-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

          create unmoderated newsgroup uk.net.providers.gradwell

Newsgroup line:
uk.net.providers.gradwell	Discussion of the ISP Gradwell


      *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.net.providers.gradwell

Gradwell (Gradwell dot com Ltd) has until now provided several
gradwell.* newsgroups on their own servers, for the benefit of their
customers.  They are being replaced with a combined web/usenet
discussion area and, because of additional changes in Usenet provision,
the gradwell.* hierarchy is being ceased.

Gradwell customers and staff who prefer Usenet to integrated web forums
are enthusiastic about the idea of a public newsgroup in the uk.*
hierarchy, and this approach also has the express support of the
Gradwell management.

CHARTER: uk.net.providers.gradwell

This group is for discussion of issues relating to the Internet Service
Provider Gradwell. This includes, but is not limited to, help
with services, discussion of new products and notification of outages.

This group has no official connection in any way with Gradwell.
However, Gradwell staff are encouraged to participate and provide
information, service updates, etc, just as they would in the internal
Gradwell newsgroups.

Advertising

Advertising is forbidden;  however, announcement and discussion of new
products and/or services from Gradwell is permitted.

Binaries & Formatting

Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are forbidden.
Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a pointer may be
posted. Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be used where
authentication is important and should be as short as possible.

Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly formatted
messages are prohibited. To see how to make some
common newsreaders comply with this, read
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>.

Warning. Anyone posting contrary to this charter may be reported to
their "postmaster" and/or Service Provider.

END CHARTER

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved.  The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until June 28th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method.  Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website).  Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
        uk.net.news.announce
        uk.net.news.config
        gradwell.discuss

Proponent:
        Molly Mockford <gradwellrfd(at)mollymockford.me.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.4.9-(Cygwin)
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBSjkpo2OfGXkh8vHZAQIAkwP/T4j93YjXrWbxu94D8vwDn/SuVV+UUnbU
vQnFKNhfHr5gFwYgVL98ddTe9EZt1dR2JBn5ZkiCej2eh5xGGDsIhmVLvDKDm46Y
1CwvpZRr0PDmvUKKy2O1n2fgEhCGZ+x4AlxAKtsSGxoTUj2P1368WFgzjwgxhhL+
wuLZf+MJES4=
=S8WA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In uk.net.news.config on Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:36:03 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

}          create unmoderated newsgroup uk.net.providers.gradwell
}
}Newsgroup line:
}uk.net.providers.gradwell	Discussion of the ISP Gradwell

I would use this group, and support its creation.

{R}

In article
<rfd1-uk.net.providers.gradwell-20090617173603$3989@gradwell.net>,
 Molly Mockford  writes:
>                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>          create unmoderated newsgroup uk.net.providers.gradwell
>
>Newsgroup line:
>uk.net.providers.gradwell      Discussion of the ISP Gradwell
<snip>

I support the creation of this group. I am a Gradwell customer, and as
such I would use the group.
-- 
John Hall        "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
                  pays off now."  Anon

Molly Mockford wrote:

>           create unmoderated newsgroup uk.net.providers.gradwell
> 
> Newsgroup line:
> uk.net.providers.gradwell	Discussion of the ISP Gradwell

I'm a Gradwell customer and support the creation of this newsgroup.  I
would use it and encourage others, whom I supply with Gradwell services,
to use it too.  In addition it would provide a capability for users to
research previous discussions around services, best practices, etc,
offered by Gradwell, and open up participation to the wider Net community.

Regards,
Chris

John Hall  wrote:
> 
> I support the creation of this group. I am a Gradwell customer, and as
> such I would use the group.

<AOL>

Molly Mockford  wrote:

> Gradwell customers and staff who prefer Usenet to integrated web forums
> are enthusiastic about the idea of a public newsgroup in the uk.*
> hierarchy, and this approach also has the express support of the
> Gradwell management.

Gradwell customers are the scum of the earth. I support this proposal.

