There is a thread in ulm at the moment about the management of a named 
charity, alleging failure of the trustees to act properly.  Do the 
moderators not feel that this is inappropriate?

-- 
Percy Picacity

"Percy Picacity" <key@under.the.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C2A6977C176Aperspicacity@208.90.168.18...
> There is a thread in ulm at the moment about the management of a named
> charity, alleging failure of the trustees to act properly.  Do the
> moderators not feel that this is inappropriate?
>

Seems that one particular moderator is rather broadminded about allowing 
through posts that are - potentially - defamatory.

Which post did you think overstepped the mark?

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:04:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "Percy Picacity" <key@under.the.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C2A6977C176Aperspicacity@208.90.168.18...
>> There is a thread in ulm at the moment about the management of a named
>> charity, alleging failure of the trustees to act properly.  Do the
>> moderators not feel that this is inappropriate?
>>
>
> Seems that one particular moderator is rather broadminded about allowing 
> through posts that are - potentially - defamatory.
>
> Which post did you think overstepped the mark? 

news:cc393551gm6dmb0aturkdrg73gkvjlf4md@4ax.com

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:guua35pqhnsbogk0ke2asd9b0bkov4g8mn@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:04:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Percy Picacity" <key@under.the.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C2A6977C176Aperspicacity@208.90.168.18...
>>> There is a thread in ulm at the moment about the management of a named
>>> charity, alleging failure of the trustees to act properly.  Do the
>>> moderators not feel that this is inappropriate?
>>>
>>
>> Seems that one particular moderator is rather broadminded about allowing
>> through posts that are - potentially - defamatory.
>>
>> Which post did you think overstepped the mark?
>
> news:cc393551gm6dmb0aturkdrg73gkvjlf4md@4ax.com

I expect most people can find an article and read it, based on the message 
ID. However, I can't.

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:51:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:

> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:guua35pqhnsbogk0ke2asd9b0bkov4g8mn@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:04:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Percy Picacity" <key@under.the.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9C2A6977C176Aperspicacity@208.90.168.18...
>>>> There is a thread in ulm at the moment about the management of a named
>>>> charity, alleging failure of the trustees to act properly.  Do the
>>>> moderators not feel that this is inappropriate?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Seems that one particular moderator is rather broadminded about allowing
>>> through posts that are - potentially - defamatory.
>>>
>>> Which post did you think overstepped the mark?
>>
>> news:cc393551gm6dmb0aturkdrg73gkvjlf4md@4ax.com
> 
> I expect most people can find an article and read it, based on the message 
> ID. However, I can't.

Time you moved on from Outlook Express......

-- 
The Wanderer

Faith is a gift from your God
Religion is a gift from the Devil

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:51:13 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:guua35pqhnsbogk0ke2asd9b0bkov4g8mn@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:04:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Percy Picacity" <key@under.the.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9C2A6977C176Aperspicacity@208.90.168.18...
>>>> There is a thread in ulm at the moment about the management of a named
>>>> charity, alleging failure of the trustees to act properly.  Do the
>>>> moderators not feel that this is inappropriate?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Seems that one particular moderator is rather broadminded about allowing
>>> through posts that are - potentially - defamatory.
>>>
>>> Which post did you think overstepped the mark?
>>
>> news:cc393551gm6dmb0aturkdrg73gkvjlf4md@4ax.com
>
> I expect most people can find an article and read it, based on the message 
> ID. However, I can't. 

It was a link.  Did you try just clicking on it?

Can you find it from these lines:

From: soolie 
Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
Subject: Re: Trustees duty.
X-Posted-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:42:34 +0100
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:45:05 +0100
Message-ID: 

How would you like it to be pointed out to you?

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:uq1c359sqls2ga5h3fqsd769i3ln1tfomv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:51:13 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message
>> news:guua35pqhnsbogk0ke2asd9b0bkov4g8mn@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:04:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Percy Picacity" <key@under.the.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9C2A6977C176Aperspicacity@208.90.168.18...
>>>>> There is a thread in ulm at the moment about the management of a named
>>>>> charity, alleging failure of the trustees to act properly.  Do the
>>>>> moderators not feel that this is inappropriate?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Seems that one particular moderator is rather broadminded about 
>>>> allowing
>>>> through posts that are - potentially - defamatory.
>>>>
>>>> Which post did you think overstepped the mark?
>>>
>>> news:cc393551gm6dmb0aturkdrg73gkvjlf4md@4ax.com
>>
>> I expect most people can find an article and read it, based on the 
>> message
>> ID. However, I can't.
>
> It was a link.  Did you try just clicking on it?
>
> Can you find it from these lines:
>
> From: soolie 
> Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
> Subject: Re: Trustees duty.
> X-Posted-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:42:34 +0100
> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:45:05 +0100
> Message-ID: 
>
> How would you like it to be pointed out to you?

