Moderators being rather picky?

In article , Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:58:39 -0300, Sara Marriman
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:19:23 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

It might be useful to remind readers what this issue was about.

[snip]

Please don't use me to promote your own agenda.

This is an uncensored group.

I am free to post my own recollections of the incident.


Seen through the red mist of hate you have for urcm?

Which is so thick it changes what I did into something you wish I had done?
No
thank you; you're as bad as the others.

Please feel free to repost your reasons for leaving the moderation
team. I apologise if I am mistaken.

That wasn't me. Check the spelling of the name and also the email
address.

(I've removed uk.rec.cycling as, well, this doesn't belong there.)

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:25:28 +0100, Sara Merriman
wrote:

In article , Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:58:39 -0300, Sara Marriman
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:19:23 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

It might be useful to remind readers what this issue was about.

[snip]

Please don't use me to promote your own agenda.

This is an uncensored group.

I am free to post my own recollections of the incident.


Seen through the red mist of hate you have for urcm?

Which is so thick it changes what I did into something you wish I had done?
No
thank you; you're as bad as the others.

Please feel free to repost your reasons for leaving the moderation
team. I apologise if I am mistaken.

That wasn't me. Check the spelling of the name and also the email
address.

Appologies.

I seem to have fallen for the forger's forgeries twice recently. I
need to be more careful.

(I've removed uk.rec.cycling as, well, this doesn't belong there.)

In article , Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:25:28 +0100, Sara Merriman
wrote:


That wasn't me. Check the spelling of the name and also the email
address.

Appologies.

I seem to have fallen for the forger's forgeries twice recently. I
need to be more careful.

Easily done!

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..."

On 18/06/2014 15:27, Phil W Lee wrote:

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..."

Is it being polite and well-mannered which is not "...of interest to
cyclists..."?

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:29:19 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 18/06/2014 15:27, Phil W Lee wrote:

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..."

Is it being polite and well-mannered which is not "...of interest to
cyclists..."?


No, it's the "I'm not interested in anything with which I disagree"
interpretation of that part of the charter.

On 18/06/2014 15:35, Bertie Wooster wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2014 15:27, Phil W Lee wrote:
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..."

Is it being polite and well-mannered which is not "...of interest to
cyclists..."?

No, it's the "I'm not interested in anything with which I disagree"
interpretation of that part of the charter.

Oooo... You ARE a one, Mr Wooster...

In article , 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..."

Not all cyclists are interested in the same things, of course.

On 18/06/2014 15:58, Sara Merriman wrote:

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

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

Not all cyclists are interested in the same things, of course.


Well given the two most recent threads are on recumbent panniers and dog
**** on shoes, I would have to agree with that comment.

In article , Nick
wrote:

On 18/06/2014 15:58, Sara Merriman wrote:

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

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

Not all cyclists are interested in the same things, of course.


Well given the two most recent threads are on recumbent panniers and dog
**** on shoes, I would have to agree with that comment.

Are they? I haven't been there in years.