Molly Mockford"  wrote in message >

>          create unmoderated newsgroup uk.net.providers.gradwell
>
> Newsgroup line:
> uk.net.providers.gradwell Discussion of the ISP Gradwell
>

As a gradwell customer I support the creation of this group and would use it 
regularly, if only to avoid being forced onto an increasingly impenetrable 
website support system

Roga

In message 
<rfd1-uk.net.providers.gradwell-20090617173603$3989@gradwell.net>, dated 
Wed, 17 Jun 2009 at 18:36:03, Molly Mockford 
 writes
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes 
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>          create unmoderated newsgroup uk.net.providers.gradwell
>
>Newsgroup line:
>uk.net.providers.gradwell      Discussion of the ISP Gradwell

I would actively participate in the above newsgroup, i.e. post not just 
read, and look forward to its creation.

Chris
-- 
Chris Salter
http://www.originalthinktank.org.uk/

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:28:40 +0100, "roga"
<{news2005}REMOVE_THIS_UPPERCASE_2_REPLY@roga.co.uk> wrote:

>
>As a gradwell customer I support the creation of this group and would use it 
>regularly, if only to avoid being forced onto an increasingly impenetrable 
>website support system

Indeed.  

I'd use the group, but it still won't match the support I get from the
company that runs my VPS..

In article  on Wed, 17 Jun
2009, {R}  writes
>In uk.net.news.config on Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:36:03 +0100, Molly Mockford
> wrote:
>
>}          create unmoderated newsgroup uk.net.providers.gradwell
>}
>}Newsgroup line:
>}uk.net.providers.gradwell     Discussion of the ISP Gradwell
>
>I would use this group, and support its creation.

I support this proposal.

The current Gradwell served newsgroup hierarchy is very useful,
populated mostly by clued in people, with relatively low traffic and a
high signal to noise. I suspect that most of the initial members of unpg
will be the existing members of the existing gradwell.* groups, so it
should retain most of these features.

My only concern with moving discussion to the uk.net.providers hierarchy
is that we may lose some of those features. Still, better a unp* group
than none at all.

Regards,

Mark..........
-- 
Mark Booth

In <rfd1-uk.net.providers.gradwell-20090617173603$3989@gradwell.net> Molly Mockford  writes:

>                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

>          create unmoderated newsgroup uk.net.providers.gradwell

+1

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:36:03 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>          create unmoderated newsgroup uk.net.providers.gradwell
>
>Newsgroup line:
>uk.net.providers.gradwell	Discussion of the ISP Gradwell

I support the creation of this newsgroup, I am a Gradwell customer and
would be an active user of this group.


-- 
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.  http://www.sandrila.co.uk/

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:36:03 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>Advertising is forbidden;  however, announcement and discussion of new
>products and/or services from Gradwell is permitted.


Totally forbidden for Andrews and Arnold and allowed for NTL (but that
should probably be rmgrouped)

I'd suggest you can leave out the 'and discussion' but would like to
see some limit on the number or frequency of advertisements

At 12:44:04 on Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Geoff Berrow  
wrote in :

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:36:03 +0100, Molly Mockford
> wrote:
>
>>Advertising is forbidden;  however, announcement and discussion of new
>>products and/or services from Gradwell is permitted.

>I'd suggest you can leave out the 'and discussion' but would like to
>see some limit on the number or frequency of advertisements

I'd have thought that the discussion of the quality and standard of 
products and services would be of considerably more use to existing and 
potential customers than the simple announcements - which, by 
definition, could only be made once (otherwise it would no longer be a 
*new* product and/or service).

I've thinking along the lines of:

Gradwell: "We've installed some new PHP servers - try them out."
Customer 1: "They don't seem much faster than the old ones."
Customer 2: "They seem much faster to me - what version of PHP are you 
using?"
Customer 3: "How do I get my site(s) transferred to the new servers?"
etc.

Or have I misunderstood what you're getting at?
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:22:24 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>Or have I misunderstood what you're getting at?

Yes.  I'm not suggesting no discussion, just that you don't need to
mention it.  It's a Usenet group - the discussion bit is implicit.

Announcements seem to be the biggest part of the AAISP group without
being mentioned in the charter.

Interestingly, the biggest discussion on that group is about newsgroup
access.

