I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.

Can anyone explain why?

--
 x    Has it gone {R}'s over tip?
/|\

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:26:31 -0800, Theo Delight
 wrote:

> I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>
> Can anyone explain why?

The first question is whether that is true, or is "lunacy" or something
else in your article on the word watch list that overrides the white list.

Tony

On 11 Nov, 01:39, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:26:31 -0800, Theo Delight
>  wrote:
> > I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>
> > Can anyone explain why?
>
> The first question is whether that is true, or is "lunacy" or something
> else in your article on the word watch list that overrides the white list.

Then should not the "word watch list" be published?

The article refers to a company purporting to sell one acre plots of
the moon, its claim to have the sole UK agency for such "sales" and
whether any UK court would do anything about any other company
offering such lunar "property".

--
 x    If it has been, is it still capricious?
/|\

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:53:52 -0800, Theo Delight
 wrote:

> On 11 Nov, 01:39, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:26:31 -0800, Theo Delight
>>  wrote:
>>> I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>>
>>> Can anyone explain why?
>>
>> The first question is whether that is true, or is "lunacy" or something
>> else in your article on the word watch list that overrides the white list.
>
> Then should not the "word watch list" be published?

That would become an invitation to circumnavigate it.

> The article refers to a company purporting to sell one acre plots of
> the moon, its claim to have the sole UK agency for such "sales" and
> whether any UK court would do anything about any other company
> offering such lunar "property".

I see that it has already been approved.

Tony

On 11 Nov, 02:14, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:53:52 -0800, Theo Delight
>
>  wrote:
> > On 11 Nov, 01:39, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:26:31 -0800, Theo Delight
> >>  wrote:
> >>> I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>
> >>> Can anyone explain why?
>
> >> The first question is whether that is true, or is "lunacy" or something
> >> else in your article on the word watch list that overrides the white list.
>
> > Then should not the "word watch list" be published?
>
> That would become an invitation to circumnavigate it.

Rubbish.  One might as well suggest that no other rule or law should
ever be published, lest someone tries to circumvent it.

> > The article refers to a company purporting to sell one acre plots of
> > the moon, its claim to have the sole UK agency for such "sales" and
> > whether any UK court would do anything about any other company
> > offering such lunar "property".
>
> I see that it has already been approved.

After a wholly unnecessary delay of one and one quarter hours.

--
 x    If you have been, was it convenient?
/|\

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:43:45 -0800, Theo Delight
 wrote:

> On 11 Nov, 02:14, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:53:52 -0800, Theo Delight
>>
>>  wrote:
>>> On 11 Nov, 01:39, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:26:31 -0800, Theo Delight
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>>
>>>>> Can anyone explain why?
>>
>>>> The first question is whether that is true, or is "lunacy" or something
>>>> else in your article on the word watch list that overrides the white list.
>>
>>> Then should not the "word watch list" be published?
>>
>> That would become an invitation to circumnavigate it.
>
> Rubbish.  One might as well suggest that no other rule or law should
> ever be published, lest someone tries to circumvent it.

In some cases, such in tax law, that is exactly the case - so they then
need to add both a general layer of "intent to evade" and also a layer of
manual inspection.

If you can explain how one evades the stated elements of some other
offences such as harassment, assault or theft while still harming the
victims then please tell me about it.

>>> The article refers to a company purporting to sell one acre plots of
>>> the moon, its claim to have the sole UK agency for such "sales" and
>>> whether any UK court would do anything about any other company
>>> offering such lunar "property".
>>
>> I see that it has already been approved.
>
> After a wholly unnecessary delay of one and one quarter hours.

Maybe not unnecessary.  Someone who blurts "rubbish" as their response to
a disagreement maybe should never be on the white list in the first place.

Tony

"Theo Delight"  wrote in message 
news:1194744391.790959.290250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>
> Can anyone explain why?
>

I don't know if you were ever removed from the whitelist but you appear to 
be on it at the moment.

On 11 Nov, 09:49, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:43:45 -0800, Theo Delight
>  wrote:
> > On 11 Nov, 02:14, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:53:52 -0800, Theo Delight
>
> >>  wrote:
> >>> On 11 Nov, 01:39, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:26:31 -0800, Theo Delight
> >>>>  wrote:
> >>>>> I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>
> >>>>> Can anyone explain why?
>
> >>>> The first question is whether that is true, or is "lunacy" or something
> >>>> else in your article on the word watch list that overrides the white list.
>
> >>> Then should not the "word watch list" be published?
>
> >> That would become an invitation to circumnavigate it.
>
> > Rubbish.  One might as well suggest that no other rule or law should
> > ever be published, lest someone tries to circumvent it.
>
> In some cases, such in tax law, that is exactly the case - so they then
> need to add both a general layer of "intent to evade" and also a layer of
> manual inspection.

Utterly irrelevant.

> If you can explain how one evades the stated elements of some other
> offences such as harassment, assault or theft while still harming the
> victims then please tell me about it.

Equally irrelevant.

> >>> The article refers to a company purporting to sell one acre plots of
> >>> the moon, its claim to have the sole UK agency for such "sales" and
> >>> whether any UK court would do anything about any other company
> >>> offering such lunar "property".
>
> >> I see that it has already been approved.
>
> > After a wholly unnecessary delay of one and one quarter hours.
>
> Maybe not unnecessary.  Someone who blurts "rubbish" as their response to
> a disagreement maybe should never be on the white list in the first place.

Whilst someone who posts such irrelevant and arrogant drivel maybe
should never be posting to any newsgroup in the first place.

--
 x    If you have been, do you still post poppycock?:
/|\

On 11 Nov, 09:24, "The Todal"  wrote:
> "Theo Delight"  wrote in message> news:1194744391.790959.290250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>
> > Can anyone explain why?
>
> I don't know if you were ever removed from the whitelist but you appear to
> be on it at the moment.

That is most curious.

Perhaps you might have a look at the history page for ulm and see if
you can understand why the "Lunacy" posting was not passed
automatically, or why it took 75 minutes to be passed by someone?

Was it the result of some unspecified "trigger word", was the system
acting up (again?) or was someone playing at Silly Buggers?  (Email me
directly if you'd prefer)

--
 x    If you have been, have you cleaned the works?
/|\

On 11 Nov, 09:24, "The Todal"  wrote:
> "Theo Delight"  wrote in message
>
> news:1194744391.790959.290250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>
> > Can anyone explain why?
>
> I don't know if you were ever removed from the whitelist but you appear to
> be on it at the moment.

Really?

I do hope that you will understand why I do not quite believe you.
This is from the moderation history page:

[quote]
2007.11.11 22:20:05

33942

Theo Delight <Theo_Delight@ yahoo.co.uk>

Re: YIPs experience anyone?

moderate

[unquote]

--
 x   If you have not meddled, who has?
/|\

"Theo Delight"  wrote in message 
news:1194801200.174364.99640@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Nov, 09:24, "The Todal"  wrote:
>> "Theo Delight"  wrote in message> 
>> news:1194744391.790959.290250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>>
>> > Can anyone explain why?
>>
>> I don't know if you were ever removed from the whitelist but you appear 
>> to
>> be on it at the moment.
>
> That is most curious.
>
> Perhaps you might have a look at the history page for ulm and see if
> you can understand why the "Lunacy" posting was not passed
> automatically, or why it took 75 minutes to be passed by someone?
>
> Was it the result of some unspecified "trigger word", was the system
> acting up (again?) or was someone playing at Silly Buggers?  (Email me
> directly if you'd prefer)
>

I don't know. However, the whitelist contains a number of duplicates, the 
only difference being that sometimes people post with inverted commas around 
their posting name.

You have just posted a message which didn't go through on the whitelist. For 
some reason, inverted commas around the name do make a difference. You are 
now on twice, once with inverted commas around your name and a second time 
without.

If this doesn't make much sense, then I don't understand it either...

I will leave to one side the possibility that a moderator might at any time 
remove a whitelisted poster from the whitelist if he believed that a 
flamewar was about to start. I have no reason to believe that this might 
have happened in your case.

Theo Delight wrote:
> On 11 Nov, 09:24, "The Todal"  wrote:
>> "Theo Delight"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:1194744391.790959.290250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>>
>>> Can anyone explain why?
>>
>> I don't know if you were ever removed from the whitelist but you
>> appear to be on it at the moment.
>
> Really?
>
> I do hope that you will understand why I do not quite believe you.
> This is from the moderation history page:
>
> [quote]
> 2007.11.11 22:20:05
>
> 33942
>
> Theo Delight <Theo_Delight@ yahoo.co.uk>
>
> Re: YIPs experience anyone?
>
> moderate
>
> [unquote]

Hmmm, that's odd.    I don't pretend to understand this interweb stuff, but 
I can see two things quite plainly -

- You *are* a whitelisted contributor, but...
- The above post *was* manually approved

The only thing I can think of is that you were caught by a content filter. 
Various words are 'triggers' for manual moderation, based upon their use in 
spam or in the rambling of cranks.   This layer of approval operates above 
the whitelist, I believe.

Theo Delight wrote:
> On 11 Nov, 09:24, "The Todal"  wrote:
>> "Theo Delight"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:1194744391.790959.290250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>>> Can anyone explain why?
>> I don't know if you were ever removed from the whitelist but you appear to
>> be on it at the moment.
> 
> Really?
> 
> I do hope that you will understand why I do not quite believe you.
> This is from the moderation history page:
> 
> [quote]
> 2007.11.11 22:20:05
> 
> 33942
> 
> Theo Delight <Theo_Delight@ yahoo.co.uk>
> 
> Re: YIPs experience anyone?
> 
> moderate
> 
> [unquote]

Only a thought - but any post from any white listed poster that contains 
one or more trigger words is not autoposted but subjected to moderation.

A thread in which every post contained one or more of those words would 
have every post in it subjected to manual moderatation.

Thus, if you sent a number of posts in the same thread, it could easily 
look as if you were no longer white-listed. You may not notice that 
every other post in the thread is also being manually moderated..

In any event, I can't remember the last post that I wrote that didn't 
disappear totally.. Actually having something to arrive to be moderated 
would be a novelty.

