|
|
|
Re: Any news on the URCM vote yet?
Tue, 6 Oct 2009 03:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
On 6 Oct, 11:20, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <ibqkc512teeqnt4mnrvfnadgng70850...@4ax.com>,
> one of our trolls wrote:
>
> >[more vacuous vitriol]
>
> I've been dutifully reading this group without the benefit of a
> killfile since being told that it was essential for a prop ...
|
Re: Any news on the URCM vote yet?
Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:52:00 +0100
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 22:14:38 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<guy.chapman@spamcop.net> wrote:
>jms wrote:
>>>> I think that it is perfectly clear to everyone that, while I might
>>>> share Judith's expressed views on some subjects (there is little
>>>> evidence that Judith's expressed views and actual views are ...
|
Re: RESULT : Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderatedPASSES 128:24
Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:54:02 +0100
Mon, 5 Oct 2009 14:28:23 <mmsjc594icbih0dbfi1bjogq1i03fj8agi@4ax.com>
uk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow <blthecat@ckdog.co.uk>
GrahamD:
>>I stand by what I said, there is no "no-HTML" rule, the no binaries
>>clause does not cover HTML in my opinion.
>
>I agree with Graham. Opinion is, of course, divided and if ...
|
Re: RESULT : Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderatedPASSES 128:24
05 Oct 2009 02:57:03 +0100 (BST)
Quoting Geoff Berrow <blthecat@ckdog.co.uk>:
><damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>I think the confusion over what a binary _is_ speaks for itself.
>Non sequitur. The rules /are/ documented
The no-HTML rule is not documented.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Yest ...
|
Moderator Impartiality: uk.legal.moderated
Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:09:42 +0000 (UTC)
I realise that there can be a fine line between a posting being approved
and not approved dpending on its content but please can I ask the
moderators of uk.legal.moderated to try to remain even-handed and impartial
when reviewing postings.
In the recent thread about the legal implications of not wearing a cyc ...
|
Re: RESULT : Create moderated newsgroup
uk.rec.cycling.moderatedPASSES 128:24
Sun, 4 Oct 2009 10:27:26 +0000 (UTC)
On 2009-10-03, Just zis Guy, you know? <guy.chapman@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 19:25:21 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
><jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Usenet converges: we're in the Monastery now, aren't we?
>>Sorry, I don't get the reference :-/
>
> alt.sysadmin.recovery, aka the Scary Dev ...
|
Re: RESULT : Create moderated newsgroup
uk.rec.cycling.moderatedPASSES 128:24
Sat, 3 Oct 2009 19:25:21 +0000 (UTC)
On 2009-10-03, Just zis Guy, you know? <guy.chapman@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 11:49:01 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
><jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> O O O O O
>> O O O O O
>> O OOO O O O
>>------------------
>> O O O O
>> O O OO O O
>
> Usenet converges: we ...
|
Re: RESULT : Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24
Sat, 3 Oct 2009 20:15:33 +0100
Sat, 3 Oct 2009 18:48:40 <slrnhcf74q.ef8.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net>
uk.net.news.config Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>
>On 2009-10-03, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> writes:
>>> Yeah, let's set everything up for urcm in some weird uniqu ...
|
Re: RESULT : Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
PASSES 128:24
Sat, 3 Oct 2009 18:48:40 +0000 (UTC)
On 2009-10-03, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> writes:
>> Yeah, let's set everything up for urcm in some weird unique way
>> rather than doing it the normal way. That sounds a fantastic idea.
>> Think of all the advantages! Oh, wait, there aren't any.
> ...
|
Re: RESULT : Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
PASSES 128:24
Sat, 3 Oct 2009 16:28:37 +0000 (UTC)
On 2009-10-03, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Wrong. Read it again.
>
> Don't be so patronizing.
Why? You should know better. You're the ones whining about the group
being treated the same as every other group, wanting not to follow
long-established standards that exist for good reasons, wa ...
|
|
|