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Geoff Berrow <Geoff Berrow > 
wrote
>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:22:24 +0100, Molly Mockford
> wrote:
>
>>Or have I misunderstood what you're getting at?
>
>Yes.  I'm not suggesting no discussion, just that you don't need to
>mention it.  It's a Usenet group - the discussion bit is implicit.
>
>Announcements seem to be the biggest part of the AAISP group without
>being mentioned in the charter.

In which case, they probably should be mentioned, as otherwise they 
could certainly be deemed to be forbidden under the "Advertising is 
forbidden" in the charter?

Now I'm thinking maybe: "Advertising is forbidden.  This does not apply 
to announcements of new Gradwell products and/or services."  What we 
certainly don't want is to allow all other products and/or services to 
be advertised!
-- 
Molly Mockford

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:56:28 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>>Announcements seem to be the biggest part of the AAISP group without
>>being mentioned in the charter.
>
>In which case, they probably should be mentioned, as otherwise they 
>could certainly be deemed to be forbidden under the "Advertising is 
>forbidden" in the charter?
>
>Now I'm thinking maybe: "Advertising is forbidden.  This does not apply 
>to announcements of new Gradwell products and/or services."  What we 
>certainly don't want is to allow all other products and/or services to 
>be advertised!

The line between announcement and advertising can be a fine one.  A
usenet group is not Gradwell property and I don't think you can allow
Gradwell to advertise and ban everyone else.  I'd say ban advertising
and allow Gradwell announcements.  The people reading the group will
be sympathetic if an announcement comes close to the line.

At 17:27:46 on Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Geoff Berrow  
wrote in :

>The line between announcement and advertising can be a fine one.  A
>usenet group is not Gradwell property and I don't think you can allow
>Gradwell to advertise and ban everyone else.  I'd say ban advertising
>and allow Gradwell announcements.

This is exactly what I have been trying to achieve - to define that 
Gradwell announcements are not to be considered as advertising.  I think 
it does need to be made explicit, but would welcome alternative proposed 
wording, and views from others on the matter.
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:44:00 +0100, Geoff Berrow 
wrote:

> Interestingly, the biggest discussion on that group is about newsgroup
> access.

Can you cite any time period ending now (since you say that IS the case)
for which that claim is true?  I don't find fictional nonsense interesting.

What I do find interesting is the change between the time of the creation
of the AAISP group, when the unnc luvvies took the position that any REAL
ISP should be running its own news service, and the comments of today.  Is
it a case of whose ox is being gored or did some people just grow up a bit?

Tony

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:58:19 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:44:00 +0100, Geoff Berrow 
>wrote:
>
>> Interestingly, the biggest discussion on that group is about newsgroup
>> access.
>
>Can you cite any time period ending now (since you say that IS the case)
>for which that claim is true?  I don't find fictional nonsense interesting.

Sure, I simply downloaded the last 200 headers.  Of those 47 were in
the thread AAISP Newsgroup Access - Feedback Requested

The earliest post is the 1st June.  I apologise for not qualifying my
comment but I was not making any serious point by it.

>
>What I do find interesting is the change between the time of the creation
>of the AAISP group, when the unnc luvvies took the position that any REAL
>ISP should be running its own news service, and the comments of today.  Is
>it a case of whose ox is being gored or did some people just grow up a bit?

Having had all the discussion at the time of the AAISP proposal there
seems little point in having it again.  I think it is important to set
it up under exactly the same terms, which is why I have been making
the comments I have.

Having said all that, Usenet has changed in the intervening period and
points made in the discussion of AAISP may not be relevant now.

In uk.net.news.config, on Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:36:03, Molly Mockford 
wrote:

>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes 
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>          create unmoderated newsgroup uk.net.providers.gradwell

I support the creation of this group and I would be an active user of 
it.

-- 
Jim Crowther

In uk.net.news.config, on Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:44:04, Geoff Berrow wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:36:03 +0100, Molly Mockford
> wrote:
>
>>Advertising is forbidden;  however, announcement and discussion of new
>>products and/or services from Gradwell is permitted.
>
>
>Totally forbidden for Andrews and Arnold and allowed for NTL (but that
>should probably be rmgrouped)
>
>I'd suggest you can leave out the 'and discussion' but would like to
>see some limit on the number or frequency of advertisements

The wording looks fine to me - the 'and discussion' may be implicit, but 
just as well to make it explicit.