-- 
Sue

On Nov 12, 9:43 am, Palindrome  wrote:
> Theo Delight wrote:
> > On 11 Nov, 09:24, "The Todal"  wrote:
> >> "Theo Delight"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:1194744391.790959.290250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
> >>> Can anyone explain why?
> >> I don't know if you were ever removed from the whitelist but you appear to
> >> be on it at the moment.
>
> > Really?
>
> > I do hope that you will understand why I do not quite believe you.
> > This is from the moderation history page:
>
> > [quote]
> > 2007.11.11 22:20:05
>
> > 33942
>
> > Theo Delight <Theo_Delight@ yahoo.co.uk>
>
> > Re: YIPs experience anyone?
>
> > moderate
>
> > [unquote]
>
> Only a thought - but any post from any white listed poster that contains
> one or more trigger words is not autoposted but subjected to moderation.
>
> A thread in which every post contained one or more of those words would
> have every post in it subjected to manual moderatation.
>
> Thus, if you sent a number of posts in the same thread, it could easily
> look as if you were no longer white-listed. You may not notice that
> every other post in the thread is also being manually moderated..
>
> In any event, I can't remember the last post that I wrote that didn't
> disappear totally.. Actually having something to arrive to be moderated
> would be a novelty.
>
> --
> Sue- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So why am I not whitelisted....and why is my details published showing
I am not whitelisted, surely that seems to indicate just how baised
the mods are...I know thay a lot of them have sex convictions and
support sex offenders and if I ahd a prison record for sex offenses I
would probaly be whitelisted but, what hope do normal folk have when
such perverts like Cynic* are running the show

"Tony."  wrote in message 
news:1194821236.244689.269610@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 12, 9:43 am, Palindrome  wrote:
>> Theo Delight wrote:
>> > On 11 Nov, 09:24, "The Todal"  wrote:
>> >> "Theo Delight"  wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1194744391.790959.290250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >>> I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>> >>> Can anyone explain why?
>> >> I don't know if you were ever removed from the whitelist but you 
>> >> appear to
>> >> be on it at the moment.
>>
>> > Really?
>>
>> > I do hope that you will understand why I do not quite believe you.
>> > This is from the moderation history page:
>>
>> > [quote]
>> > 2007.11.11 22:20:05
>>
>> > 33942
>>
>> > Theo Delight <Theo_Delight@ yahoo.co.uk>
>>
>> > Re: YIPs experience anyone?
>>
>> > moderate
>>
>> > [unquote]
>>
>> Only a thought - but any post from any white listed poster that contains
>> one or more trigger words is not autoposted but subjected to moderation.
>>
>> A thread in which every post contained one or more of those words would
>> have every post in it subjected to manual moderatation.
>>
>> Thus, if you sent a number of posts in the same thread, it could easily
>> look as if you were no longer white-listed. You may not notice that
>> every other post in the thread is also being manually moderated..
>>
>> In any event, I can't remember the last post that I wrote that didn't
>> disappear totally.. Actually having something to arrive to be moderated
>> would be a novelty.
>>
>> --
>> Sue- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So why am I not whitelisted....and why is my details published showing
> I am not whitelisted, surely that seems to indicate just how baised
> the mods are...I know thay a lot of them have sex convictions and
> support sex offenders and if I ahd a prison record for sex offenses I
> would probaly be whitelisted but, what hope do normal folk have when
> such perverts like Cynic* are running the show

I cannot envisage that you will ever be whitelisted, having regard to your 
sociopathic tendencies and your irrational attacks on randomly chosen 
people. All I can say is that you will probably not be blacklisted again. 
But why don't you just stop posting to usenet and instead sign up with some 
dating agencies and see if you can find a sheila gullible enough to go out 
with you?

On 11 Nov, 22:33, "The Todal"  wrote:
> "Theo Delight"  wrote in message
> news:1194801200.174364.99640@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> > On 11 Nov, 09:24, "The Todal"  wrote:
> >> "Theo Delight"  wrote in message>
> >>news:1194744391.790959.290250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>
> >> > Can anyone explain why?
>
> >> I don't know if you were ever removed from the whitelist but you appear
> >> to be on it at the moment.
>
> > That is most curious.
>
> > Perhaps you might have a look at the history page for ulm and see if
> > you can understand why the "Lunacy" posting was not passed
> > automatically, or why it took 75 minutes to be passed by someone?
>
> > Was it the result of some unspecified "trigger word", was the system
> > acting up (again?) or was someone playing at Silly Buggers?  (Email me
> > directly if you'd prefer)
>
> I don't know. However, the whitelist contains a number of duplicates, the
> only difference being that sometimes people post with inverted commas around
> their posting name.

I do not know whether or not Google has altered the way users of its
interface post.  I do know that I have not made any changes to my
posting name.

> You have just posted a message which didn't go through on the whitelist. For
> some reason, inverted commas around the name do make a difference. You are
> now on twice, once with inverted commas around your name and a second time
> without.

This was the second time in as many days.

> If this doesn't make much sense, then I don't understand it either...

Dare one suggest that the moderation software has gone {R}s up?

> I will leave to one side the possibility that a moderator might at any time
> remove a whitelisted poster from the whitelist if he believed that a
> flamewar was about to start. I have no reason to believe that this might
> have happened in your case.

