Danger: URCM Moderators at work

Someone (a newcomer) tried to make a new post to URCM:

================================================== ===============
Subject: Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation
Someone directed me to www.cyclehelmets.org. It seems to be the website
specifically for this organisation.
What seems to be missing is that I can't find any pictures of their
research headquarters, their extensive engineering test laboratories,
or test tracks. There is no detail of their team of research scientists
or their technical experts. Some list of their own research projects,
research project funding, funding bodies and interim or final reports
on their own research would also be useful. Does anyone here know about
this and help with information to help assess their real contribution
to research?

Thanks
Tumshie
================================================== ===============

(You need to know that cyclehelmets.org is the bible - how dare someone
question it)

So the post was rejected as unconstructive with the reason: Please see the
existing extensive thread on helmets. If you have something useful to
contribute please do so there, in response to an existing article mentioning
cyclehelmets.org. We don't want to start a new thread on this well-worn
ground. (Perhaps there is a limit on the number of threads that chiark can
handle at any one time :-)

Most odd - it seems quite a reasonable post - and sensible to start a new
thread. (I loved the "If you have something useful to contribute" by the
moderator)

Perhaps they hoped he would go away - but he didn't - he made the post again
in an existing thread - starting the post with

"Sorry if this seems a bit off-topic, but the moderators asked me to
re-submit my query under the existing helmet thread:-"

So he asks his question - and what does he get : Immediately savaged by one of
the moderators (Clinch):


Oh dear. Fail straight away, you can't read very well, it seems. I've
not come across any organisation called the "British Helmet Research
Foundation". ITYM "Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation".

followed by:

Fail #2, not doing very well, are you? It's a straight link from the
front page but since you're having a bad day here we go...



For goodness sake: when will people realise that newcomers who ask awkward
questions are not welcome in URCM. And if you speak out on one of the
moderators favourite subjects - well god help you.

The moderators really do not help themselves. (I guess this is where I ask:
have you ever, ever seen a moderator in uk.legal.moderated or
uk.religion.christian make such comments?)

Is Clinch really treating that newcomer "equally and fairly"?

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 10:45:40 AM UTC+1, Judith wrote:
Someone (a newcomer) tried to make a new post to URCM:

Was it you posting under a fake ID again?

How many fake IDs have you used now?

PhilO wrote:
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 10:45:40 AM UTC+1, Judith wrote:
Someone (a newcomer) tried to make a new post to URCM:

Was it you posting under a fake ID again?

How many fake IDs have you used now?

You really are STUPID.
Which part of "a newcomer" did you not understand.

You are clearly suffering from paranoid delusions again, please ask
nurse to give you your medication.

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 2:27:42 PM UTC+1, (unknown) wrote:
PhilO wrote:

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 10:45:40 AM UTC+1, Judith wrote:

Someone (a newcomer) tried to make a new post to URCM:



You really are STUPID.

Which part of "a newcomer" did you not understand.


You are clearly suffering from paranoid delusions again, please ask
nurse to give you your medication.

Judith cannot always be relied on to tell the truth.

Are you Judith? - you seem about as polite and she adds my email address too.

How many fake IDs now Judith?

On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 06:35:35 -0700 (PDT), PhilO wrote:

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 2:27:42 PM UTC+1, (unknown) wrote:
PhilO wrote:

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 10:45:40 AM UTC+1, Judith wrote:

Someone (a newcomer) tried to make a new post to URCM:



You really are STUPID.

Which part of "a newcomer" did you not understand.


You are clearly suffering from paranoid delusions again, please ask
nurse to give you your medication.

Judith cannot always be relied on to tell the truth.

Still waiting for your claims and your evidence - or are you trying to make
people believe that you are just an accusative ****?

Excellent value as always though.

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 9:45:40 AM UTC, Judith wrote:
Someone (a newcomer) tried to make a new post to URCM:



================================================== ===============

Subject: Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation

Someone directed me to www.cyclehelmets.org. It seems to be the website

specifically for this organisation.

