.101 will
tell you what you need to know.

But to return to the reply by Bystander, did he bother
to address even one of the points raised by the trolling
Hugh? The answer is that he did not and I suspect that
he has no answer for, when one of my submissions to
uk.legal.moderated was rightly rejected some few weeks
ago, I did not receive an email saying it had been rejected
or detailing why. I did not bother to raise the matter at the
time because I did not know that one should and, anyway,
it hardly seemed necessary as the submitted posting was
not quite up to my usual. kindly and helpful standard.
 
 
 
 
 
If you have been, was it bent?
 
-- 
 x
/|\

Steve Walker wrote:
> Why not give it another try when you've got 5 mins - it's a smaller and more
> courteous community, where your info & comments would I'm sure be
> appreciated.

It is rare indeed that I am discourteous and then hardly ever
without good cause, but one must wonder just how "courteous"
can be moderators who blacklist would-be contributors without
so much as a warning and who reject submitted postings
without deigning to send an email explaining what had been
done and why, as required under the charter of that newsgroup.





If you have been. why are you not any better?
 
-- 
 x
/|\

Marshall Rice wrote:
>
> On the contrary, it was a good call and the moderator concerned is to be
> congratulated on identifying and blacklisting your various sockpuppets
> too.

Come on Marshall admit that all moderators have pet hates, you
positively dislike me and you go out of your way to say so, if its not
you who blackilisted me, it was one of your sock puppets who wants to
curry favor with you that does the deed, eh. But you just love to be
the one dont you, you gay blade you.

The real questions is:

Given that we know moderators are *normal* each with his/her pet hates
caried over from UK L, why dont you put up they guy each one of you
hate the most, I would dearly love to begin the list.

On 20 Jan 2006 22:23:42 -0800, "Hugh_Jampton"
 wrote:

>Yesterday, I tried to post my "Compensation claim" message
>to uk.legal.moderated.
>
>Not only did it not appear but on checking my mailbox at
>yahoo.co.uk there was no rejection notice. I checked on the
>moderation site and found this
>
>Post Id:82277
>Reject reason given -->
>Blacklisted
>

It seems reasonable to blacklist somebody whose only attempt to post
was a clear troll.


>and at the bottom of my message
>
>man-reject-769956qafda
>
>The charter of the newsgroup at http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm
>states
>
>The moderators will try to return any rejected message to the sender
>via email, except in the case of spam and articles without a valid
>return address. The email includes the reason for the rejection and the
>the email address to which any subsequent discussion can be directed.
>The moderators will on request try to assist posters in rephrasing
>articles so  that they can be approved.
>
>But they did not do that. They just blacklisted me after only one
>attempt to post to their newsgroup.
>
>They have failed to comply with their charter.
>

No they haven't.
e) The moderators may at their discretion ban contributors who try to
disrupt the group by wasting the moderators time.

A clear troll is wasting their time.

>They are out of control.
>
>Can they be removed and a new set of moderators installed
>who WILL comply with the charter?

No.

Even if what you said was true, which it isn't, they could not be
removed.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Confuse People: Quote from the wrong message!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Steve Walker wrote:
>> No, but I noticed something else interesting :
>> jampton2006<at>yahoo.co.uk
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.195.0.101
>> Theo_Delight<at>yahoo.co.uk
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.195.0.101
>
> Do yourself and the world a favour and look up or run
> a traceroute on that IP address before you post more piffle.
> You will find that it is the webcache of a certain service
> provider and thus all you have proved is that the latter-day
> Jake the Peg and I use the same service provider.

Thanks for the tech info, which is appreciated, but what I have or haven't 
_proved_ is beside the point.    The issue was whether you are posting here 
as both jampton2006 & Theo_Delight.     Perhaps you could put my mind at 
rest on that specific question?

Steve Walker wrote:
> Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > Steve Walker wrote:
> >> No, but I noticed something else interesting :
> >> jampton2006<at>yahoo.co.uk
> >> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.195.0.101
> >> Theo_Delight<at>yahoo.co.uk
> >> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.195.0.101
> > Do yourself and the world a favour and look up or run
> > a traceroute on that IP address before you post more piffle.
> > You will find that it is the webcache of a certain service
> > provider and thus all you have proved is that the latter-day
> > Jake the Peg and I use the same service provider.