Not in ulm.

I do reserve the right to toast to a crisp elsewhere should that
appear to be appropriate.

--
 x    If you have been, should you have been in the way?
/|\

"Theo Delight"  wrote in message 
news:1194821700.504716.153570@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Nov, 22:33, "The Todal"  wrote:
>> "Theo Delight"  wrote in message
>> news:1194801200.174364.99640@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> > On 11 Nov, 09:24, "The Todal"  wrote:
>> >> "Theo Delight"  wrote in message>
>> >>news:1194744391.790959.290250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>>
>> >> > Can anyone explain why?
>>
>> >> I don't know if you were ever removed from the whitelist but you 
>> >> appear
>> >> to be on it at the moment.
>>
>> > That is most curious.
>>
>> > Perhaps you might have a look at the history page for ulm and see if
>> > you can understand why the "Lunacy" posting was not passed
>> > automatically, or why it took 75 minutes to be passed by someone?
>>
>> > Was it the result of some unspecified "trigger word", was the system
>> > acting up (again?) or was someone playing at Silly Buggers?  (Email me
>> > directly if you'd prefer)
>>
>> I don't know. However, the whitelist contains a number of duplicates, the
>> only difference being that sometimes people post with inverted commas 
>> around
>> their posting name.
>
> I do not know whether or not Google has altered the way users of its
> interface post.  I do know that I have not made any changes to my
> posting name.
>
>> You have just posted a message which didn't go through on the whitelist. 
>> For
>> some reason, inverted commas around the name do make a difference. You 
>> are
>> now on twice, once with inverted commas around your name and a second 
>> time
>> without.
>
> This was the second time in as many days.

I'm nevertheless sticking with my hypothesis. I think if you look at the 
posting history, your posts went through on the whitelist until the inverted 
commas began appearing around your name.  And I've today made the further 
adjustment.

On 11 Nov, 22:40, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
> Theo Delight wrote:
> > On 11 Nov, 09:24, "The Todal"  wrote:
> >> "Theo Delight"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:1194744391.790959.290250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>
> >>> Can anyone explain why?
>
> >> I don't know if you were ever removed from the whitelist but you
> >> appear to be on it at the moment.
>
> > Really?
>
> > I do hope that you will understand why I do not quite believe you.
> > This is from the moderation history page:
>
> > [quote]
> > 2007.11.11 22:20:05
>
> > 33942
>
> > Theo Delight <Theo_Delight@ yahoo.co.uk>
>
> > Re: YIPs experience anyone?
>
> > moderate
>
> > [unquote]
>
> Hmmm, that's odd.    I don't pretend to understand this interweb stuff, but
> I can see two things quite plainly -
>
> - You *are* a whitelisted contributor, but...
> - The above post *was* manually approved

It was the second posting in as many days to be subjected to the whims
of a moderator.  Whilst most of them can be trusted, it has not always
been so; you may recall that, some years ago, one or two of them had
the neo-Cromwellian ambition to abolish even traces of humour from
that newsgroup.

Mercifully, their attempt to meddle did not succeed.

> The only thing I can think of is that you were caught by a content filter.
> Various words are 'triggers' for manual moderation, based upon their use in
> spam or in the rambling of cranks.   This layer of approval operates above
> the whitelist, I believe.

I do not understand how _both_ postings could have been caught in that
way.

Unless Google has changed my posting details (and it does not seem to
have done) one appears to be left with software malfunction or someone
playing at SBs.

--
 x   If you have been, please stop it.
/|\

On 11 Nov, 22:59, "The Todal"  wrote:
> I'm nevertheless sticking with my hypothesis. I think if you look at the
> posting history, your posts went through on the whitelist until the inverted
> commas began appearing around your name.  And I've today made the further
> adjustment.

Thank you.

As I do not wish to clutter the newsgroup with "test" postings, my
response on the "Lunacy" thread may serve to test if the system now
works.

--
 x   If it does not, is it {R} over tip?
/|\

On Nov 12, 9:53 am, "The Todal"  wrote:
> "Tony."  wrote in message
>
> news:1194821236.244689.269610@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 9:43 am, Palindrome  wrote:
> >> Theo Delight wrote:
> >> > On 11 Nov, 09:24, "The Todal"  wrote:
> >> >> "Theo Delight"  wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:1194744391.790959.290250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >>> I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
> >> >>> Can anyone explain why?
> >> >> I don't know if you were ever removed from the whitelist but you
> >> >> appear to
> >> >> be on it at the moment.
>
> >> > Really?
>
> >> > I do hope that you will understand why I do not quite believe you.
> >> > This is from the moderation history page:
>
> >> > [quote]
> >> > 2007.11.11 22:20:05
>
> >> > 33942
>
> >> > Theo Delight <Theo_Delight@ yahoo.co.uk>
>
> >> > Re: YIPs experience anyone?
>
> >> > moderate
>
> >> > [unquote]
>
> >> Only a thought - but any post from any white listed poster that contains
> >> one or more trigger words is not autoposted but subjected to moderation.
>
> >> A thread in which every post contained one or more of those words would
> >> have every post in it subjected to manual moderatation.
>
> >> Thus, if you sent a number of posts in the same thread, it could easily
> >> look as if you were no longer white-listed. You may not notice that
> >> every other post in the thread is also being manually moderated..
>
> >> In any event, I can't remember the last post that I wrote that didn't
> >> disappear totally.. Actually having something to arrive to be moderated
> >> would be a novelty.
>
> >> --
> >> Sue- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So why am I not whitelisted....and why is my details published showing
> > I am not whitelisted, surely that seems to indicate just how baised
> > the mods are...I know thay a lot of them have sex convictions and
> > support sex offenders and if I ahd a prison record for sex offenses I
> > would probaly be whitelisted but, what hope do normal folk have when
> > such perverts like Cynic* are running the show
>
> I cannot envisage that you will ever be whitelisted, having regard to your
> sociopathic tendencies and your irrational attacks on randomly chosen
> people. All I can say is that you will probably not be blacklisted again.
> But why don't you just stop posting to usenet and instead sign up with some
> dating agencies and see if you can find a sheila gullible enough to go out
> with you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Cos I want quality, your daughter sounds as thoug she'd be a game
sort, was she only pretending to be drunk cos you found out or does
she do it for a quid loke mom use to.