I have found it, I think.  Clicking on it didn't produce anything, and I 
can't seem to make a search in Google Groups work.

I'd prefer to see the post quoted (maybe with XXX strategically replacing 
any contentious text).

The modbot allows a moderator (with the necessary privileges) to cancel a 
post, a power that is used very rarely and I think only for defamatory 
posts. However it works on the Post ID as shown in the table at 
http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php so it is necessary 
to work out the ID, which as far as I know isn't in the header of the post 
itself.

Last night I used the modbot's cancelling facility to cancel two or three 
posts from that poster, and that was one of them.  However the cancelling 
does not seem to have taken effect.

The Wanderer wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:51:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
> 
>> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
>> news:guua35pqhnsbogk0ke2asd9b0bkov4g8mn@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:04:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Percy Picacity" <key@under.the.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9C2A6977C176Aperspicacity@208.90.168.18...
>>>>> There is a thread in ulm at the moment about the management of a named
>>>>> charity, alleging failure of the trustees to act properly.  Do the
>>>>> moderators not feel that this is inappropriate?
>>>>>
>>>> Seems that one particular moderator is rather broadminded about allowing
>>>> through posts that are - potentially - defamatory.
>>>>
>>>> Which post did you think overstepped the mark?
>>> news:cc393551gm6dmb0aturkdrg73gkvjlf4md@4ax.com
>> I expect most people can find an article and read it, based on the message 
>> ID. However, I can't.
> 
> Time you moved on from Outlook Express......
> 
Doesn't work for Thunderbird either - so another (bigger?) chunk of 
population excluded..

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:09:40 +0100, Blah wrote:

> The Wanderer wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:51:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
>> 
>>> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
>>> news:guua35pqhnsbogk0ke2asd9b0bkov4g8mn@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:04:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Percy Picacity" <key@under.the.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9C2A6977C176Aperspicacity@208.90.168.18...
>>>>>> There is a thread in ulm at the moment about the management of a named
>>>>>> charity, alleging failure of the trustees to act properly.  Do the
>>>>>> moderators not feel that this is inappropriate?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Seems that one particular moderator is rather broadminded about allowing
>>>>> through posts that are - potentially - defamatory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which post did you think overstepped the mark?
>>>> news:cc393551gm6dmb0aturkdrg73gkvjlf4md@4ax.com
>>> I expect most people can find an article and read it, based on the message 
>>> ID. However, I can't.
>> 
>> Time you moved on from Outlook Express......
>> 
> Doesn't work for Thunderbird either - so another (bigger?) chunk of 
> population excluded..

The problems of using a one-size (doesn't) fit all application.

-- 
The Wanderer

Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool
Than to open it and remove all doubt (Mark Twain)

On 2009-06-15, Blah  wrote:
> Most posters use courtesy and bring the thread to you (by cut and
> paste) rather than sending you off you find it yourself.

That would be extremely unwise indeed given that we are explicitly
talking about potentially defamatory words.

Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2009-06-15, Blah  wrote:
>> Most posters use courtesy and bring the thread to you (by cut and
>> paste) rather than sending you off you find it yourself.
> 
> That would be extremely unwise indeed given that we are explicitly
> talking about potentially defamatory words.

Anyone with any *sense* posts anonymously oun usenet...
Actually, shouldn't this group be moderated - set an example and all 
that? ;-)

On 15 June, 16:32, Blah  wrote:
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
> > On 2009-06-15, Blah  wrote:
> >> Most posters use courtesy and bring the thread to you (by cut and
> >> paste) rather than sending you off you find it yourself.
>
> > That would be extremely unwise indeed given that we are explicitly
> > talking about potentially defamatory words.
>
> Anyone with any *sense* posts anonymously oun usenet...

And I suppose when you visit another town, you go into the pubs
wearing a balaclava?


> Actually, shouldn't this group be moderated - set an example and all
> that? ;-)

Lol! I always thought the distinction between liberal society and an
authoritarian one, is not the amount of moderation, but whether one is
free to discuss the amount of moderation!

On 2009-06-15, Blah  wrote:
>> That would be extremely unwise indeed given that we are explicitly
>> talking about potentially defamatory words.
>
> Anyone with any *sense* posts anonymously oun usenet...

If someone were to actually sue, you would find that the anonymity 
vanishes with alarming alacrity in the face of court orders...