And according to Anthony "Good As" Gold, both the
priapic 'gent' and I use the same "minority browser" which
(in my case at least) is called Internet Explorer and came
from a little-known company called Microsoft.

> Thanks for the tech info, which is appreciated, but what I have or haven't
> _proved_ is beside the point.    The issue was whether you are posting here
> as both jampton2006 & Theo_Delight.     Perhaps you could put my mind at
> rest on that specific question?

I suspect that might be difficult to do, as the question would
seem to be redundant to someone capable of cerebration.
As you seem to have previously demonstrated that you
are at least capable of thought, one must wonder why you
should ask such an insulting question at all. To seek to
associate me with such an obvious, odious and downright
offensive troll could even be considered defamatory.

But no, I am not posting here as jampton2006.

Does that satisfy you?
 
 
 
 
 
If you have been, were you cogitated for long?
 
-- 
 x
/|\

Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

..
> As you seem to have previously demonstrated that you
> are at least capable of thought,

I take exception to the above statement Walker NOT is capable of
thought, you are implying he can make original contribution and thus be
a *normal* person, Walker cannot and does not make any try at original
thought, he merely copies words such as, you re a troll, or watch out
troll about, you can expect the guy to target you in a -ve way for some
time, hes a lonely old stalker is our Steve.

Walker is amongst the most boring trolls here, Theo keep it up.

"Hugh_Jampton"  wrote in message 
news:1137824622.194510.141750@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Yesterday, I tried to post my "Compensation claim" message
> to uk.legal.moderated.
>
> Not only did it not appear but on checking my mailbox at
> yahoo.co.uk there was no rejection notice. I checked on the
> moderation site and found this
>
> Post Id:82277
> Reject reason given -->
> Blacklisted
>
> and at the bottom of my message
>
> man-reject-769956qafda
>
> The charter of the newsgroup at http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm
> states
>
> The moderators will try to return any rejected message to the sender
> via email, except in the case of spam and articles without a valid
> return address. The email includes the reason for the rejection and the
> the email address to which any subsequent discussion can be directed.
> The moderators will on request try to assist posters in rephrasing
> articles so  that they can be approved.
>
> But they did not do that. They just blacklisted me after only one
> attempt to post to their newsgroup.


It's what's commonly known as a good decision.

>
> They have failed to comply with their charter.
>
> They are out of control.
>
> Can they be removed and a new set of moderators installed
> who WILL comply with the charter?

What a pity that your intellect isn't one quarter the size you claim your 
dick is.

Joe Lee

Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> But to return to the reply by Bystander, did he bother
> to address even one of the points raised by the trolling
> Hugh? The answer is that he did not and I suspect that
> he has no answer for, when one of my submissions to
> uk.legal.moderated was rightly rejected some few weeks
> ago, I did not receive an email saying it had been rejected
> or detailing why. I did not bother to raise the matter at the
> time because I did not know that one should and, anyway,
> it hardly seemed necessary as the submitted posting was
> not quite up to my usual. kindly and helpful standard.

A correction is needed here as I have just checked
my mailbox and I have found that I did receive an email
of my rejected submission from December 10. However,
it would be entirely correct to say that email did not
contain any explanation of why the submission had
been rejected but just that it had been rejected.


 
 

If you have been, was it pliable?

-- 
 x
/|\

On 21 Jan 2006 17:22:20 -0800, Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>Steve Walker wrote:
>> Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> > Steve Walker wrote:
>> >> No, but I noticed something else interesting :
>> >> jampton2006<at>yahoo.co.uk
>> >> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.195.0.101
>> >> Theo_Delight<at>yahoo.co.uk
>> >> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.195.0.101
>> > Do yourself and the world a favour and look up or run
>> > a traceroute on that IP address before you post more piffle.
>> > You will find that it is the webcache of a certain service
>> > provider and thus all you have proved is that the latter-day
>> > Jake the Peg and I use the same service provider.
>
>And according to Anthony "Good As" Gold, both the
>priapic 'gent' and I use the same "minority browser" which
>(in my case at least) is called Internet Explorer and came
>from a little-known company called Microsoft.
>

Why lie about the client you are using?

You are posting, according to your headers, using Mozilla 4.0.