On Nov 12, 10:17 am, Theo Delight  wrote:
> It was the second posting in as many days to be subjected to the whims
> of a moderator.  Whilst most of them can be trusted, it has not always
> been so; you may recall that, some years ago, one or two of them had
> the neo-Cromwellian ambition to abolish even traces of humour from
> that newsgroup.

Hell try posting that you are a sex offender or that you are on the
sex register and the mods will probably offer you a spot on there team

On 11 Nov, 22:59, "The Todal"  wrote:
> I'm nevertheless sticking with my hypothesis. I think if you look at the
> posting history, your posts went through on the whitelist until the inverted
> commas began appearing around your name.  And I've today made the further
> adjustment.

Thank you - that does seem to have fixed it.

Will the usual donation to St Mungo's suffice?

--
 x   If you have been, did you recover?
/|\

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:53:33 -0000, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
>"Tony."  wrote in message 
>news:1194821236.244689.269610@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 12, 9:43 am, Palindrome  wrote:
>>> Theo Delight wrote:
>>> > On 11 Nov, 09:24, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>> >> "Theo Delight"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> >>news:1194744391.790959.290250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> >>> I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
>>> >>> Can anyone explain why?
>>> >> I don't know if you were ever removed from the whitelist but you 
>>> >> appear to
>>> >> be on it at the moment.
>>>
>>> > Really?
>>>
>>> > I do hope that you will understand why I do not quite believe you.
>>> > This is from the moderation history page:
>>>
>>> > [quote]
>>> > 2007.11.11 22:20:05
>>>
>>> > 33942
>>>
>>> > Theo Delight <Theo_Delight@ yahoo.co.uk>
>>>
>>> > Re: YIPs experience anyone?
>>>
>>> > moderate
>>>
>>> > [unquote]
>>>
>>> Only a thought - but any post from any white listed poster that contains
>>> one or more trigger words is not autoposted but subjected to moderation.
>>>
>>> A thread in which every post contained one or more of those words would
>>> have every post in it subjected to manual moderatation.
>>>
>>> Thus, if you sent a number of posts in the same thread, it could easily
>>> look as if you were no longer white-listed. You may not notice that
>>> every other post in the thread is also being manually moderated..
>>>
>>> In any event, I can't remember the last post that I wrote that didn't
>>> disappear totally.. Actually having something to arrive to be moderated
>>> would be a novelty.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sue- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> So why am I not whitelisted....and why is my details published showing
>> I am not whitelisted, surely that seems to indicate just how baised
>> the mods are...I know thay a lot of them have sex convictions and
>> support sex offenders and if I ahd a prison record for sex offenses I
>> would probaly be whitelisted but, what hope do normal folk have when
>> such perverts like Cynic* are running the show
>
>I cannot envisage that you will ever be whitelisted, having regard to your 
>sociopathic tendencies and your irrational attacks on randomly chosen 
>people.

And there was me thinking that an individual's actions outside of
u.l.m did not affect whitelisting.

I'm sure I read it here somewhere recently.

