A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Table.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 22nd 09, 10:21 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Marc[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,589
Default Table.

I never did get to find out where I was on the table of rejected posters
in another place, but I think I might have noticed an anomaly.

I posted an absolutely hilarious quip about MattB when I said "too many
words..." It was sidesplittingly funny and worthy of Oscar Wilde at his
best, and it was accepted! Showing that the moderators are men ( all
men, odd?) of great taste and discretion.


Flushed with my success, I used the same line (That sort of thing worked
for Bernard Manning for decades) again about 33.3, but it was rejected
for being "inflammatory" showing that either the moderators are men( No
women, odd?) with no taste whatsoever, or that they have different
standards depending on what sort of Troll is continuing to rattle on
without evidence, not listening to others, whilst stating that they (
and only they) have THE answer.
Ads
  #2  
Old November 23rd 09, 02:21 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.net.news.moderation
Ian Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default Table.

In article ,
Marc wrote:
I never did get to find out where I was on the table of rejected posters
in another place, but I think I might have noticed an anomaly.


There will always be anomalies, unfortunately. But urc isn't the
right place to discuss them. I have crossposted to unnm and set
followups.

Flushed with my success, I used the same line (That sort of thing worked
for Bernard Manning for decades) again about 33.3, but it was rejected


Along these lines, we'll see whether the moderators approve my own
joke in response to 36's exciting and novel views about chain
maintenance.

--
Ian Jackson personal email:
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
  #3  
Old November 23rd 09, 07:36 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Marc[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,589
Default Table.

Ian Jackson wrote:
In article ,
Marc wrote:
I never did get to find out where I was on the table of rejected posters
in another place, but I think I might have noticed an anomaly.


There will always be anomalies, unfortunately. But urc isn't the
right place to discuss them.

I disagree, I'm a cyclist, you're a cyclist, the moderators of URCM
are cyclists, URCM is a cycling NG , URC is a NG where cyclists discuss
things of interest to cyclists, URCM is of interest to me, I'm a
cyclist, and we are back to the start.




I have crossposted to unnm and set
followups.


And I have changed them back, I don't subscribe to unnm, and I think
it's arrogant in the extreme to alter the followup in that way. URCM is
your bailiwick , you set it up so that you could set the rules. This is
a different place, it doesn't play to your rules.

Flushed with my success, I used the same line (That sort of thing worked
for Bernard Manning for decades) again about 33.3, but it was rejected


Along these lines, we'll see whether the moderators approve my own
joke in response to 36's exciting and novel views about chain
maintenance.


To be honest, now that I have stopped reading his bull**** in URCM I
find him hilarious, what's less so is the fact that he's allowed to
perpetuate the bull****, that isn't behaviour that you would accept from
the other trolls ( making assertions without basis, demanding evidence
from other whilst not providing himself) and I'm amazed that you have
let him get away with it for so long.
  #4  
Old November 23rd 09, 10:24 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Happi Monday[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 515
Default Table.

Marc wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
In article ,
Marc wrote:
I never did get to find out where I was on the table of rejected
posters in another place, but I think I might have noticed an anomaly.


There will always be anomalies, unfortunately. But urc isn't the
right place to discuss them.

I disagree, I'm a cyclist, you're a cyclist, the moderators of URCM are
cyclists, URCM is a cycling NG , URC is a NG where cyclists discuss
things of interest to cyclists, URCM is of interest to me, I'm a
cyclist, and we are back to the start.



I say it's got **** all to do with URC.
  #5  
Old November 23rd 09, 10:30 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Marc[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Table.

Happi Monday wrote:
Marc wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
In article ,
Marc wrote:
I never did get to find out where I was on the table of rejected
posters in another place, but I think I might have noticed an anomaly.

There will always be anomalies, unfortunately. But urc isn't the
right place to discuss them.

I disagree, I'm a cyclist, you're a cyclist, the moderators of URCM
are cyclists, URCM is a cycling NG , URC is a NG where cyclists
discuss things of interest to cyclists, URCM is of interest to me, I'm
a cyclist, and we are back to the start.



I say it's got **** all to do with URC.

Yes, but everyone ignores you.
  #6  
Old November 24th 09, 10:18 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Happi Monday[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 515
Default Table.

Marc wrote:
Happi Monday wrote:
Marc wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
In article ,
Marc wrote:
I never did get to find out where I was on the table of rejected
posters in another place, but I think I might have noticed an anomaly.

There will always be anomalies, unfortunately. But urc isn't the
right place to discuss them.
I disagree, I'm a cyclist, you're a cyclist, the moderators of URCM
are cyclists, URCM is a cycling NG , URC is a NG where cyclists
discuss things of interest to cyclists, URCM is of interest to me,
I'm a cyclist, and we are back to the start.



I say it's got **** all to do with URC.

Yes, but everyone ignores you.


Including you, by the look of it :-)
  #7  
Old November 25th 09, 11:29 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Keitht
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,631
Default Table.

Happi Monday wrote:
Marc wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
In article ,
Marc wrote:
I never did get to find out where I was on the table of rejected
posters in another place, but I think I might have noticed an anomaly.

There will always be anomalies, unfortunately. But urc isn't the
right place to discuss them.

I disagree, I'm a cyclist, you're a cyclist, the moderators of URCM
are cyclists, URCM is a cycling NG , URC is a NG where cyclists
discuss things of interest to cyclists, URCM is of interest to me, I'm
a cyclist, and we are back to the start.



I say it's got **** all to do with URC.


Which is why our resident sub-bridge resident is encouraging others go
and have a look at a non-event.



--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Now that's a table! Bob Downie UK 4 April 16th 07 06:23 PM
My new coffee table Tom Crispin UK 15 November 3rd 06 10:48 AM
Jump Picnic table irvinegr Unicycling 38 September 2nd 06 06:46 AM
Jump Picnic table forrestunifreak Unicycling 0 August 18th 06 03:40 AM
Inversion Table Bill B Recumbent Biking 3 October 22nd 04 03:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.