What seems to be missing is that I can't find any pictures of their

research headquarters, their extensive engineering test laboratories,

or test tracks. There is no detail of their team of research scientists

or their technical experts. Some list of their own research projects,

research project funding, funding bodies and interim or final reports

on their own research would also be useful. Does anyone here know about

this and help with information to help assess their real contribution

to research?



Thanks

Tumshie

================================================== ===============



(You need to know that cyclehelmets.org is the bible - how dare someone

question it)



So the post was rejected as unconstructive with the reason: Please see the

existing extensive thread on helmets. If you have something useful to

contribute please do so there, in response to an existing article mentioning

cyclehelmets.org. We don't want to start a new thread on this well-worn

ground. (Perhaps there is a limit on the number of threads that chiark can

handle at any one time :-)



Most odd - it seems quite a reasonable post - and sensible to start a new

thread. (I loved the "If you have something useful to contribute" by the

moderator)



Perhaps they hoped he would go away - but he didn't - he made the post again

in an existing thread - starting the post with



"Sorry if this seems a bit off-topic, but the moderators asked me to

re-submit my query under the existing helmet thread:-"



So he asks his question - and what does he get : Immediately savaged by one of

the moderators (Clinch):





Oh dear. Fail straight away, you can't read very well, it seems. I've

not come across any organisation called the "British Helmet Research

Foundation". ITYM "Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation".



followed by:



Fail #2, not doing very well, are you? It's a straight link from the

front page but since you're having a bad day here we go...







For goodness sake: when will people realise that newcomers who ask awkward

questions are not welcome in URCM. And if you speak out on one of the

moderators favourite subjects - well god help you.



The moderators really do not help themselves. (I guess this is where I ask:

have you ever, ever seen a moderator in uk.legal.moderated or

uk.religion.christian make such comments?)



Is Clinch really treating that newcomer "equally and fairly"?

Hallo TumshieJudith. You are a multiple identity hagfish know-nothing troll ****wit. You do not deserve to be treated either equally or fairly. You do deserve to be treated medically and psychologically.
I notice you do not deny the allegation and therefore are guilty as charged. Your punishment is to be you for life.

PhilO wrote:

You really are STUPID.

Which part of "a newcomer" did you not understand.

You are clearly suffering from paranoid delusions again, please ask
nurse to give you your medication.

Judith cannot always be relied on to tell the truth.

Are you Judith? - you seem about as polite and she adds my email address too.

How many fake IDs now Judith?

What an asshole. Try doing some research before you start casting
nasturtiums. Do I _really_ have to remind you that you accused me
of being "Judith" in unn only last week ?.

CLUE :- There are 2 entities called "Judith". One is real and the
other is a bogeyman who exists only in your delusions.

If you stopped baiting both urc would be a much nicer place.

FOAD.

On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 07:57:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

snip


Hallo TumshieJudith. You are a multiple identity hagfish know-nothing troll ****wit. You do not deserve to be treated either equally or fairly. You do deserve to be treated medically and psychologically.
I notice you do not deny the allegation and therefore are guilty as charged. Your punishment is to be you for life.


Still a keen dogging watcher are you?

Am Mittwoch, 3. Oktober 2012 22:42:40 UTC schrieb (unbekannt):
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 07:57:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



snip





Hallo TumshieJudith. You are a multiple identity hagfish know-nothing troll ****wit. You do not deserve to be treated either equally or fairly. You do deserve to be treated medically and psychologically.

I notice you do not deny the allegation and therefore are guilty as charged. Your punishment is to be you for life.





Still a keen dogging watcher are you?

Our punishment is that JudithBennTumshieCliveGeorge remains an inadequate unemployed retarded hagfish ****wit for the rest of his life.
Judith is guilty as charged: he fails to deal with the allegations.

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 3:08:39 PM UTC+1, Judith wrote:

Judith cannot always be relied on to tell the truth.


Still waiting for your claims and your evidence - or are you trying to make
people believe that you are just an accusative ****?

OK - give us an honest answer - how many different IDs have you used to post here?

When you pretended not to be yourself, were you telling the truth?