Ste wrote:
> On 15 June, 16:32, Blah  wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2009-06-15, Blah  wrote:
>>>> Most posters use courtesy and bring the thread to you (by cut and
>>>> paste) rather than sending you off you find it yourself.
>>> That would be extremely unwise indeed given that we are explicitly
>>> talking about potentially defamatory words.
>> Anyone with any *sense* posts anonymously oun usenet...
> 
> And I suppose when you visit another town, you go into the pubs
> wearing a balaclava?
> 

Well I don't walk around with my name and address written on my jumper!

> 
>> Actually, shouldn't this group be moderated - set an example and all
>> that? ;-)
> 
> Lol! I always thought the distinction between liberal society and an
> authoritarian one, is not the amount of moderation, but whether one is
> free to discuss the amount of moderation!

Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2009-06-15, Blah  wrote:
>>> That would be extremely unwise indeed given that we are explicitly
>>> talking about potentially defamatory words.
>> Anyone with any *sense* posts anonymously oun usenet...
> 
> If someone were to actually sue, you would find that the anonymity 
> vanishes with alarming alacrity in the face of court orders...

I'm not worried about being sued - I'm more concerned with kooks and 
stalkers - both of which I experienced when I used real email address.

On 30 June, 18:39, Blah  wrote:
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
> > On 2009-06-15, Blah  wrote:
> >>> That would be extremely unwise indeed given that we are explicitly
> >>> talking about potentially defamatory words.
> >> Anyone with any *sense* posts anonymously oun usenet...
>
> > If someone were to actually sue, you would find that the anonymity
> > vanishes with alarming alacrity in the face of court orders...
>
> I'm not worried about being sued - I'm more concerned with kooks and
> stalkers - both of which I experienced when I used real email address.

Well, I use my own name and email address and I've never had any kooks
or stalkers; so perhaps there's an inference to be drawn from that ;)

Ste wrote:
> On 30 June, 18:39, Blah  wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2009-06-15, Blah  wrote:
>>>>> That would be extremely unwise indeed given that we are explicitly
>>>>> talking about potentially defamatory words.
>>>> Anyone with any *sense* posts anonymously oun usenet...
>>> If someone were to actually sue, you would find that the anonymity
>>> vanishes with alarming alacrity in the face of court orders...
>> I'm not worried about being sued - I'm more concerned with kooks and
>> stalkers - both of which I experienced when I used real email address.
> 
> Well, I use my own name and email address and I've never had any kooks
> or stalkers; so perhaps there's an inference to be drawn from that ;)

You're not as handsome as me.

Seriuously tho, I used to post in one of the local groups and you'd only 
have to post something like "Bristol is a better night out than Bath" 
and you'd get emails threatening to "do you" for insulting Bath, or 
following to another group and starting a thread slagging you off for 
insulting their town.
Far too many wackos..

Blah  wrote:

> you'd only 
> have to post something like "Bristol is a better night out than Bath"
> and you'd get emails threatening to "do you" for insulting Bath

Hmm well, firstly I can't say that joining the vomitting yobs of Bristle
is my idea of a good night out. And secondly I can't believe that anyone
from Bath would threaten to "do" someone. They might threaten to come
around and expose the weakness of your argument by dancing madrigals on
your lawn, but that would be about the end of it.

On 2009-06-30, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Hmm well, firstly I can't say that joining the vomitting yobs of Bristle
> is my idea of a good night out. And secondly I can't believe that anyone
> from Bath would threaten to "do" someone.

I got mugged in Coventry once. The mugger's threats to "do me" would
have been a bit more effective if I'd had the slightest idea what he
meant by it.

Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2009-06-30, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hmm well, firstly I can't say that joining the vomitting yobs of Bristle
>> is my idea of a good night out. And secondly I can't believe that anyone
>> from Bath would threaten to "do" someone.
> 
> I got mugged in Coventry once. The mugger's threats to "do me" would
> have been a bit more effective if I'd had the slightest idea what he
> meant by it.

do - have sex with....

On 1 July, 19:36, Jon Ribbens <jon+use...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2009-06-30, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hmm well, firstly I can't say that joining the vomitting yobs of Bristle
> > is my idea of a good night out. And secondly I can't believe that anyone
> > from Bath would threaten to "do" someone.
>
> I got mugged in Coventry once. The mugger's threats to "do me" would
> have been a bit more effective if I'd had the slightest idea what he
> meant by it.

It can mean a variety of things, from a mere beating to more grisly
violations...

Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2009-06-30, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hmm well, firstly I can't say that joining the vomitting yobs of Bristle
>> is my idea of a good night out. And secondly I can't believe that anyone
>> from Bath would threaten to "do" someone.
> 
> I got mugged in Coventry once. 

Were you sent there?

The mugger's threats to "do me" would
> have been a bit more effective if I'd had the slightest idea what he
> meant by it.