On 02/12/14 17:07, g8dgc wrote:
Spike wrote:

And we don't want Stuckle over here. Isn't the US big enough for you?

TINW

This is not working?

I've tried to keep the explanation simple and straightforward.

--
Spike

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

On 02/12/14 17:17, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:06:44 -0500
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

You are well known to be one of the
main instigators causing ukrra to be suck a cesspool.

Spike is often combative and questioning, but one thing he isn't is
rude and abusive in an ad hominem manner. He also uses facts
in his arguments that are drawn from documented sources. Objections seem
to hinge on people who don't like his attitude conflating that with
abuse. His criticism is founded on what people say and do but that
seems to be too far for some.

Spike is not one of the badly behaved posters, but he will press his
point.

Thanks for the supporting comments, Brian.

I'm only sorry someone has had to spell out the obvious.

--
Spike

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

On 02/12/14 20:58, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:19:30 -0500
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Yes, but there is no indication the moderators of rram will take over
as moderators of ukrram.

I have not seen that suggested, what Spike is trying to say is that if
the initial moderation team disbands and is replaced, those
replacements could have any attitude and agenda and there would be no
recourse to any mechanism to prevent it.

Thanks for that, Brian. I was sure I had made myself clear.


--
Spike

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

On 02/12/14 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Spike
writes
On 02/12/14 15:53, Ian Jackson wrote:

If the moderation policies out to be unsatisfactory, there are remedies
- and if all else fails, simply pretend that the moderated NG doesn't
exist - which is what I already do with the 98,299 NGs out there, but I
don't subscribe to.

Wrong argument, Ian. We're talking about the succession, not about the
moderation policies

So you are objecting to the moderators, and their heirs and successors,
regardless of their actual moderation policies?

Could you point me to where you think I said that?


--
Spike

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

On 02/12/14 17:06, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 11:52 AM, Spike wrote:
On 02/12/14 16:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 11:16 AM, Spike wrote:

It's a plain and simple fact, and explicitly stated. So simple that
everyone should be able to understand it.

And there is no reason to think the current moderators of rram will
become the moderators of ukrram,

"*For now* the moderators are different. but with a freemason-type
succession policy nothing can be guaranteed"

Unsupported conjecture and fear mongering. IOW, FUD.

It's a plain and simple fact, and explicitly stated. So simple that
everyone should be able to understand it.

"Only by noting that the chap who is behind the RFD is the same chap who
brought 'order' to the US groups (and RRAM can be seen by all to be the
roaring success of this policy[1,2,3]), and the Charter and ModPol for
the proposed group being little more than a cut-and-paste job, even down
to the Americanisms".

So he used another newsgroup's charter as a template? Here's something
you don't obviously know - people don't create everything from scratch.
They often use something that already exists as a template. And that
isn't restricted to usenet charters.

Are you an engineer or technician? You sound like one or the other.

The chap who is behind the RFD is the same chap who
brought 'order' to the US groups (and RRAM can be seen by all to be the
roaring success of this policy[1,2,3]), and the Charter and ModPol for
the proposed group being little more than a cut-and-paste job, even down
to the Americanisms.

[1] 61.7% blog posts

[2] Less than 1 post per day from individuals over 18 months

[3] The last gap between individual's posts was 4 days 2 hours.

So? They are two entirely different newsgroup. You're comparing apples
and oranges.

The chap who is behind the RFD is the same chap who brought 'order' to the
US groups (and RRAM can be seen by all to be the
roaring success of this policy[1,2,3]), and the Charter and ModPol for
the proposed group being little more than a cut-and-paste job, even down
to the Americanisms.

You asked me not to lumber you Brits with it. No one is.

Why? I'm quite happily ignoring it - as you should ukrram if you don't
like it.

You're not happy at all. You want the Brits to host you a moderated
group so you can play in it.

No, I want a moderated newsgroup so that I can chat with some of the
people I've met on ukraa without having to put up with the cesspool that
certain people have made it to be.

You want....

You've got a moderated group. Don't the people there like you, or something?

I think you're struggling with this:

"Only by noting that the chap who is behind the RFD is the same chap who
brought 'order' to the US groups (and RRAM can be seen by all to be the
roaring success of this policy[1,2,3]), and the Charter and ModPol for
the proposed group being little more than a cut-and-paste job, even down
to the Americanisms".

No, you're struggling with the fact that they are two different
newsgroups with two different audiences and two different sets of
moderators. The chap who is behind the RFD only submitted the RFD. He
has NOTHING to do with the moderation of the newsgroup or any other
operation of the newsgroup. But you seem to have trouble with that very
simple concept.

False argument.

So what's the real reason, Spike?

The chap who is behind the RFD is the same chap who
brought 'order' to the US groups (and RRAM can be seen by all to be the
roaring success of this policy[1,2,3]), and the Charter and ModPol for
the proposed group being little more than a cut-and-paste job, even down
to the Americanisms.

[1] 61.7% blog posts

[2] Less than 1 post per day from individuals over 18 months

[3] The last gap between individual's posts was 4 days 2 hours.

And you can't understand that you're comparing apples and oranges.

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

And we don't want Stuckle over here. Isn't the US big enough for you?

Since when do YOU speak for the entire UK? What you REALLY mean is YOU
don't want me there - probably because I don't put up with trolls.

Oh, I'm not alone in this. Trust me.

But you still haven't answered a simple question - what's the REAL
reason you don't want it? Since you can't seem to answer such a simple
question, let me do it for you. You are well known to be one of the
main instigators causing ukrra to be suck a cesspool. You are deathly
afraid that you won't be allowed to post your crap in a moderated
newsgroup. And you're afraid all the "good" people will leave ukrra for
ukrram, and only you and your fellow instigators will be left on ukrra.

The chap who is behind the RFD is the same chap who
brought 'order' to the US groups (and RRAM can be seen by all to be the
roaring success of this policy[1,2,3]), and the Charter and ModPol for
the proposed group being little more than a cut-and-paste job, even down
to the Americanisms.

And that takes all the fun out of it.

Not my problem.

--
Spike

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

On 12/2/2014 5:55 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 1:11 AM, the well-known troll wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

I'm old enough that I've learned people like him just aren't worth
getting all upset over.

Then why bother responding at all?



Because I try to be polite

Since when?

Do you think calling people trolls, liars, incompetent, etc. is being polite?

If you were polite you wouldn't be in ****ing contests on a regular basis
that only stop when the other person no longer responds to you.



I am polite. But I call trolls what the are. And YOU are the one
calling people liers (sic).

But you have no idea what politeness is. I really pity you. Have you
seen a psychiatrist lately? If not, you really need to - for your own
mental health.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 12/2/2014 5:52 PM, the well-known troll wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 7:15 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

I'm old enough that I've learned people like him just aren't worth
getting all upset over.

Then why bother responding at all?


If you both cut each other a lot more slack, you'll both have more room to
maneouvre. For past couple of days you both reminded me of boxers in a
clinch, bounding together from rope to rope. Not a lot I can do about that,
but I can at least say how it looks.


Notice how he has to respond to my comments even when I'm not talking to
him? Another trait of a troll. The poor guy.

If you had been on USENET as long as you claim, you would know USENET is
an open forum and everybody is free to respond to anybody.

And you can shove your troll comment up your egomaniacal Stuckle.




Yes, I know USENET is an open forum for everybody. Including TROLLS
like you, unfortunately.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

On 12/2/2014 3:58 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:19:30 -0500
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Yes, but there is no indication the moderators of rram will take over
as moderators of ukrram.

I have not seen that suggested, what Spike is trying to say is that if
the initial moderation team disbands and is replaced, those
replacements could have any attitude and agenda and there would be no
recourse to any mechanism to prevent it.


No, he is not. But you obviously cannot understand that.

But then you were also one of the instigators - and a supporter of Spike.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 12/2/2014 6:20 PM, Spike wrote:
On 02/12/14 17:06, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 11:52 AM, Spike wrote:
On 02/12/14 16:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 11:16 AM, Spike wrote:

It's a plain and simple fact, and explicitly stated. So simple that
everyone should be able to understand it.

And there is no reason to think the current moderators of rram will
become the moderators of ukrram,

"*For now* the moderators are different. but with a freemason-type
succession policy nothing can be guaranteed"

Unsupported conjecture and fear mongering. IOW, FUD.

It's a plain and simple fact, and explicitly stated. So simple that
everyone should be able to understand it.


