|
|
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:06:30 +0000
In article <v4pqe51eanfqona8hao7lddu3ikbd0pvca@4ax.com>,
Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> writes:
>On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:57:04 +0000, John Hall
><nospam_nov03@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>The committee could be more active in persuading users to propose
>>>groups or rm groups.
>>
>>Boggle! You think ...
|
Re: Vote canvassing?
Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:07:00 +0000
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:48:07 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:
>Of course your assertion that I exist only to fling bile at innocents is
>now in tatters as a result of your childish attack(s).
You have this much in common with jms: absolutely no sense of irony
whatsoever.
Guy
--
http://ww ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:03:45 +0000
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:24:12 -0000, "kat" <kat.news@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>The remedy is in your hands. RFD a change to the way uk* is run. Currently
>the Committee cannot do anything more than, individually, the same as as
>anyone else. You want that to change - you have to get the rules changed.
>as an i ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:02:05 +0000
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:25:24 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
<clive@davros.org> wrote:
>>Yes, I agree with that. So, we are agreed that there is some level of
>>control in place via the committees with the users alerting the
>>committees to the need for this group or for that group.
>
>No, the users alert the *e ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:38:17 +0000
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 00:37:09 +0000, Molly Mockford
<nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>
>I'm beginning to wonder to what extent there is any point at all in
>trying to discuss *anything* sensible with the anonymous Dipstick.
Brilliant. Substituting what you think is a humerous variation on
somebody's ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:36:39 +0000
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:57:04 +0000, John Hall
<nospam_nov03@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>The committee could be more active in persuading users to propose
>>groups or rm groups.
>
>Boggle! You think that the committee should tell the users what they
>(the users) ought to do? I'm totally opposed to the committee doing
...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:35:08 +0000
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:40:31 +0000, Molly Mockford
<nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>By the way, in the spirit of everything being open and above-board, it
>occurs to me to wonder whether you have a name?
Yes
>Or do you always hide behind that nym?
Fals and/or. ...
|
Re: Vote canvassing?
Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:31:45 +0000
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 00:52:05 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:
>
>> What you have given is your opinion of what Matthew has done, with added
>> ad hominems, particularly in regard to his 'attempting to look as if he
>> wasn't one of the gang of four'.
>
>He's made a feeble attempt to put some di ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:06:20 +0000
In article <haqEdQSF2O7KFwuW@molly.mockford>,
Molly Mockford <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> writes:
>At 01:52:04 on Sun, 1 Nov 2009, kat <kat.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in
><7l4806F3cca47U1@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>Molly Mockford <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> said:
>>
>>> At 01:48:13 on Sun, 1 Nov 2009, ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Sun, 1 Nov 2009 02:08:05 +0000
At 01:52:04 on Sun, 1 Nov 2009, kat <kat.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in
<7l4806F3cca47U1@mid.individual.net>:
>Molly Mockford <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> said:
>
>> At 01:48:13 on Sun, 1 Nov 2009, kat <kat.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in
>> <7l47ovF3b7oekU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> I had a lot of fun with ...
|
|
|
