On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:18:59 -0000
"Trevor A Panther"  wrote:

> So I  would ask you in all pleasant seriousness  -- please go away
> -- please please
> 
If you can't be bothered to sort out filtering for posters or content
that you don't like, then may I respectfully suggest that you STFU.  Or
perhaps you could storm off in a huff - you like doing that, don't you?

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
 wrote:

>On 29 Oct, 15:08, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>
>> Maybe he meant that he could blacklist the troublemakers based on the first
>> few posts they have made to the moderated group.  I inferred that in his
>> view, blacklisting could be based on past posting history prior to the
>> creation of the group.
>
>Then you inferred incorrectly. The mere appearance of a new social
>space may encourage many former troublemakers to mend their ways;
>causing otherwhere than uk.rec.cycling.moderated does not imply a
>propensity to cause trouble in uk.rec.cycling.moderated. If it did, I
>should be obliged to blacklist myself.
>
>>  But I won't trouble him for an explanation.
>
>It's no trouble.


I believe you said of urc and urcm:

"To be honest I too expect both groups will fail"

Is this why you are adopting your inimitable approach to moderation?
--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents