|
Absurd urcm decision
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 23/12/2012 14:19, michael adams wrote: wrote: Bertie Wooster wrote: Why should I be barred from responding to his polite and reasonable question in the moderated group? You aren't. His question did not appear in the group; therefore an attempt to reply is a nullity. This issue has been previously dealt with: a quote from a rejected post was itself grounds for rejection, and rightfully so; and I think you know that - otherwise you would have submitted a post with your reply to the quote you obtained by assiduously scanning the logs until you found something with which you could continue your group-wrecking activities. Hello there Peter. Your third ever post on Usenet and all on this group. But this time with the colons. What is it with some poster(s) and colons ? But there again, a change is as good as a rest, I suppose. michael adams I see only one colon in his contribution (not including those placed automatically by the attribution). Did you mean semi-colons (the punctuation mark which time had almost forgotten)? What is it with you and the arguments ? Arguments, arguments, always the arguments. michael adams .... |
Absurd urcm decision
On 23/12/2012 15:12, michael adams wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 23/12/2012 14:19, michael adams wrote: wrote: Bertie Wooster wrote: Why should I be barred from responding to his polite and reasonable question in the moderated group? You aren't. His question did not appear in the group; therefore an attempt to reply is a nullity. This issue has been previously dealt with: a quote from a rejected post was itself grounds for rejection, and rightfully so; and I think you know that - otherwise you would have submitted a post with your reply to the quote you obtained by assiduously scanning the logs until you found something with which you could continue your group-wrecking activities. Hello there Peter. Your third ever post on Usenet and all on this group. But this time with the colons. What is it with some poster(s) and colons ? But there again, a change is as good as a rest, I suppose. michael adams I see only one colon in his contribution (not including those placed automatically by the attribution). Did you mean semi-colons (the punctuation mark which time had almost forgotten)? What is it with you and the arguments ? Arguments, arguments, always the arguments. M: (Knock) A: Come in. M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument? A: I told you once. M: No you haven't. A: Yes I have. M: When? A: Just now. M: No you didn't. A: Yes I did. M: You didn't A: I did! M: You didn't! A: I'm telling you I did! M: You did not!! A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour? |
Absurd urcm decision
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:18:59 +0000, JNugent
wrote: On 23/12/2012 12:07, Bertie Wooster wrote: Don't get me wrong - I think that David Lang enjoys stirring up trouble with cyclists, and appears to be crass and ignorant; the quality of his decking is atrocious to boot. However, this rejection in urcm in response to a post of mine is ridiculous. ================================= On 15/11/2012 19:25, Bertie Wooster wrote: The Greenwich Foot Tunnel is part of National Cycle Route 1, Dover to Shetland, and the Woolwich Foot Tunnel is the furthest downstream 24 hour crossing of the River Thames for cyclists and pedestrians. http://853blog.com/2012/10/12/foot-t...nches-inquiry/ =====Quote===== Greenwich Council is to launch an independent inquiry after the collapse of a £11m project to refurbish the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels, it has been revealed. Both tunnels have been left uncompleted and in a poor condition following the failure of the scheme, which began in April 2010. Now Greenwich Council is taking legal action against three contractors, after it was forced to step in and run the scheme itself. =====/Quote===== I understand that it has been necessary to erect barriers to prevent cyclists illegally riding in the pedestrian tunnels. Shouldn't cyclists dismount & push their bicycles through the pedestrian tunnels? -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk ================================= Why should I be barred from responding to his polite and reasonable question in the moderated group? Perhaps the moderators are moderating on poster not content. How is it possible for people other than the moderators to know the content and origin of posts which have been rejected? Logs: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.urcm If anyone can see them (somewhere or other), what is the point of moderation? To stop people responding to them. |
Absurd urcm decision