-- 
Jim Crowther

In message , Anthony R. Gold 
 writes
>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:44:00 +0100, Geoff Berrow 
>wrote:
>
>> Interestingly, the biggest discussion on that group is about newsgroup
>> access.
>
>Can you cite any time period ending now (since you say that IS the case)
>for which that claim is true?  I don't find fictional nonsense interesting.
>
>What I do find interesting is the change between the time of the creation
>of the AAISP group, when the unnc luvvies took the position that any REAL
>ISP should be running its own news service, and the comments of today.  Is
>it a case of whose ox is being gored or did some people just grow up a bit?
>
Lets just hope the same sort of vote rigging doesn't go on and that 
Gradwell doesn't use staff members (or even the names of those staff 
members) who have never posted on Usenet before to vote for the creation 
of the group as happened with AAISP.

I'd like to think that Gradwell was above that sort of behaviour.

-- 
Paul Giverin

British Jet Engine Website:-    www.britjet.co.uk

My photos:-  www.pbase.com/vendee

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:25:44 +0100, Paul Giverin 
wrote:

> In message , Anthony R. Gold 
>  writes
>>
>> What I do find interesting is the change between the time of the creation
>> of the AAISP group, when the unnc luvvies took the position that any REAL
>> ISP should be running its own news service, and the comments of today.  Is
>> it a case of whose ox is being gored or did some people just grow up a bit?
>>
> Lets just hope the same sort of vote rigging doesn't go on and that 
> Gradwell doesn't use staff members (or even the names of those staff 
> members) who have never posted on Usenet before to vote for the creation 
> of the group as happened with AAISP.

Do you think Barry and Alex got the count wrong?

Why are the exact same arguments that led you and {R} to vote against the
AAISP group not equally applicable to this group?

Tony

In  on Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:03:50 GMT,
"Charles Lindsey"  wrote:

>In <rfd1-uk.net.providers.gradwell-20090617173603$3989@gradwell.net> Molly Mockford  writes:
>
>>                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>>          create unmoderated newsgroup uk.net.providers.gradwell
>
>+1

And another.

In article 
<rfd1-uk.net.providers.gradwell-20090617173603$3989@gradwell.net>, Molly 
Mockford  wrote
>                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>          create unmoderated newsgroup uk.net.providers.gradwell

I support the creation of this group and would be an active user.

-- 
Bob Evans

"Molly Mockford"  wrote in message 
news:rfd1-uk.net.providers.gradwell-20090617173603$3989@gradwell.net...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>          create unmoderated newsgroup uk.net.providers.gradwell

I would use this group, and support its creation.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:11:14 +0100, "David Mahon" 
wrote:

>"Molly Mockford"  wrote in message 
>news:rfd1-uk.net.providers.gradwell-20090617173603$3989@gradwell.net...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>>
>>          create unmoderated newsgroup uk.net.providers.gradwell
>
>I would use this group, and support its creation.

Same here.

Andrew.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:11:14 +0100, "David Mahon" 
wrote:

> I would use this group, and support its creation.

I have no interest in using this group but I support its formation and, in
the highly unlikely event a vote is required, I will vote in favour.

Tony

In message 
<rfd1-uk.net.providers.gradwell-20090617173603$3989@gradwell.net>, at 
18:36:03 on Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Molly Mockford 
 wibbled
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>          create unmoderated newsgroup uk.net.providers.gradwell
>
Whilst I would not use the group myself at the present time, it is a 
sensible proposal and therefore support it.

Looks to me to be a prime candidate for a fast track.

-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

Pedt <"\"@ @\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> wrote:

>
> Looks to me to be a prime candidate for a fast track.