>> Thanks for the tech info, which is appreciated, but what I have or haven't
>> _proved_ is beside the point.    The issue was whether you are posting here
>> as both jampton2006 & Theo_Delight.     Perhaps you could put my mind at
>> rest on that specific question?
>
>I suspect that might be difficult to do, as the question would
>seem to be redundant to someone capable of cerebration.

No, it is an obvious question to anybody looking at your posts and
his.

>
>But no, I am not posting here as jampton2006.
>

More or less, although I still have my doubts.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Hm..what's this red button fo:=/07<NO CARRIER
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:
> 
> Why lie about the client you are using?
> 
> You are posting, according to your headers, using Mozilla 4.0.

I am afraid you are slightly wrong here. The user agent in his postings is:

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; 
DIL0001021),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)

That is MS Internet Exporer 5.5 on Windows 98.

The "compatible" bit refers to MSIE 5.5 (e.g. MS Internet Explorer 5.5) 
claiming to be compatible with Mozilla/4.0 -- a very old version of 
Netscape. The entire "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible" is a relic, which has not 
changed, from the old days when IE was playing catchup to Netscape.

I do agree with you, however, that it is slightly suspicous that 
Theo_Delight and Hugh_Jampton:

* Both use Demon as their ISP
* Both use Google groups to post
* Both have exactly the same browser user agent (IE 5.5 on Windows 98 -- 
not a very common combination these days)
* Have a very similar posting style

Alex Heney wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2006 17:22:20 -0800, Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> >And according to Anthony "Good As" Gold, both the
> >priapic 'gent' and I use the same "minority browser" which
> >(in my case at least) is called Internet Explorer and came
> >from a little-known company called Microsoft.
>
> Why lie about the client you are using?

I did not and do not lie.

You owe me an apology and should, as part of your
offer to make amends, issue an immediate cancel
request in respect of your defamatory and most
contumelious posting.

 
 
 
 
 
If you have been, do you remember Lawrence?
 
-- 
 x
/|\

In message , at 18:21:52 on Sat, 
21 Jan 2006, Marshall Rice  wibbled
>In message , 
>Hugh_Jampton  writes
>>
>>But they did not do that. They just blacklisted me after only one
>>attempt to post to their newsgroup.
>
>How much of your tedious drivel do you think we should have had to 
>reject before canning you permanently?

Wasn't even tedious drivel. It was an attempted troll, pure and simple.

Perhaps the OP lives at map reference SE 06865 61710
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=406865&y=461710&z=3
>
>>They have failed to comply with their charter.
>>
>>They are out of control.
>
>On the contrary, it was a good call and the moderator concerned is to 
>be congratulated on identifying and blacklisting your various 
>sockpuppets too.

Indeed. Kudos for the mod who correctly identified it.

Same attempted post to ulm was also x-posted separately to
uk.people.disability, uk.people.health, uk.rec.sheds

-- 
Pedt
Cryptic Crossword Clues #10 (Round II)
Smelly city chap is beyond a joke (7)

Joe Lee wrote:

> What a pity that your intellect isn't one quarter the size you claim your
> dick is.

You have a very funny interest in this guys *dick* why is that Joe?

Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Steve Walker wrote:

>> Thanks for the tech info, which is appreciated, but what I have
>> or haven't _proved_ is beside the point.    The issue was
>> whether you are posting here as both jampton2006 & Theo_Delight.
>> Perhaps you could put my mind at rest on that specific question?
>
> I suspect that might be difficult to do, as the question would
> seem to be redundant to someone capable of cerebration.
> As you seem to have previously demonstrated that you
> are at least capable of thought, one must wonder why you
> should ask such an insulting question at all. To seek to
> associate me with such an obvious, odious and downright
> offensive troll could even be considered defamatory.
>
> But no, I am not posting here as jampton2006.
>
> Does that satisfy you?

Yes, thank you.   My apologies for any slur you felt was implied.  Certainly 
none was intended.

In message , 
Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk writes

>But no, I am not posting here as jampton2006.

No offence intended, but as this is a legal newsgroup, I'm afraid that 
does beg the question: have you ever?
-- 
Marshall Rice

(Put the bin out to email me)

Marshall Rice wrote:
> In message ,
> Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk writes
>
>> But no, I am not posting here as jampton2006.
>
> No offence intended, but as this is a legal newsgroup, I'm afraid that
> does beg the question: have you ever?

