On 03/12/14 15:30, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/3/2014 10:15 AM, Spike wrote:

Which has absolutely nothing to do with ukram. They are two different
newsgroups, with two different audiences and two different moderation
teams. The only thing they have in common is the proposer of the RFD.

Plus the Charter and ModPol.

I don't expect you to see the Americanisms in there.

So what? Since you seem to be completely clueless, here's what must be
a huge enlightenment to you:

Ad hominem

RFDs are not created from scratch.

Only by the lazy, or those seeking some form of 'authority'.

People almost always take the RFD
(and ModPol) of an existing group and just modify it for the new group.
And BTW - this happens not only in RFDs - it is a common practice
around the world in many different areas. And it's also not limited to
printed material.

That explains a lot. What a glorious chance was missed here.

And you'll find all moderated groups will have very similar Charters and
ModPols. In fact, I would highly expect that the RFD for rram was
copied from another moderated newsgroup's RFD.

Ad populum.

Once again you're grasping at straws.

Ad hominem.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the antecedents of
a duck, it's a duck.

If it walks like a troll, quacks like a troll, and has the antecedents
of a troll, it's a troll.

Oh, I'd agree with you there. But I'm a nice chap and overlook the
negative side of others.

Don't go shopping for poultry, or you may be very disappointed.

You obviously can't understand the difference between apples and
oranges. Either that or you're grasping at straws, trying to make you
point - and failing miserably.

I've got a feeling I might get the point across, if I say it often enough:

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the antecedents of
a duck, it's a duck.


--
Spike

"Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad
law". Judge Rolfe