I concur.

cu

mgk
-- 
Korpela's 42 Laws about Usenet:
21. Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; 
    it surely reduces the number of useful answers you get. 
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html

In uk.net.news.config, on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:41:15, Markus G. Klötzer 
wrote:

>Pedt <"\"@ @\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Looks to me to be a prime candidate for a fast track.
>
>I concur.

The failure of the private Gradwell news server for a while tonight 
makes me wish a fast-track could take place ASAP for u.n.p.g.

I've never been a fan of private info-forums when there is a service 
that is sold to the public.

-- 
Jim Crowther

At 00:08:46 on Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jim Crowther 
<Don't_bother@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in 
<0c$QuiG+f$RKFwMo@nospam.at.my.choice.of.UID.invalid>:

>The failure of the private Gradwell news server for a while tonight 
>makes me wish a fast-track could take place ASAP for u.n.p.g.

The fast-track application was made as soon as the ten days' discussion 
period was over - i.e. Saturday evening.  I hope it shouldn't take long 
- but since I have firmly pretended I am not a Committee member for the 
purposes of this particular RFD, I cannot know anything more than 
anybody else here would know about how things are going.
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

In uk.net.news.config, on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:14:09, Molly Mockford 
wrote:

>At 00:08:46 on Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jim Crowther 
><Don't_bother@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in 
><0c$QuiG+f$RKFwMo@nospam.at.my.choice.of.UID.invalid>:
>
>>The failure of the private Gradwell news server for a while tonight 
>>makes me wish a fast-track could take place ASAP for u.n.p.g.
>
>The fast-track application was made as soon as the ten days' discussion 
>period was over - i.e. Saturday evening.  I hope it shouldn't take long 
>- but since I have firmly pretended I am not a Committee member for the 
>purposes of this particular RFD, I cannot know anything more than 
>anybody else here would know about how things are going.

Thanks Molly. :)

-- 
Jim Crowther

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:41:15 +0100, "Markus G. Klötzer"
 wrote:

>Pedt <"\"@ @\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Looks to me to be a prime candidate for a fast track.
>
>I concur.
>
>cu
>
>mgk


Rubbish - there are still significant issues being discussed.

If you think the discussion is finished - then kill-file the thread.
You do know how to do that I hope.

In message , at 15:40:42 on 
Tue, 30 Jun 2009, jms  wibbled
>On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:41:15 +0100, "Markus G. Klötzer"
> wrote:
>
>>Pedt <"\"@ @\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Looks to me to be a prime candidate for a fast track.
>>
>>I concur.
>>
>Rubbish - there are still significant issues being discussed.

Exactly *what* significant issues? There are none AFAICS in this RFD.
>
>If you think the discussion is finished

It certainly appears to be.

>- then kill-file the thread.
>You do know how to do that I hope.

Do you often try and teach your grandmother to suck eggs?

-- 
Pedt

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:40:42 +0100, jms  wrote:
> 
>  Rubbish - there are still significant issues being discussed.

I expect this was all someone else's fault too, was it j?

regards,   Ian SMith
-- 
  |\ /|      no .sig
  |o o|
  |/ \|

In uk.net.news.config, on Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:40:42, jms wrote:

>Rubbish - there are still significant issues being discussed.
>
>If you think the discussion is finished - then kill-file the thread. 
>You do know how to do that I hope.

Keep to your own battles please, kindly feck off from others.  Ta 
muchly.

-- 
Jim Crowther

At 01:50:20 on Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Jim Crowther 
<Don't_bother@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in 
<6gQTRJnMLrSKFwXT@nospam.at.my.choice.of.UID.invalid>:

>Keep to your own battles please, kindly feck off from others.  Ta 
>muchly.

Methinks that the Judith entity is indulging in a bit of teasing.  Let's 
not feed her.
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:40:42 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:41:15 +0100, "Markus G. Klötzer"
> wrote:
>
>>Pedt <"\"@ @\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Looks to me to be a prime candidate for a fast track.
>>
>>I concur.
>>
>>cu
>>
>>mgk
>
>
>Rubbish - there are still significant issues being discussed.
>
>If you think the discussion is finished - then kill-file the thread.
>You do know how to do that I hope.
>


I apologise - I was in the "wrong" thread by mistake.

Sorry.