JMS
June 8th 10, 03:36 PM
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 08:53:25 +0100, David Hansen
> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 21:49:07 +0100 someone who may be "kat"
> wrote this:-
>
>>> Today I posted a piece about cycle helmets to uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>> and it wasn't rejected! What did I do wrong? I did remove all
>>> references to 'psycholists', 'Lycra louts' and 'the anti-helmet
>>> brigade' by the way, but I still expected it to be rejected by the
>>> urcm moderators.
>>>
>>
>>A perfectly reasonable question ( not that I understood much of it, but I
>>got the point).
>
>A perfectly reasonable question, expressed in perfectly reasonable
>language. No 'psycholists', 'Lycra louts', 'the anti-helmet brigade'
>or indeed '****wits' (Judith's favourite word in the past for anyone
>who demonstrated her claims were wrong).
>
>The first posting in response is perfectly reasonable when
>considering Judith's history of anti-social behaviour. Hopefully it
>will prevent any replies being expressed in less than reasonable
>language, which would presumably cause the censors to reject it.
>
>I don't see a problem with the posting or the first response to it.
>All Judith is doing by mentioning it in the moderation group is
>trying to stir.
All you are doing is confirming that *you* are ****wit.
Well done - **** for brains - see if you can spot your simple mistake.
> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 21:49:07 +0100 someone who may be "kat"
> wrote this:-
>
>>> Today I posted a piece about cycle helmets to uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>> and it wasn't rejected! What did I do wrong? I did remove all
>>> references to 'psycholists', 'Lycra louts' and 'the anti-helmet
>>> brigade' by the way, but I still expected it to be rejected by the
>>> urcm moderators.
>>>
>>
>>A perfectly reasonable question ( not that I understood much of it, but I
>>got the point).
>
>A perfectly reasonable question, expressed in perfectly reasonable
>language. No 'psycholists', 'Lycra louts', 'the anti-helmet brigade'
>or indeed '****wits' (Judith's favourite word in the past for anyone
>who demonstrated her claims were wrong).
>
>The first posting in response is perfectly reasonable when
>considering Judith's history of anti-social behaviour. Hopefully it
>will prevent any replies being expressed in less than reasonable
>language, which would presumably cause the censors to reject it.
>
>I don't see a problem with the posting or the first response to it.
>All Judith is doing by mentioning it in the moderation group is
>trying to stir.
All you are doing is confirming that *you* are ****wit.
Well done - **** for brains - see if you can spot your simple mistake.