On Nov 12, 11:16 am, watcher  wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:53:33 -0000, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Tony."  wrote in message
> >news:1194821236.244689.269610@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Nov 12, 9:43 am, Palindrome  wrote:
> >>> Theo Delight wrote:
> >>> > On 11 Nov, 09:24, "The Todal"  wrote:
> >>> >> "Theo Delight"  wrote in message
>
> >>> >>news:1194744391.790959.290250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> >>> I was "white-listed" but, now, it seems I am not.
> >>> >>> Can anyone explain why?
> >>> >> I don't know if you were ever removed from the whitelist but you
> >>> >> appear to
> >>> >> be on it at the moment.
>
> >>> > Really?
>
> >>> > I do hope that you will understand why I do not quite believe you.
> >>> > This is from the moderation history page:
>
> >>> > [quote]
> >>> > 2007.11.11 22:20:05
>
> >>> > 33942
>
> >>> > Theo Delight <Theo_Delight@ yahoo.co.uk>
>
> >>> > Re: YIPs experience anyone?
>
> >>> > moderate
>
> >>> > [unquote]
>
> >>> Only a thought - but any post from any white listed poster that contains
> >>> one or more trigger words is not autoposted but subjected to moderation.
>
> >>> A thread in which every post contained one or more of those words would
> >>> have every post in it subjected to manual moderatation.
>
> >>> Thus, if you sent a number of posts in the same thread, it could easily
> >>> look as if you were no longer white-listed. You may not notice that
> >>> every other post in the thread is also being manually moderated..
>
> >>> In any event, I can't remember the last post that I wrote that didn't
> >>> disappear totally.. Actually having something to arrive to be moderated
> >>> would be a novelty.
>
> >>> --
> >>> Sue- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> So why am I not whitelisted....and why is my details published showing
> >> I am not whitelisted, surely that seems to indicate just how baised
> >> the mods are...I know thay a lot of them have sex convictions and
> >> support sex offenders and if I ahd a prison record for sex offenses I
> >> would probaly be whitelisted but, what hope do normal folk have when
> >> such perverts like Cynic* are running the show
>
> >I cannot envisage that you will ever be whitelisted, having regard to your
> >sociopathic tendencies and your irrational attacks on randomly chosen
> >people.
>
> And there was me thinking that an individual's actions outside of
> u.l.m did not affect whitelisting.
>
> I'm sure I read it here somewhere recently

Some times I like you, nice sense of irony spoting just how The Todal
misleads and encourages his mate Turtill to perform horrible deeds, if
only I knew his real name now that would make things really
interesting, can you find it out and post it on here, cos I will put a
stop to the todals bullying you betcha I will, he'll be in court
before you can say Pete Turtill.

On 12 Nov, 00:16, watcher  wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:53:33 -0000, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
> >"Tony."  wrote in message
> >news:1194821236.244689.269610@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> So why am I not whitelisted....and why is my details published showing
> >> I am not whitelisted, surely that seems to indicate just how baised
> >> the mods are...I know thay a lot of them have sex convictions and
> >> support sex offenders and if I ahd a prison record for sex offenses I
> >> would probaly be whitelisted but, what hope do normal folk have when
> >> such perverts like Cynic* are running the show
>
> >I cannot envisage that you will ever be whitelisted, having regard to your
> >sociopathic tendencies and your irrational attacks on randomly chosen
> >people.
>
> And there was me thinking that an individual's actions outside of
> u.l.m did not affect whitelisting.

In the case of that particular "gentleman", his posting history
elsewhere suggests that caution would be wise.  Admittedly, he has
been known to post for several days at a time without seeming to libel
anyone and he may even have refrained from defamatory statements for
as long as a week, but such improvements have only been temporary and,
before long, he was back to his usual defamatory drivel.

Whether his postings are due to mania, some sociopathic disorder,
demonic possession by the same dybbuk that infested Hulberk or simply
lycanthropy, it hardly seems wise to whitelist him.

> I'm sure I read it here somewhere recently.

You seem not to have been watching very carefully, as some of his
rejected submissions to ulm have been quite as bad as his drivel
posted in the unmoderated group.

And why does it bother you so much, sunshine?

--
 x   If you have been, have you shaved your legs?
/|\

On Nov 12, 4:16 pm, "Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk"
 wrote:

> In the case of that particular "gentleman", his posting history
> elsewhere suggests that caution would be wise.

My posting history is on UKL for all to see, very occasionally I post
to UKLM but only on topics I am interested in, usually finance, trust,
bankruptcy, contract, never about any person, whereas i have been
attacked even on UKLM. If I have posted to another group, it has
generally been following onto the thread created by others. 

.
>
> Whether his postings are due to mania, some sociopathic disorder,
> demonic possession by the same dybbuk that infested Hulberk or simply
> lycanthropy, it hardly seems wise to whitelist him.

And I think your an absolutely dishonest berk too, who hides behind
his funny name simply because you know exactly what will happen to you
if you ever reveal who you are, as it is, its easy to see your on a
pension out of work and under 50, which means simply that you've
conned the social security to get a pension or your avery sick pervert
creep who has a history of lying, pretending and sponging on society.
>
>
> You seem not to have been watching very carefully, as some of his
> rejected submissions to ulm have been quite as bad as his drivel
> posted in the unmoderated group.

Well I dont always write about perversions or new medications or pour
out a bleeding heart, and it does seem like one has to have at least a
prison record for sex crimes to get white listed....give it away says
I, or should I take it you do have  a prison record for sex crimes.

"watcher"  wrote in message 
news:ql6fj31r9ec7e4bhk83o4rb9djfi88eehq@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:53:33 -0000, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tony."  wrote in message
>>news:1194821236.244689.269610@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>>>
>>> So why am I not whitelisted....and why is my details published showing
>>> I am not whitelisted, surely that seems to indicate just how baised
>>> the mods are...I know thay a lot of them have sex convictions and
>>> support sex offenders and if I ahd a prison record for sex offenses I
>>> would probaly be whitelisted but, what hope do normal folk have when
>>> such perverts like Cynic* are running the show
>>
>>I cannot envisage that you will ever be whitelisted, having regard to your
>>sociopathic tendencies and your irrational attacks on randomly chosen
>>people.
>
> And there was me thinking that an individual's actions outside of
> u.l.m did not affect whitelisting.
>
> I'm sure I read it here somewhere recently.

