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

....

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?

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

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