You do make a very good arguement though:-)
pete

Message-ID:

"gripper"  wrote in message
news:snfuk3ttdjvegrjunr3332fiuhbhcs8jch@4ax.com...
:
:
:
:  arguement


Interesting word ....

     Arguement is argument spelt by a wannabe who thinks he's Mr.Slick when
he's actually a slimy skank who skipped his school to sell kuchi ice.

      when people think about masturbation, whatever the kind, their mind
gets clouded and they spell argument as arguement.

-= Only me =-

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:39:32 +0000, gripper   wrote:

>
>
>
>You do make a very good arguement though:-)
>pete
>
>Message-ID: 

And another -Please can someone explain how both of these posts
satisfy the criteria for moderation.

  
Yes that is great and keeps ones grey matter in good working order
too. My days are quite naturally numbered at my age and with the
health issues I have. My absolute staple every day is to take my wife
for a drive in the countryside and around all the PRoW claims I am
involved with. I then snatch a few hours sleep while my wife watches
over me. Then my wife sleeps while I watch over her and I surf the
internet and stuff like this. I have a sleep about 10pm till 3-30am
when I take my dog out in my minibus till 5am when my wife has a few
hours kip while I watch over her. I do not expect to be alive in 5
years from now and so I am not going to waste what time my wife and I
have together with my head stuck in books. That is a simple fact of
life and death. However I am determined to restore PRoW lost during my
watch for those who follow me.
pete

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:38:37 +0000, gripper  wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:39:32 +0000, gripper   wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>You do make a very good arguement though:-)
>>pete
>>
>>Message-ID: 
>
>And another -Please can someone explain how both of these posts
>satisfy the criteria for moderation.
>
Simple. This isn't a moderated group; it is a group *about*
moderation. The theory is that it will come in useful if a moderator
in a uk.* group makes a bad decision. So it might, although so far its
only practical value seesm to be as a source of free entertainment.

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:38:37  
uk.net.news.moderation gripper 

>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:39:32 +0000, gripper   wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>You do make a very good arguement though:-)
>>pete
>>
>>Message-ID: 
>
>And another -Please can someone explain how both of these posts
>satisfy the criteria for moderation.
>
>
>Yes that is great and keeps ones grey matter in good working order
>too. My days are quite naturally numbered at my age and with the
>health issues I have. My absolute staple every day is to take my wife
>for a drive in the countryside and around all the PRoW claims I am
>involved with. I then snatch a few hours sleep while my wife watches
>over me. Then my wife sleeps while I watch over her and I surf the
>internet and stuff like this. I have a sleep about 10pm till 3-30am
>when I take my dog out in my minibus till 5am when my wife has a few
>hours kip while I watch over her. I do not expect to be alive in 5
>years from now and so I am not going to waste what time my wife and I
>have together with my head stuck in books. That is a simple fact of
>life and death. However I am determined to restore PRoW lost during my
>watch for those who follow me.

One of the wonders of usenet is that everyone is allowed to find their 
own masturbatory interest.

Why "gripper" wants to eject over pete is beyond me; I think he is a 
rather lost person.

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

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:42:50 +0000, Don Aitken 
wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:38:37 +0000, gripper  wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:39:32 +0000, gripper   wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You do make a very good arguement though:-)
>>>pete
>>>
>>>Message-ID: 
>>
>>And another -Please can someone explain how both of these posts
>>satisfy the criteria for moderation.
>>
>Simple. This isn't a moderated group; it is a group *about*
>moderation. The theory is that it will come in useful if a moderator
>in a uk.* group makes a bad decision. So it might, although so far its
>only practical value seesm to be as a source of free entertainment.

The posts to which I referred are in uk.legal.moderated.