ITYM:
If you have been, have you ever?
-- 
John Briggs

Marshall Rice wrote:
> In message ,
> Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk writes
> >But no, I am not posting here as jampton2006.
>
> No offence intended, but as this is a legal newsgroup, I'm afraid that
> does beg the question: have you ever?

Do you really need to ask that question?

If you do, then you truly do not know me, old friend.


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
If you have been, how was the record attempt?
 
-- 
 x
/|\

John Briggs wrote:
> Marshall Rice wrote:
> > In message ,
> > Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk writes
> >> But no, I am not posting here as jampton2006.
> > No offence intended, but as this is a legal newsgroup, I'm afraid that
> > does beg the question: have you ever?
>
> ITYM:
> If you have been, have you ever?

Don't you start posting Trefusisms, after the style
of the quondam occupier of the Charles Rennie Mackintosh
Chair of Theoretical and Applied Phililogy at St Matthews
College, Professor Donald Trefusis. One of us is
surely quite enough.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
If you have not been, do you not regret it?
 
-- 
 x
/|\

Marshall Rice wrote:
> In message ,
> Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk writes
> >But no, I am not posting here as jampton2006.
> No offence intended,

Yet nevetheless you could successfully have been
offensive to someone who did not know you better.

Now that I have responded to your question, would it
trouble you too much were you to respond to the points
raised by the cove with the exaggerated phallus?

If that is too onerous, perhaps you might prefer to deal
with the matter I raised, of the rejection email I received
on December 10 which merely informed me that a
submission had been rejected but without stating why.
Since when was it 'moderation policy' to leave would-be
contributors guessing until their rejected submissions
appeared on the moderation site exposed to public gaze?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
If you have been, did you understand why?
 
-- 
 x
/|\

On 22 Jan 2006 10:34:08 -0800, Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>Marshall Rice wrote:
>> In message ,
>> Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk writes
>> >But no, I am not posting here as jampton2006.
>> No offence intended,
>
>Yet nevetheless you could successfully have been
>offensive to someone who did not know you better.
>
>Now that I have responded to your question, would it
>trouble you too much were you to respond to the points
>raised by the cove with the exaggerated phallus?
>
>If that is too onerous, perhaps you might prefer to deal
>with the matter I raised, of the rejection email I received
>on December 10 which merely informed me that a
>submission had been rejected but without stating why.
>Since when was it 'moderation policy' to leave would-be
>contributors guessing until their rejected submissions
>appeared on the moderation site exposed to public gaze?

If you could keep your pointless posturing to the relevant groups it
would help improve the signal to noise ratio on uk.net.news.config
considerably.

Thank you.

Paul.

-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 03:45:33 +0000, Chris Howells
 wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>> 
>> Why lie about the client you are using?
>> 
>> You are posting, according to your headers, using Mozilla 4.0.
>
>I am afraid you are slightly wrong here. The user agent in his postings is:
>
>Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; 
>DIL0001021),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>
>That is MS Internet Exporer 5.5 on Windows 98.
>
>The "compatible" bit refers to MSIE 5.5 (e.g. MS Internet Explorer 5.5) 
>claiming to be compatible with Mozilla/4.0 

Ah.

I thought it was the other way around.

That it was Mozilla claiming to be compatible with IE.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Committees keep minutes and lose hours.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On 21 Jan 2006 21:21:28 -0800, Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On 21 Jan 2006 17:22:20 -0800, Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> >And according to Anthony "Good As" Gold, both the
>> >priapic 'gent' and I use the same "minority browser" which
>> >(in my case at least) is called Internet Explorer and came
>> >from a little-known company called Microsoft.
>>
>> Why lie about the client you are using?
>
>I did not and do not lie.
>
>You owe me an apology and should, as part of your
>offer to make amends, issue an immediate cancel
>request in respect of your defamatory and most
>contumelious posting.
>

Sorry, it was my mistake in reading that header. I thought it meant
you were using Mozilla (claiming to be compatible with IE), rather
than using IE (claiming to be compatible with Mozilla).

I'm not going to issue a cancel because the post is already out there,
and hardly any news servers honour cancel messages.

It would also make the thread meaningless to those whose server did
honour it.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If it's too loud, you're too old.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom