The other place

On 02/08/2012 09:25, Bertie Wooster wrote:


My post was binned.

Oddly, my first post was allowed after a delay in excess of 24 hours.

My first post went straight through....

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in message
...
On 02/08/2012 09:25, Bertie Wooster wrote:


My post was binned.

Oddly, my first post was allowed after a delay in excess of 24 hours.

My first post went straight through....

That must have been a mistake.

In article ,
Ian Smith wrote:
Notwithstanding which, have you really resigned as moderator?

Message-ID:
From: Ian Jackson

"So: I was the person who rejected your message with the (as someone
put it) overly trenchant comment. I certainly should have been more
polite. So I apologise for the offence."

Oh is that what you're talking about ? I had quite forgotten the
incident and had to look it up in my archives. I'm sorry to learn
that you are still traumatised by me being wrong on the internet
nearly 3 years ago.

--
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

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:32:32 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

On 02/08/2012 09:25, Bertie Wooster wrote:


My post was binned.

Oddly, my first post was allowed after a delay in excess of 24 hours.

My first post went straight through....

Clearly you, like Nugent, are one of the favoured.

On 02 Aug 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
In article ,
Ian Smith wrote:
Notwithstanding which, have you really resigned as moderator?

Message-ID:
From: Ian Jackson

"So: I was the person who rejected your message with the (as
someone put it) overly trenchant comment. I certainly should have
been more polite. So I apologise for the offence."

Oh is that what you're talking about ? I had quite forgotten the
incident and had to look it up in my archives. I'm sorry to learn
that you are still traumatised by me being wrong on the internet
nearly 3 years ago.

I was not and am not traumatised by you being wrong. The fact that
you need to sink to straw men to try and deflect any criticism is
telling.

I was inconvenienced by your error and annoyed by the personal abuse
you launched from behind a veil of anonymity and your subsequent
refusal to discuss (or even acknowledge) it until I put it into the
public domain.

Do I now take it that you've decided the moderator that did it is
still a moderator after all? That's a shame - that was about the only
thing in your posting that I didn't know was wrong. I had idly hoped
that at least one of your statements was actually true, but it seems
not.

Interesting that you managed to make a posting with such absolute
statements about what happened and what you did about it and why
you're all great, when it now turns out you had "quite forgotten the
incident". How much of the rest of your defence is stuff you've made
up on spur of the moment with no recollection (or checking) of the
facts?


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

In article ,
Ian Smith wrote:
Interesting that you managed to make a posting with such absolute
statements about what happened and what you did about it and why

What I actually wrote was:

I have no idea why you are still harping on about what I understand to
be an incident that occurred years ago, [etc]

I'm sorry if you thought that was an "absolute statement". I think
"what I understand" ought to have been quite clear enough that I
wasn't sure exactly you were referring to.

If you're going to constantly harp on about years-old slights there's
little point reading your messages.

--
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

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:10:29 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:54:44 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 01/08/2012 13:11, Ian Jackson wrote:
In article ,
John Benn wrote:
I think that even if posts from some posters do get approved eventually, the
approval is being delayed deliberately. There is no excuse for a post to
remain in the queue for 14 hours, let alone the 22 hours that one of my
posts took to eventually clear.

No-one's posts are being delayed deliberately. I know that some other
moderated groups use it as a tactic but we don't.

I accept and believe that.

I have had ukrcm posts cleared very quickly (whereas I wasn't even sure
they'd be accepted).

Perhaps you are one of the favoured.


I'm not - I emailed the moderators and one of them replied:

"**** off - you sniveling ****"

He had been hand picked by Wacko.

On 02 Aug 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:

What I actually wrote was:

I have no idea why you are still harping on about what I
understand to be an incident that occurred years ago, [etc]

I'm sorry if you thought that was an "absolute statement". I think
"what I understand" ought to have been quite clear enough that I
wasn't sure exactly you were referring to.

