http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=71429&returnto=3display
ulm.php

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

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:36:15  
uk.net.news.moderation Wm... 

>
>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=71429&returnto=3display
>ulm.php

Has anyone checked this?  I think the mods have made a mistake. 
Obviously it is better they make it with me.

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

"Wm..."  wrote in
news:s6d931eFgXSKFw0y@[127.0.0.1]: 

> Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:36:15  
> uk.net.news.moderation Wm... 
> 
>>
>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=71429&returnto=3d
>>isplay ulm.php
> 
> Has anyone checked this?  I think the mods have made a mistake. 
> Obviously it is better they make it with me.
> 

I checked it when you first posted the link.  This is a post making a 
facetious comment about a typo.  What is your problem with it being 
blocked?  And what is retro about the moderation?  Please explain what 
it is I have missed. Is it possible you posted it twice and one got 
through?

-- 
Percy Picacity

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:32:40  
uk.net.news.moderation Percy Picacity <key@under.the.invalid>

>"Wm..."  wrote in
>news:s6d931eFgXSKFw0y@[127.0.0.1]:
>
>> Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:36:15 
>> uk.net.news.moderation Wm... 
>>
>>>
>>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=71429&returnto=3d
>>>isplay ulm.php
>>
>> Has anyone checked this?  I think the mods have made a mistake.
>> Obviously it is better they make it with me.
>>
>
>I checked it when you first posted the link.  This is a post making a
>facetious comment about a typo.  What is your problem with it being
>blocked?

I don't have a problem with the posting being blocked and it could have 
been left at that.

>  And what is retro about the moderation?  Please explain what
>it is I have missed.

I did not post the message twice.  The moderation system seems to have 
seen it twice.  I am not criticising the moderators for their decisions.

> Is it possible you posted it twice and one got
>through?

My logs say I posted it once.  I have checked.  If I had posted it twice 
my logs would say so and I would be a fool to overload the point 
because, as you suggest, it was a "throw away" type of comment that 
seemed amusing to me at the time I wrote it but has lost contemporary 
value.

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

On 2009-06-30, Percy Picacity wrote:

> "Wm..."  wrote in
> news:s6d931eFgXSKFw0y@[127.0.0.1]: 
>
>> Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:36:15  
>> uk.net.news.moderation Wm... 
>> 
>>>
>>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=71429&returnto=3d
>>>isplay ulm.php
>> 
>> Has anyone checked this?  I think the mods have made a mistake. 
>> Obviously it is better they make it with me.
>> 
>
> I checked it when you first posted the link.  This is a post making a 
> facetious comment about a typo. 

I've had facetious comments rejected for being OT; I can live with it.
The moderation policy says:

       b) Humorous, frivolous or off-topic posts will sometimes be
       permissible if they are followups to an on-topic discussion, at
       the discretion of the moderators.


> What is your problem with it being 
> blocked?  And what is retro about the moderation?  

Beats me.  How did it look in the 60s?

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:09:52  
uk.net.news.moderation Adam Funk 

>On 2009-06-30, Percy Picacity wrote:
>
>> "Wm..."  wrote in
>> news:s6d931eFgXSKFw0y@[127.0.0.1]:
>>
>>> Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:36:15 
>>> uk.net.news.moderation Wm... 
>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=71429&returnto=3d
>>>>isplay ulm.php
>>>
>>> Has anyone checked this?  I think the mods have made a mistake.
>>> Obviously it is better they make it with me.
>>>
>>
>> I checked it when you first posted the link.  This is a post making a
>> facetious comment about a typo.
>
>I've had facetious comments rejected for being OT; I can live with it.
>The moderation policy says:
>
>       b) Humorous, frivolous or off-topic posts will sometimes be
>       permissible if they are followups to an on-topic discussion, at
>       the discretion of the moderators.
>
>
>> What is your problem with it being
>> blocked?  And what is retro about the moderation?
>
>Beats me.  How did it look in the 60s?

