On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:19:19 -0300, Clive George
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:50:30 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:27:15 -0300, Phil W Lee wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:46:31 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:



Matt was never a complainer - he was a bore. But he stayed on-topic,
and was always polite and well-mannered.


In which case, his posts would have been rejected as not complying with the
charter - remember this bit?

"...of interest to cyclists..."

Which was interpreted by the moderators as being:
"...of what we want to be of interest to cyclists..."

Clearly if Matt B's comments were not of interest to cyclists, no
cyclist would ever respond, and he'd soon stop posting.


Goodness me, how I am not surprised.

A year's furlough, near enough; and the atmosphere in uk.rec.cycling is the
same poisonous brew it was when I left. One mission-poster defending another,
and both for attacking the cyclists who have found a way to not have to listen
to them.



Welcome to the atmosphere you and other idiots like you created. All the
people who enjoy cycling and want to talk about it have buggered off
elsewhere, to avoid the poison you repeatedly spread.

Your application to join the urcm moderation team is looking
increasingly like Turkey's application to join the European Union.