Didn't stop you saying an apology was made (it wasn't) that the
moderator has left (he hasn't), that you offered to fix it (you
didn't, and it was you that needed dealing with anyway).

If you're going to constantly harp on about years-old slights
there's little point reading your messages.

Please feel free to not read my messages. Go back to your little
fiefdom where you can spout all the fallacies you like, where you make
the rules, and where when you make silly proclamations like how the
chief offender will police nasty behaviour everyone just laps it up.

If you want to engage in discussion or defend your mightiness,
however, your argument needs to be coherent and actually have some
glimmer of truth in it. Straw men don't cut it. Saying you've
repeatedly made offers to address the problem when you've never made
one such doesn't cut it. Saying the moderator in question has left,
then suddenly remembering that actually you don't remember anything
about the event after all doesn't cut it.


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

In article ,
Ian Smith wrote:
On 02 Aug 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
I'm sorry if you thought that was an "absolute statement". I think
"what I understand" ought to have been quite clear enough that I
wasn't sure exactly you were referring to.

Didn't stop you saying an apology was made (it wasn't) that the
moderator has left (he hasn't), that you offered to fix it (you
didn't, and it was you that needed dealing with anyway).

As I would have thought would be clear by now I thought you were
referring to a different, and more serious, incident.

If you want to engage in discussion or defend your mightiness,
however, your argument needs to be coherent and actually have some
glimmer of truth in it. Straw men don't cut it. Saying you've
repeatedly made offers to address the problem when you've never made
one such doesn't cut it. Saying the moderator in question has left,
then suddenly remembering that actually you don't remember anything
about the event after all doesn't cut it.

I'm not sure what more you want us to do about a rude rejection
message you suffered 3 years ago. You've had an apology; and nowadays
we are much more careful to be polite in our rejection messages.

--
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

On 02 Aug 2012 16:05:57 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
wrote:

In article ,
Ian Smith wrote:
On 02 Aug 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
I'm sorry if you thought that was an "absolute statement". I think
"what I understand" ought to have been quite clear enough that I
wasn't sure exactly you were referring to.

Didn't stop you saying an apology was made (it wasn't) that the
moderator has left (he hasn't), that you offered to fix it (you
didn't, and it was you that needed dealing with anyway).

As I would have thought would be clear by now I thought you were
referring to a different, and more serious, incident.

If you want to engage in discussion or defend your mightiness,
however, your argument needs to be coherent and actually have some
glimmer of truth in it. Straw men don't cut it. Saying you've
repeatedly made offers to address the problem when you've never made
one such doesn't cut it. Saying the moderator in question has left,
then suddenly remembering that actually you don't remember anything
about the event after all doesn't cut it.

I'm not sure what more you want us to do about a rude rejection
message you suffered 3 years ago. You've had an apology; and nowadays
we are much more careful to be polite in our rejection messages.

Here are the polite censorship messages from the last two days:

=====http://tinyurl.com/cnlo3yt=====
I'm afraid your point is opaque; are you criticising Andy with your
"communism" (which reads like an accusation) or Wiggins ?

=====http://tinyurl.com/bsexjzn=====
This helmet thread is closed; please follow up with any constructive
contribution you may have to the thread started by Owen Dunn titled
"Wiggins calls for MHL". Thank you.

=====http://tinyurl.com/bm9n8lj=====
Peter, since "tired and emotional" is commonly used to mean drunk, is
this really what you want to say? If it is then please repost & I'll
pass it.

=====http://tinyurl.com/cbzxo88=====
Please make any constructive comments you have in the thread "Wiggins
calls for MHL" started by Owen Dunn

=====http://tinyurl.com/ctuq8eq=====
There is a feeling that it is rude to criticise urc posters in urcm.
As such, we'd rather you didn't do it.

=====http://tinyurl.com/cyebkh6=====
[No comment]

=====http://tinyurl.com/cpd8gdq=====
[No comment]