It looked silly in flared trousers a day glo shirt and heels when going 
out.

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

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:43:36  
uk.net.news.moderation Wm... 

>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:09:52  
>uk.net.news.moderation Adam Funk 
>
>>On 2009-06-30, Percy Picacity wrote:
>>
>>> "Wm..."  wrote in
>>> news:s6d931eFgXSKFw0y@[127.0.0.1]:
>>>
>>>> Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:36:15 
>>>> uk.net.news.moderation Wm... 
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=71429&returnto=3d
>>>>>isplay ulm.php
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone checked this?  I think the mods have made a mistake.
>>>> Obviously it is better they make it with me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I checked it when you first posted the link.  This is a post making a
>>> facetious comment about a typo.
>>
>>I've had facetious comments rejected for being OT; I can live with it.
>>The moderation policy says:
>>
>>       b) Humorous, frivolous or off-topic posts will sometimes be
>>       permissible if they are followups to an on-topic discussion, at
>>       the discretion of the moderators.
>>
>>
>>> What is your problem with it being
>>> blocked?  And what is retro about the moderation?
>>
>>Beats me.  How did it look in the 60s?
>
>It looked silly in flared trousers a day glo shirt and heels when going 
>out.


Now, will someone at the mod end be honest and say if they saw my 
message twice?

Actually that is a bum question, given the nature of the group.

Will someone say I sent the message twice; I can show I didn't.  That 
ought to help.

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

Wm... wrote:

> I did not post the message twice.  The moderation system seems to have
> seen it twice.  I am not criticising the moderators for their decisions.

This can occur if the mod closes their browser before the approval process 
has completed, I believe (eg the post is approved, but not deleted from the 
list of pending messages).

In message <2Z+LPNcIUkSKFwEN@[127.0.0.1]>, at 18:02:00 on Tue, 30 Jun 
2009, Wm...  wibbled
>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:43:36  
>uk.net.news.moderation Wm... 
>
>>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:09:52  
>>uk.net.news.moderation Adam Funk 
>>
>>>On 2009-06-30, Percy Picacity wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Wm..."  wrote in
>>>> news:s6d931eFgXSKFw0y@[127.0.0.1]:
>>>>
>>>>> Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:36:15 
>>>>> uk.net.news.moderation Wm... 
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=71429&returnto=3d
>>>>>>isplay ulm.php
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone checked this?  I think the mods have made a mistake.
>>>>> Obviously it is better they make it with me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I checked it when you first posted the link.  This is a post making a
>>>> facetious comment about a typo.
>>>
>>>I've had facetious comments rejected for being OT; I can live with it.
>>>The moderation policy says:
>>>
>>>       b) Humorous, frivolous or off-topic posts will sometimes be
>>>       permissible if they are followups to an on-topic discussion, at
>>>       the discretion of the moderators.
>>>
>>>
>>>> What is your problem with it being
>>>> blocked?  And what is retro about the moderation?
>>>
>>>Beats me.  How did it look in the 60s?
>>
>>It looked silly in flared trousers a day glo shirt and heels when 
>>going out.
>
>
>Now, will someone at the mod end be honest and say if they saw my 
>message twice?
>
>Actually that is a bum question, given the nature of the group.
>
>Will someone say I sent the message twice; I can show I didn't.  That 
>ought to help.
>
Same ID Wm... so unlikely to be sent twice. Obv I'm not a Mod but it's 
possible (unless {R} says this cannot happen) two mods had it open at 
the same time and one decided it was borderline acceptable and the other 
borderline unacceptable.

Steve has already mentioned another possibility as to why one article 
was seen twice.

Don't see any reason to bandy "retro-moderation" around.