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:05:43 +0000, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:38:37  
>uk.net.news.moderation gripper 
>
>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:39:32 +0000, gripper   wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You do make a very good arguement though:-)
>>>pete
>>>
>>>Message-ID: 
>>
>>And another -Please can someone explain how both of these posts
>>satisfy the criteria for moderation.
>>
>>
>>Yes that is great and keeps ones grey matter in good working order
>>too. My days are quite naturally numbered at my age and with the
>>health issues I have. My absolute staple every day is to take my wife
>>for a drive in the countryside and around all the PRoW claims I am
>>involved with. I then snatch a few hours sleep while my wife watches
>>over me. Then my wife sleeps while I watch over her and I surf the
>>internet and stuff like this. I have a sleep about 10pm till 3-30am
>>when I take my dog out in my minibus till 5am when my wife has a few
>>hours kip while I watch over her. I do not expect to be alive in 5
>>years from now and so I am not going to waste what time my wife and I
>>have together with my head stuck in books. That is a simple fact of
>>life and death. However I am determined to restore PRoW lost during my
>>watch for those who follow me.
>
>One of the wonders of usenet is that everyone is allowed to find their 
>own masturbatory interest.
>
>Why "gripper" wants to eject over pete is beyond me; I think he is a 
>rather lost person.

I do not want to read shit like the above in a moderated group -
perhaps you do.

I am sorry I must have misunderstood the purpose of the moderated
group.

(Has he got some dirt on you as well?)

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:44:57 +0000, gripper   wrote:

>I am sorry I must have misunderstood the purpose of the moderated
>group.

I think you must have.  I'm rather mystified by your objections, which
you don't seem to have expressed clearly.  Exactly what is it that
you're objecting to?  Have you read the rules for uklm?  In what way
do you think these posts break those rules?

Please don't assume that the nature of your objection is obvious.
It's not!

Mike.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:50:11 +0000, Mike  wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:44:57 +0000, gripper   wrote:
>
>>I am sorry I must have misunderstood the purpose of the moderated
>>group.
>
>I think you must have.  I'm rather mystified by your objections, which
>you don't seem to have expressed clearly.  Exactly what is it that
>you're objecting to?  Have you read the rules for uklm?  In what way
>do you think these posts break those rules?
>
>Please don't assume that the nature of your objection is obvious.
>It's not!
>
>Mike.

How about no legal content whatsoever and adding  precisely nothing to
the discussion - at the best hot air - at the worst irrelevant trivia.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:41:22 +0000, gripper   wrote:

> How about no legal content whatsoever and adding  precisely nothing to
> the discussion - at the best hot air - at the worst irrelevant trivia.

One of the advantages of not blotting your copybook in ulm is that one's
posts are then accepted automatically, meaning they are scanned for the
presence of certain sensitive words by not judged by a person for content.

From: pete 
Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
Subject: Re: Going to court to get legal aid.
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:15:16 +0000
Message-ID: 
X-Robomod-Trace: 3471420071129211516auto

See the "auto" in that line.

Tony

"gripper"  wrote in message 
news:0e33l3t30dqj9obrrnd5kdiinkt2jvi5oc@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:50:11 +0000, Mike  wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:44:57 +0000, gripper   wrote:
>>
>>>I am sorry I must have misunderstood the purpose of the moderated
>>>group.
>>
>>I think you must have.  I'm rather mystified by your objections, which
>>you don't seem to have expressed clearly.  Exactly what is it that
>>you're objecting to?  Have you read the rules for uklm?  In what way
>>do you think these posts break those rules?
>>
>>Please don't assume that the nature of your objection is obvious.
>>It's not!
>>
>>Mike.
>
> How about no legal content whatsoever and adding  precisely nothing to
> the discussion - at the best hot air - at the worst irrelevant trivia.
>

As Anthony has pointed out, the post went through on the whitelist.

However, if it had been manually moderated I think it would have been 
allowed.  The aim of the moderators is to keep the discussions polite and 
respectful, not to filter the posts for "quality".  If people can't pass the 
time of day or crack the occasional joke, eventually people will be 
reluctant to post anything at all - it would be like a classroom where 
nobody dares put their hand up in case their question is judged to be 
foolish.