|
|
|
Re: Proposed Unofficial Call to Votes
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:37:37 +0100
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:48:24 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>jms wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:18:53 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In uk.net.news.config on Fri, 31 Jul 2009 02:54:42 +0100, jms
>>> <moderation2009@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry t ...
|
Re: Moderated group voting procedure
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:03:52 +0100
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 02:37:29 <Q564Vg0ZrkcKFwSG@molly.mockford>
uk.net.news.config Molly Mockford <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk>
>At 14:48:19 on Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Mark
><i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in
><a29375lo1tdjlou9emv0j3rd0ek2qr3ccc@4ax.com>:
>
>>OK. I am confused why releasing acknowled ...
|
Re: Moderated group voting procedure
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:47:59 +0100
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:38:57
<n4mdncbOz6TBRe_XnZ2dnUVZ8iKdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
uk.net.news.management Clive George <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
>"Geoff Berrow" <blthecat@ckdog.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:oaa575h70agv59di9qtcbep3qt1ndqu38r@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:42:02 +0100, "kat" <kat.news@ntlwor ...
|
Re: Moderated group voting procedure
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:45:58 +0100
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:44:43 <7dfsoeF2bp736U1@mid.individual.net>
uk.net.news.management kat <kat.news@ntlworld.com>
>
>Geoff Berrow said:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:42:02 +0100, "kat" <kat.news@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> maybe if you ask Geoff nicely ...
>>>
>>> For what? he isn't coming.:-)
>>
>> Per ...
|
Re: Proposed Unofficial Call to Votes
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:42:55 +0100
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:58:50 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <guy.chapman@spamcop.net> wrote this:-
>Here's your first thread in uk.rec.cycling:
><http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/browse_frm/thread/920d9ab9dad263a6?scoring=d&>
It was only 13 months ago that the infestation started. It ...
|
Re: Moderated group voting procedure
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:36:50 +0100
In message <slrnh75cgu.8m2.devnull@feynman.home.woodall.me.uk>, at
08:58:06 on Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Tim Woodall <devnull@woodall.me.uk>
wibbled
>It's not going to look good if the votetaker comes back here and says
>"sorry folks, my email client crashed while fetching my emails and an
>unknown number of vote ...
|
Re: Moderated group voting procedure
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 02:49:13 +0100
At 18:10:50 on Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Wm...
<tcnw71@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
<oGU8onFaQdcKFwnA@[127.0.0.1]>:
>I vote once only, the VT knows that, the Committee know that.
Here you go again.
Certain individual votetakers, who took certain individual votes, might
well be certain that you didn't v ...
|
Re: Moderated group voting procedure
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 02:37:29 +0100
At 14:48:19 on Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Mark
<i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in
<a29375lo1tdjlou9emv0j3rd0ek2qr3ccc@4ax.com>:
>OK. I am confused why releasing acknowledgements in batches is useful
>though.
It doesn't have to be in batches, and it very usually isn't. That was a
fiction of Wm...'s. O ...
|
Re: Moderated group voting procedure
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:41:38 +0100
At 21:09:09 on Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@operations.force9.net>
wrote in <MddmQ3Nl3fcKFwi8@stuff-the-spammers.mx2.org.uk>:
>Hope your daughter and soon to be SiL have a good day and, of course,
>you and Mr Kat.
Pedt, what are you doing, having fun in here? Back to the coalface,
man, back to the co ...
|
Re: Moderated group voting procedure
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:31:08 +0100
At 23:48:46 on Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote in <slrnh748qe.8g4.pjr@pjr.gotdns.org>:
>I've voted No (assuming the vote-taker doesn't think I'm a
>sockpuppet).
So if Pedt thinks that you *are* a sock-puppet, does that logically mean
that you have actually voted Yes?
:-)
--
Mo ...
|
|
|