On Dec 23, 4:30*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:18:59 +0000, JNugent wrote: On 23/12/2012 12:07, Bertie Wooster wrote: Don't get me wrong - I think that David Lang enjoys stirring up trouble with cyclists, and appears to be crass and ignorant; the quality of his decking is atrocious to boot. However, this rejection in urcm in response to a post of mine is ridiculous. ================================= On 15/11/2012 19:25, Bertie Wooster wrote: The Greenwich Foot Tunnel is part of National Cycle Route 1, Dover to Shetland, and the Woolwich Foot Tunnel is the furthest downstream 24 hour crossing of the River Thames for cyclists and pedestrians. http://853blog.com/2012/10/12/foot-t...wich-council-l.... =====Quote===== Greenwich Council is to launch an independent inquiry after the collapse of a £11m project to refurbish the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels, it has been revealed. Both tunnels have been left uncompleted and in a poor condition following the failure of the scheme, which began in April 2010. Now Greenwich Council is taking legal action against three contractors, after it was forced to step in and run the scheme itself. =====/Quote===== I understand that it has been necessary to erect barriers to prevent cyclists illegally riding in the pedestrian tunnels. Shouldn't cyclists dismount & push their bicycles through the pedestrian tunnels? -- Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk ================================= Why should I be barred from responding to his polite and reasonable question in the moderated group? Perhaps the moderators are moderating on poster not content. How is it possible for people other than the moderators to know the content and origin of posts which have been rejected? Logs:http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.urcm If anyone can see them (somewhere or other), what is the point of moderation? To stop people responding to them. Aren't we going in a big circle here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD-ffhvefsw |
Absurd urcm decision
On Dec 23, 7:44*pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
In article Dave U. Random wrote: In article Squashme wrote: Aren't we going in a big circle here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DyD-ffhvefsw good link, squash Problem is it is unavailable now It's beyond me. It seems to work on my original message. Well, for me, anyway. It's just Harry Belafonte with "There's a hole in my bucket." So you can just hum it to yourself, I guess. |
Absurd urcm decision
"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
... Don't get me wrong - I think that David Lang enjoys stirring up trouble with cyclists, and appears to be crass and ignorant; the quality of his decking is atrocious to boot. However, this rejection in urcm in response to a post of mine is ridiculous. Yes, I thought the same. The moderation of that group is going from unfair to extremely unfair. And there doesn't seem to be anything anyone can do about it. They really should be using a private mailing list or web forum for that kind of thing, not a public newsgroup. |
Absurd urcm decision
On Dec 23, 4:30*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:18:59 +0000, JNugent wrote: On 23/12/2012 12:07, Bertie Wooster wrote: Don't get me wrong - I think that David Lang enjoys stirring up trouble with cyclists, and appears to be crass and ignorant; the quality of his decking is atrocious to boot. However, this rejection in urcm in response to a post of mine is ridiculous. ================================= On 15/11/2012 19:25, Bertie Wooster wrote: The Greenwich Foot Tunnel is part of National Cycle Route 1, Dover to Shetland, and the Woolwich Foot Tunnel is the furthest downstream 24 hour crossing of the River Thames for cyclists and pedestrians. http://853blog.com/2012/10/12/foot-t...wich-council-l.... =====Quote===== Greenwich Council is to launch an independent inquiry after the collapse of a £11m project to refurbish the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels, it has been revealed. Both tunnels have been left uncompleted and in a poor condition following the failure of the scheme, which began in April 2010. Now Greenwich Council is taking legal action against three contractors, after it was forced to step in and run the scheme itself. =====/Quote===== I understand that it has been necessary to erect barriers to prevent cyclists illegally riding in the pedestrian tunnels. Shouldn't cyclists dismount & push their bicycles through the pedestrian tunnels? -- Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk ================================= Why should I be barred from responding to his polite and reasonable question in the moderated group? Perhaps the moderators are moderating on poster not content. How is it possible for people other than the moderators to know the content and origin of posts which have been rejected? Logs:http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.urcm If anyone can see them (somewhere or other), what is the point of moderation? To stop people responding to them. like, um, not newsrgoups. the superficial anarchistic nature of newsgroups and wildly differing opinions is what attracted me. ukwreckedmodbikes stiffling as opinons are restricted by the thought police. |
Absurd urcm decision
Bertie Wooster wrote:
Don't get me wrong - I think that David Lang enjoys stirring up trouble with cyclists, and appears to be crass and ignorant; the quality of his decking is atrocious to boot. However, this rejection in urcm in response to a post of mine is ridiculous. What's wrong with being crass and ignorant? -- Adam |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:00 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com