There are exceptions to every rule.  Mr Holland's posts to the moderated 
group have generally been on topic and relevant, but a few have been 
rejected and there is every reason to suppose that he will occasionally 
succumb to the temptation to post defamatory material.

In fact, anyone who has an ongoing miscarriage of justice obsession 
(especially with the belief that police officers or judges or lawyers have 
been corrupt or dishonest) is not likely to be whitelisted. But that is no 
hardship, really, because there is usually not a great delay before posts in 
the moderation queue are actioned.  What is more important is that nobody is 
blacklisted now.  And I challenge anybody to find evidence in support of 
Tony's cockeyed theory that people make attacks on him in the moderated 
group and he is deprived of the right to reply.

On Nov 12, 8:47 pm, "The Todal"  wrote:
> There are exceptions to every rule.  Mr Holland's posts to the moderated
> group have generally been on topic and relevant, but a few have been
> rejected and there is every reason to suppose that he will occasionally
> succumb to the temptation to post defamatory material.

And of course you are lying once again.....there has never been a post
from me to UKLM that attacked anyone, or even bluntly said a person
was wrong, I have carefully avoided any blunt approach to UKLM, so
your suggestion that I have attacked anyone on UKLM is a pure lie, and
as this thread was about Pete Turtill you have somehow intentionally
wound me into it to deflect from what folk were saying quite rightly
about your mate Tutill and yourself.

I repeat that mods on UKLM have intentionally not put my posts thru
especially when I was first to spot a problem in the reply of some who
call themselves solicitors and what is worst I ahve then seen my
points being repeated by mods as though the idea and the correction of
the flaw were theres. A thread in question concerned Perianders
queries about starting a business and some clown insisting (Cynic) on
insurance.

"Tony."  wrote in message 
news:1194863333.896528.194410@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 12, 8:47 pm, "The Todal"  wrote:
>> There are exceptions to every rule.  Mr Holland's posts to the moderated
>> group have generally been on topic and relevant, but a few have been
>> rejected and there is every reason to suppose that he will occasionally
>> succumb to the temptation to post defamatory material.
>
> And of course you are lying once again.....there has never been a post
> from me to UKLM that attacked anyone, or even bluntly said a person
> was wrong, I have carefully avoided any blunt approach to UKLM, so
> your suggestion that I have attacked anyone on UKLM is a pure lie,

Well, your tenuous grip on reality certainly seems to have slipped again. 
How about the message "Moderation groups referee..." which you have posted 
in this group and attempted to post to UKLM and contained the phrase

"The problem on UKLM seems to be that some of the guys who have taken over 
the moderation certainly have criminal records and support sex offenders and 
obscene sex acts."

> and
> as this thread was about Pete Turtill you have somehow intentionally
> wound me into it to deflect from what folk were saying quite rightly
> about your mate Tutill and yourself.

I suppose this must make sense to you, but it makes no sense to me.

>
> I repeat that mods on UKLM have intentionally not put my posts thru
> especially when I was first to spot a problem in the reply of some who
> call themselves solicitors and what is worst I ahve then seen my
> points being repeated by mods as though the idea and the correction of
> the flaw were theres. A thread in question concerned Perianders
> queries about starting a business and some clown insisting (Cynic) on
> insurance.

This seems to be some sort of schoolroom "I put my hand up first!" argument, 
where you claim that a post from you was rejected and then your idea was 
stolen by someone else, possibly by the moderators.

I really think it is all in your mind, but feel free to quote chapter and 
verse.

On Nov 12, 9:37 pm, "The Todal"  wrote:
>
> I suppose this must make sense to you, but it makes no sense to me.

Yes I posted that message there to show the UK refs. that you will
take this approach, you've not let me down
>
>

> This seems to be some sort of schoolroom "I put my hand up first!" argument,
> where you claim that a post from you was rejected and then your idea was
> stolen by someone else, possibly by the moderators. I really think it is all in your mind, but feel free to quote chapter and
> verse.

No need to waste my time, those that took part will remember the
answers given and by whom, alt. your mob can re visit the thread and
see cynics responses about insurance.

On 12 Nov, 10:37, "The Todal"  wrote:
> "Tony."  wrote in message
> news:1194863333.896528.194410@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 12, 8:47 pm, "The Todal"  wrote:
> >> There are exceptions to every rule.  Mr Holland's posts to the moderated
> >> group have generally been on topic and relevant, but a few have been
> >> rejected and there is every reason to suppose that he will occasionally
> >> succumb to the temptation to post defamatory material.
>
> > And of course you are lying once again.....there has never been a post
> > from me to UKLM that attacked anyone, or even bluntly said a person
> > was wrong, I have carefully avoided any blunt approach to UKLM, so
> > your suggestion that I have attacked anyone on UKLM is a pure lie,
>
> Well, your tenuous grip on reality certainly seems to have slipped again.
> How about the message "Moderation groups referee..." which you have posted
> in this group and attempted to post to UKLM and contained the phrase
>
> "The problem on UKLM seems to be that some of the guys who have taken over
> the moderation certainly have criminal records and support sex offenders and
> obscene sex acts."

As a test as to whether Tony Holland has become possessed by Hulberk's
disembodied dybbuk, might it be possible to contact any taxi drivers
in Yarraville to ask them if he has a history of not paying the fare?

--
 x    If he has been, can he be exorcised?
/|\

"Theo Delight"  wrote in message 
news:1194872092.641893.298550@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 12 Nov, 10:37, "The Todal"  wrote:
>> "Tony."  wrote in message
>> news:1194863333.896528.194410@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Nov 12, 8:47 pm, "The Todal"  wrote:
>> >> There are exceptions to every rule.  Mr Holland's posts to the 
>> >> moderated
>> >> group have generally been on topic and relevant, but a few have been
>> >> rejected and there is every reason to suppose that he will 
>> >> occasionally
>> >> succumb to the temptation to post defamatory material.
>>
>> > And of course you are lying once again.....there has never been a post
>> > from me to UKLM that attacked anyone, or even bluntly said a person
>> > was wrong, I have carefully avoided any blunt approach to UKLM, so
>> > your suggestion that I have attacked anyone on UKLM is a pure lie,
>>
>> Well, your tenuous grip on reality certainly seems to have slipped again.
>> How about the message "Moderation groups referee..." which you have 
>> posted
>> in this group and attempted to post to UKLM and contained the phrase
>>
>> "The problem on UKLM seems to be that some of the guys who have taken 
>> over
>> the moderation certainly have criminal records and support sex offenders 
>> and
>> obscene sex acts."
>
> As a test as to whether Tony Holland has become possessed by Hulberk's
> disembodied dybbuk, might it be possible to contact any taxi drivers
> in Yarraville to ask them if he has a history of not paying the fare?

I have a friend in Melbourne. I'll ask him.

"Tony."  wrote in message 
news:1194866383.748178.235890@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 12, 9:37 pm, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>
>> I suppose this must make sense to you, but it makes no sense to me.
>
> Yes I posted that message there to show the UK refs. that you will
> take this approach, you've not let me down
>>

Who are these UK Refs of whom you speak?  Do you mean the team of qualified 
referees who supervise Usenet?  I await their adjudication with much 
interest.

watcher wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:53:33 -0000, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>> "Tony."  wrote in message
>> news:1194821236.244689.269610@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>>> So why am I not whitelisted....and why is my details published
>>> showing I am not whitelisted, surely that seems to indicate just
>>> how baised the mods are...I know thay a lot of them have sex
>>> convictions and support sex offenders and if I ahd a prison record
>>> for sex offenses I would probaly be whitelisted but, what hope do
>>> normal folk have when such perverts like Cynic* are running the show
>>
>> I cannot envisage that you will ever be whitelisted, having regard
>> to your sociopathic tendencies and your irrational attacks on
>> randomly chosen people.
>
> And there was me thinking that an individual's actions outside of
> u.l.m did not affect whitelisting.

As a rule, yes.   However, anyone who wishes to viciously slander the ULM 
mods and then be given trusted posting access to the group is probably not 
being entirely realistic, mmmm?

On Nov 13, 6:40 am, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
>
> As a rule, yes.   However, anyone who wishes to viciously slander the ULM
> mods and then be given trusted posting access to the group is probably not
> being entirely realistic, mmmm

Hell Steve what perception you show, may I may a comment which you
might take the wrong way and say youre downright brilliant to say
that, let me add of course that the mods are not solicitors, not even
qualified in law so maybe, just maybe you might ask yourself who you
are trying to please to get into the mods good books and why.

On Nov 13, 12:11 am, "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote:
> > in Yarraville to ask them if he has a history of not paying the fare?
>
> I have a friend in Melbourne. I'll ask him

If it helps, tell him I use cab charge, Ive got a whole sway, nearly
1000 of them in my desk drawer, very rarely use money for a cab

"Palindrome"  wrote in message 
news:sALZi.148411$1n1.22411@fe10.news.easynews.com...

> Only a thought - but any post from any white listed poster that contains 
> one or more trigger words is not autoposted but subjected to moderation.
>
> A thread in which every post contained one or more of those words would 
> have every post in it subjected to manual moderatation.
>
> Thus, if you sent a number of posts in the same thread, it could easily 
> look as if you were no longer white-listed. You may not notice that every 
> other post in the thread is also being manually moderated..
>
> In any event, I can't remember the last post that I wrote that didn't 
> disappear totally.. Actually having something to arrive to be moderated 
> would be a novelty.

I had exactly the same problem when I was with your ISP. Since signing up 
with my present Provider, virtually all my posts to ULM go through.

My advice - change your ISP.

-- 
Joe Lee

On Nov 13, 1:56 am, "The Todal"  wrote:
> Who are these UK Refs of whom you speak?  Do you mean the team of qualified
> referees who supervise Usenet?  I await their adjudication with much
> interest.

I think I'll try the kiddie porn squad, after all non of you mods are
qualified legal practitioners and you all affect the mode of being a
qualified solicitor or even a barrister god forbid...when in fact at
least one of you is a convicted and sex offender with a prison record
and another one lost his job because of sexual infidelity.