-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

"Wm..."  wrote in message 
news:2Z+LPNcIUkSKFwEN@[127.0.0.1]...
> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:43:36  
> uk.net.news.moderation Wm... 
>
>>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:09:52  
>>uk.net.news.moderation Adam Funk 
>>
>>>On 2009-06-30, Percy Picacity wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Wm..."  wrote in
>>>> news:s6d931eFgXSKFw0y@[127.0.0.1]:
>>>>
>>>>> Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:36:15 
>>>>> uk.net.news.moderation Wm... 
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=71429&returnto=3d
>>>>>>isplay ulm.php
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone checked this?  I think the mods have made a mistake.
>>>>> Obviously it is better they make it with me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I checked it when you first posted the link.  This is a post making a
>>>> facetious comment about a typo.
>>>
>>>I've had facetious comments rejected for being OT; I can live with it.
>>>The moderation policy says:
>>>
>>>       b) Humorous, frivolous or off-topic posts will sometimes be
>>>       permissible if they are followups to an on-topic discussion, at
>>>       the discretion of the moderators.
>>>
>>>
>>>> What is your problem with it being
>>>> blocked?  And what is retro about the moderation?
>>>
>>>Beats me.  How did it look in the 60s?
>>
>>It looked silly in flared trousers a day glo shirt and heels when going 
>>out.
>
>
> Now, will someone at the mod end be honest and say if they saw my message 
> twice?
>
> Actually that is a bum question, given the nature of the group.
>
> Will someone say I sent the message twice; I can show I didn't.  That 
> ought to help.

Your question could be answered if I took the trouble to consult the posting 
records, but your question is too trivial and too boring to be worth 
answering.  The options are: either your post was accepted by mistake, then 
rejected, or rejected by mistake, then accepted.  Either way, your post (on 
this particular occasion, though not as a general rule) was actually without 
value.

Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:22:02  
uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 

>Your question could be answered if I took the trouble to consult the posting
>records, but your question is too trivial and too boring to be worth
>answering.  The options are: either your post was accepted by mistake, then
>rejected, or rejected by mistake, then accepted.  Either way, your post (on
>this particular occasion, though not as a general rule) was actually without
>value.

That is a neat but unconvincing answer.

I agree fully that the post wasn't important.  In truth many posts made 
to uk.l.m aren't important or of value.  Some might even argue that no 
postings to uk.l.m have any value at all in monetary terms.

Some get through, some don't.

It is rare for one to be accepted *and* rejected, however.

Think how confusing that would be for a naive poster?

The system is less than perfect.

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

On 2009-07-03, Wm...  wrote:
> The system is less than perfect.

It's a good thing we have you here to point out the blindingly
obvious, Wm. How would we ever cope otherwise?

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

> It's a good thing we have you here to point out the blindingly
> obvious, Wm. How would we ever cope otherwise?

Tssk, you'll be accused of not recognising how terribly clever he is
next.

Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:20:38 <1j2a7qc.1mwwsim1g5rywoN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> 
uk.net.news.moderation Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>

>Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It's a good thing we have you here to point out the blindingly
>> obvious, Wm. How would we ever cope otherwise?
>
>Tssk, you'll be accused of not recognising how terribly clever he is
>next.

Time and place, please, Steve

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

In message , at 12:06:02 on Fri, 3 Jul 
2009, Wm...  wibbled

>The system is less than perfect.
>
Do you prefer a bongo or a kettle when banging on your drum?

-- 
Pedt

Wm... wrote:
> Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:20:38 <1j2a7qc.1mwwsim1g5rywoN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> 
> uk.net.news.moderation Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
> 
>> Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> It's a good thing we have you here to point out the blindingly
>>> obvious, Wm. How would we ever cope otherwise?
>>
>> Tssk, you'll be accused of not recognising how terribly clever he is
>> next.
> 
> Time and place, please, Steve
> 
Its 3pm and you are in uk.net.news.moderation

Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:49:51 <YCUTH9M$xgTKFwpJ@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> 
uk.net.news.moderation Pedt <"\"@ @\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk>

>In message , at 12:06:02 on Fri, 3 Jul 
>2009, Wm...  wibbled
>
>>The system is less than perfect.
>>
>Do you prefer a bongo or a kettle when banging on your drum?

