|
|
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet
Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:15:43 +0000
In article <1j8lqef.15qzcth101ip0fN%snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>,
Sn!pe <snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>I'm afraid I'm just the kind of chap who likes to
>put people in boxes, all neatly labeled.
Have you thought of becoming an undertaker?
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street brok ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet
Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:48:44 +0000
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:08:34 +0000, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:
>In uk.net.news.management on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:40:31 +0000, Molly
>Mockford <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> At 23:38:02 on Sat, 31 Oct 2009, Cherry Chapstick
>> <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote in
>> <thipe5tn2 ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
03 Nov 2009 16:31:16 +0000 (GMT)
In article <une0f5d04e5p1p4lbj74jog04v7mtan1io@4ax.com>,
Just zis Guy, you know? <guy.chapman@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On 02 Nov 2009 22:45:36 +0000 (GMT), Cris Galletly
><galletly@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>OK, I *care*, being an Aspie who spends as much time as possible trying to
>>relate with the NT world ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet
Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:39:45 +0000
In uk.net.news.management on Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:56:04 -0000, Mr Benn
<nospam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Sn!pe" <snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1j8lqef.15qzcth101ip0fN%snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk...
>
>> I do not intend to discuss my antipathy to the militant cyclism party
>> in this place, m ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:42:10 +0000
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:00:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<guy.chapman@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:15:34 +0000, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>I can't imagine why anybody would need to nym-shift in order to call
>>you "a shit". It would be like nym-shifting to call a long yel ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet
Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:30:34 +0000
In uk.net.news.management on Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:52:42 +0000, Sn!pe
<snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> John Hall <nospam_nov03@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <1j8lndj.60r5bli09g1bN%snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>,
>> Sn!pe <snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>> >I have a stable of eleven good, free, text ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for
Chibal)
Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:29:55 +0000
In uk.net.news.management on Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:58:05 +0000, Geoff
Berrow <blthecat@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:47:18 +0000, Owen Dunn
> <owend@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Geoff Berrow <blthecat@ckdog.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> The time wasted on arguing the urcm proposal and these committ ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet
Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:36:50 +0000
In <7lasscF3bdefpU1@mid.individual.net> on Tue, 3 Nov 2009
14:26:04 -0000, "kat" <kat.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> said:
>
>> In uk.net.news.management on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:40:31 +0000, Molly
>> Mockford <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> At 23:38:02 on Sat, 31 ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for
Chibal)
Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:26:25 +0000
In uk.net.news.management on Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:49:50 +0000, Geoff
Berrow <blthecat@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:28:14 -0000, "kat" <kat.news@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>So, here I am in a weird position. I am on the committee, and supposed to
>>be businesslike, and according to some, have no ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for
Chibal)
Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:13:17 +0000
In uk.net.news.management on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:54:03 +0000, Geoff
Berrow <blthecat@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:41:36 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
> <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
>
>>>Interesting that your spell checker did not try to change committe to
>>>committed.
>>
>>I'm not using a ...
|
|
|
