Re: To celebrate the new group
Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:03 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
In article <5YudndjPGe60CHrXnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
usenet.aug2009@adslpipe.co.uk (Andy Burns) wrote:
> *From:* Andy Burns <usenet.aug2009@adslpipe.co.uk>
> *Date:* Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:49:44 +0000
>
> [Hmm, if I hadn't had the odd message or two go walkies in the last
> day or two I'd be more wor ...
|
Re: To celebrate the new group
Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
In article <JvqdnQBAc7i1LXvXnZ2dnUVZ8uGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
usenet.aug2009@adslpipe.co.uk (Andy Burns) wrote:
> I don't subscribe to
> non-moderated groups,
What's this one then?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
...
|
On the subject of contentious addeda
Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:21:01 +0000
Message-ID: <7kp7mkF3ajlkjU1@mid.individual.net>
Describes in factual terms an initiative against unlit cyclists, but
adds a polemical statement that appears to assert that cyclists
(alone) are given a free pass; in fact the requirement to prove
remediation is also commonly used in the case of motor vehicle
def ...
|
Re: To celebrate the new group
Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:06:33 +0000
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:55:24 +0000, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>ITYM the titanium list. Or is it the arborium list?
Unobtainium, surely? But a bonus point for the Yehuda reference :-)
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ ...
|
Re: To celebrate the new group
27 Oct 2009 20:05:56 GMT
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:14:38 +0000, Clive George wrote:
> "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wrote in message
> news:7kos8iF38vdh1U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> I think only by having a very clear notion of why the group was set up,
>> can you reach a sensible moderation policy.
>
> Unfortunately "Because th ...
|
Re: Ex cathedra: Use of signatures
Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:43:12 +0000
In message <7koruiF38gn2fU8@mid.individual.net>, Simon Brooke
<stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> writes
>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:29:06 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> I almost expected a Papal proclaimation. ;-) And I was completely
>> ignorant of its courtroom meaning.
>
>Sorry - I just wanted to be clear I was not ...
|
Re: Ex cathedra: Use of signatures
Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:41:19 +0000
In message <d87ee516ns5psclu4e4k00269ecreqatb3@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes
>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:56:31 +0000, Simon Brooke
><stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>This is posted on behalf of the moderators as a whole. Followups are set,
>>please observe this.
>>
>> ...
|
Re: To celebrate the new group
Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:52:50 +0000
In message <7kork6F3a9uubU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:15:17 on Tue, 27
Oct 2009, The Todal <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wibbled
>Ten years ago Lord Woolf decided that the judges and the courts should
>abandon Latin and speak in plain English. But how do we ensure that this
>enlightened approach is imported into Usen ...
|
Re: To celebrate the new group
27 Oct 2009 18:22:36 GMT
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:13:42 +0000, Clive George wrote:
>
> Yes, it is up to you as moderators to not get dragged into their
> arguments.
True.
> [aggrieved contributors] have the right to complain, and in many
> cases you ought to answer, but an answer could well be just one post.
Well, that does seem ...
|
Re: Ex cathedra: Use of signatures
27 Oct 2009 18:20:02 GMT
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:29:06 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:
> It is good to see this sort of 'admin' post in urcm, even if they do use
> Latin which have one meaning in legal terms and a different meaning in
> ecclesiastical terms.
>
> I almost expected a Papal proclaimation. ;-) And I was completely
> ignorant ...
|