That seems a limited choice.

If pushed I'd probably go for kettle.  I know what to do with that in 
the kitchen and the bongo (since I am actually from africa) is a 
european invention in most senses so has no purpose.

Next?

Have a smile for asking a cute question, Pedt :)

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

On 2009-07-03, Blah  wrote:
> Wm... wrote:
>> Time and place, please, Steve
>
> Its 3pm and you are in uk.net.news.moderation

Around you is a forest. A small stream flows out of the building and
down a gully.

Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:08:33  
uk.net.news.moderation Blah 

>Wm... wrote:
>> Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:20:38 
>><1j2a7qc.1mwwsim1g5rywoN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>  uk.net.news.moderation 
>>Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>>
>>> Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's a good thing we have you here to point out the blindingly
>>>> obvious, Wm. How would we ever cope otherwise?
>>>
>>> Tssk, you'll be accused of not recognising how terribly clever he is
>>> next.
>>  Time and place, please, Steve
>>
>Its 3pm and you are in uk.net.news.moderation

he has been busy elsewhere

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

Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:39:57 <slrnh4s61t.9as.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net> 
uk.net.news.moderation Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>

>On 2009-07-03, Blah  wrote:
>> Wm... wrote:
>>> Time and place, please, Steve
>>
>> Its 3pm and you are in uk.net.news.moderation
>
>Around you is a forest. A small stream flows out of the building and
>down a gully.

Call a plumber, there is something wrong with the water pipes

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

In message <$PipKad9IiTKFwsh@[127.0.0.1]>, at 16:22:37 on Fri, 3 Jul 
2009, Wm...  wibbled
>Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:39:57 <slrnh4s61t.9as.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net> 
>uk.net.news.moderation Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>
>
>>On 2009-07-03, Blah  wrote:
>>> Wm... wrote:
>>>> Time and place, please, Steve
>>>
>>> Its 3pm and you are in uk.net.news.moderation
>>
>>Around you is a forest. A small stream flows out of the building and
>>down a gully.
>
>Call a plumber, there is something wrong with the water pipes
>
Plug(h)

-- 
Pedt

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2009-07-03, Blah  wrote:
> > Wm... wrote:
> >> Time and place, please, Steve
> >
> > Its 3pm and you are in uk.net.news.moderation
> 
> Around you is a forest. A small stream flows out of the building and
> down a gully.

Dee twenty wurn and William remains unaweer of the meenin' of <plonk>.

The urther hersemeets gather to laffarim.

Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:52:27 <1j2ae04.9u3dip23vb4jN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> 
uk.net.news.moderation Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>

>Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-03, Blah  wrote:
>> > Wm... wrote:
>> >> Time and place, please, Steve
>> >
>> > Its 3pm and you are in uk.net.news.moderation
>>
>> Around you is a forest. A small stream flows out of the building and
>> down a gully.
>
>Dee twenty wurn and William remains unaweer of the meenin' of <plonk>.
>
>The urther hersemeets gather to laffarim.


Best he collects his sticks then.

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

Blah wrote:
> Wm... wrote:
>> Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:20:38 <1j2a7qc.1mwwsim1g5rywoN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>> uk.net.news.moderation Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>>
>>> Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's a good thing we have you here to point out the blindingly
>>>> obvious, Wm. How would we ever cope otherwise?
>>>
>>> Tssk, you'll be accused of not recognising how terribly clever he is
>>> next.
>>
>> Time and place, please, Steve
>>
> Its 3pm and you are in uk.net.news.moderation

(polite ripple of applause)

Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2009-07-03, Blah  wrote:
>> Wm... wrote:
>>> Time and place, please, Steve
>> Its 3pm and you are in uk.net.news.moderation
> 
> Around you is a forest. A small stream flows out of the building and
> down a gully.

USE Wm IN GULLY