Nick Mclaren,"you're an ignorant fool" - the moderator at URC'M

On 20 Jul 2010 10:33:23 GMT, Simon Brooke
wrote:

So should the mod who let through yet another tranche of Trevor /
Thirty-Six / xyxxzz or whatever it was's twaddle under yet another nym.
Repetitive covers it nicely.

There's active discussion among moderators about whether xyxxzz and 36
are indeed both names adopted by the same person. Some of us agree with
you and some don't; the jury, is, as they say, out.

However I believe that we are agreed that shifting nyms in order to
repeat things would be abuse of the group and should be treated as such.

Fair enough. The fact that he's done this more than once before, and
for the exact same reason (evading killfiles and trying to get
everyone to read the same load of wibble all over again) is rather
suggestive, IMO..

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

On 20 Jul 2010 10:33:23 GMT, Simon Brooke
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:42:08 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

So should the mod who let through yet another tranche of Trevor /
Thirty-Six / xyxxzz or whatever it was's twaddle under yet another nym.
Repetitive covers it nicely.

There's active discussion among moderators about whether xyxxzz and 36
are indeed both names adopted by the same person. Some of us agree with
you and some don't; the jury, is, as they say, out.

However I believe that we are agreed that shifting nyms in order to
repeat things would be abuse of the group and should be treated as such.


Indeed :-)



Keep your eye on Porky Chapman - he has been caught nym-shifting
previously.
--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:00:38 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:58:02 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

36 wrote:
A correctly moderated decision?
"the above boils down to "you're an ignorant fool" as an answer to a
reasonably polite point (as quoted), not acceptable."

The attributions are a little unclear, but if you wrote

It is not obvious unless you study the wheels structure in its typical
form and how it reacts to a varying load. I have done this and
explained it to you. You need to accept that your experience and
beliefs are unique to yourself and are limited by yourself. Your
unwillingness to accept such a simple explanation gives wonderment as
to why you bother to question the workings of a wheel at all. I
believe you would normally describe such an action as a troll, also the
term used as the perpetrator of such behaviour.


Then yes, the moderator was correct in my view.

Yes. Unambiguously so, even while I think most of us agree with the
sentiments expressed in respect of Thirty-Six's bizarre views on
wheels.

Guy

I bet you can't keep this one on the boil, Porky.

Oh - hang on - you are doing.

****wit.

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

On 20/07/10 15:51, JMS wrote:
On 20 Jul 2010 10:33:23 GMT, Simon Brooke
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:42:08 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

So should the mod who let through yet another tranche of Trevor /
Thirty-Six / xyxxzz or whatever it was's twaddle under yet another nym.
Repetitive covers it nicely.

There's active discussion among moderators about whether xyxxzz and 36
are indeed both names adopted by the same person. Some of us agree with
you and some don't; the jury, is, as they say, out.

However I believe that we are agreed that shifting nyms in order to
repeat things would be abuse of the group and should be treated as such.


Indeed :-)



Keep your eye on Porky Chapman - he has been caught nym-shifting
previously.

You still nym shifting on urcm?

On 20 Jul 2010 10:33:23 GMT, Simon Brooke
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:42:08 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

So should the mod who let through yet another tranche of Trevor /
Thirty-Six / xyxxzz or whatever it was's twaddle under yet another nym.
Repetitive covers it nicely.

There's active discussion among moderators about whether xyxxzz and 36
are indeed both names adopted by the same person. Some of us agree with
you and some don't; the jury, is, as they say, out.

However I believe that we are agreed that shifting nyms in order to
repeat things would be abuse of the group and should be treated as such.

Have you tried asking 36? It seems an obvious first step.

On 20 July, 15:03, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On 20 Jul 2010 10:33:23 GMT, Simon Brooke

wrote:
So should the mod who let through yet another tranche of Trevor /
Thirty-Six / xyxxzz or whatever it was's twaddle under yet another nym.
Repetitive covers it nicely.

There's active discussion among moderators about whether xyxxzz and 36
are indeed both names adopted by the same person. Some of us agree with
you and some don't; the jury, is, as they say, out.

However I believe that we are agreed that shifting nyms in order to
repeat things would be abuse of the group and should be treated as such.

Fair enough. The fact that he's done this more than once before, and
for the exact same reason (evading killfiles and trying to get
everyone to read the same load of wibble all over again) is rather
suggestive, IMO..

Guy
--http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

Lies.

On 20 July, 16:54, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On 20 Jul 2010 10:33:23 GMT, Simon Brooke

wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:42:08 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

So should the mod who let through yet another tranche of Trevor /
Thirty-Six / xyxxzz or whatever it was's twaddle under yet another nym.
Repetitive covers it nicely.

There's active discussion among moderators about whether xyxxzz and 36
are indeed both names adopted by the same person. Some of us agree with
you and some don't; the jury, is, as they say, out.

I changed my moniker to match my username to help prevent this
twaddle. Chapman is stirring it again. "xyyzzzz" has no connection
with me.


However I believe that we are agreed that shifting nyms in order to
repeat things would be abuse of the group and should be treated as such.

Have you tried asking 36? It seems an obvious first step.

On 20 July, 14:24, 36 wrote:


from what I've seen of xyzzz, I dont agree with the posts. It's not
me.

Is that clear?

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:48:01 -0700 (PDT), 36
wrote:

On 20 July, 15:03, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

Lies snipped


Lies.



You know that he is called Porky, I assume.

(That has nothing to do with his sexual habits and pigs)

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:54:58 -0700 (PDT), 36
wrote:

On 20 July, 16:54, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On 20 Jul 2010 10:33:23 GMT, Simon Brooke

wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:42:08 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

So should the mod who let through yet another tranche of Trevor /
Thirty-Six / xyxxzz or whatever it was's twaddle under yet another nym.
Repetitive covers it nicely.

There's active discussion among moderators about whether xyxxzz and 36
are indeed both names adopted by the same person. Some of us agree with
you and some don't; the jury, is, as they say, out.

I changed my moniker to match my username to help prevent this
twaddle. Chapman is stirring it again. "xyyzzzz" has no connection
with me.


However I believe that we are agreed that shifting nyms in order to
repeat things would be abuse of the group and should be treated as such.

Have you tried asking 36? It seems an obvious first step.

On 20 July, 14:24, 36 wrote:


from what I've seen of xyzzz, I dont agree with the posts. It's not
me.

Is that clear?

I was already convinced, but it seems that the moderators are not.