Even you? ROFLMAO! More FUD.

"Only by noting that the chap who is behind the RFD is the same chap who
brought 'order' to the US groups (and RRAM can be seen by all to be the
roaring success of this policy[1,2,3]), and the Charter and ModPol for
the proposed group being little more than a cut-and-paste job, even down
to the Americanisms".

So he used another newsgroup's charter as a template? Here's something
you don't obviously know - people don't create everything from scratch.
They often use something that already exists as a template. And that
isn't restricted to usenet charters.

Are you an engineer or technician? You sound like one or the other.


Yes. And I have been for around 40 years.

The chap who is behind the RFD is the same chap who
brought 'order' to the US groups (and RRAM can be seen by all to be the
roaring success of this policy[1,2,3]), and the Charter and ModPol for
the proposed group being little more than a cut-and-paste job, even down
to the Americanisms.

[1] 61.7% blog posts

[2] Less than 1 post per day from individuals over 18 months

[3] The last gap between individual's posts was 4 days 2 hours.

So? They are two entirely different newsgroup. You're comparing apples
and oranges.

The chap who is behind the RFD is the same chap who brought 'order' to the
US groups (and RRAM can be seen by all to be the
roaring success of this policy[1,2,3]), and the Charter and ModPol for
the proposed group being little more than a cut-and-paste job, even down
to the Americanisms.


So? They are two entirely different newsgroups. You're comparing
apples and oranges.

You asked me not to lumber you Brits with it. No one is.

Why? I'm quite happily ignoring it - as you should ukrram if you don't
like it.

You're not happy at all. You want the Brits to host you a moderated
group so you can play in it.

No, I want a moderated newsgroup so that I can chat with some of the
people I've met on ukraa without having to put up with the cesspool that
certain people have made it to be.

You want....

You've got a moderated group. Don't the people there like you, or
something?


Yes, I want a moderated group - where the cesspool you helped create is
not allowed.

I think you're struggling with this:

"Only by noting that the chap who is behind the RFD is the same chap who
brought 'order' to the US groups (and RRAM can be seen by all to be the
roaring success of this policy[1,2,3]), and the Charter and ModPol for
the proposed group being little more than a cut-and-paste job, even down
to the Americanisms".

No, you're struggling with the fact that they are two different
newsgroups with two different audiences and two different sets of
moderators. The chap who is behind the RFD only submitted the RFD. He
has NOTHING to do with the moderation of the newsgroup or any other
operation of the newsgroup. But you seem to have trouble with that very
simple concept.

False argument.


Only in your mind. But that's not surprising, considering how small
your mind is.

So what's the real reason, Spike?

The chap who is behind the RFD is the same chap who
brought 'order' to the US groups (and RRAM can be seen by all to be the
roaring success of this policy[1,2,3]), and the Charter and ModPol for
the proposed group being little more than a cut-and-paste job, even down
to the Americanisms.

[1] 61.7% blog posts

[2] Less than 1 post per day from individuals over 18 months

[3] The last gap between individual's posts was 4 days 2 hours.

And you can't understand that you're comparing apples and oranges.

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, then it's a troll

And trolls don't understand there is a difference between apples and
oranges.

And we don't want Stuckle over here. Isn't the US big enough for you?

Since when do YOU speak for the entire UK? What you REALLY mean is YOU
don't want me there - probably because I don't put up with trolls.

Oh, I'm not alone in this. Trust me.


ROFLMAO! You and a couple of other trolls who made ukram the cesspool
it is.

But you still haven't answered a simple question - what's the REAL
reason you don't want it? Since you can't seem to answer such a simple
question, let me do it for you. You are well known to be one of the
main instigators causing ukrra to be suck a cesspool. You are deathly
afraid that you won't be allowed to post your crap in a moderated
newsgroup. And you're afraid all the "good" people will leave ukrra for
ukrram, and only you and your fellow instigators will be left on ukrra.

The chap who is behind the RFD is the same chap who
brought 'order' to the US groups (and RRAM can be seen by all to be the
roaring success of this policy[1,2,3]), and the Charter and ModPol for
the proposed group being little more than a cut-and-paste job, even down
to the Americanisms.

And that takes all the fun out of it.

Not my problem.


And you still don't understand the difference between apples and
oranges. But trolls don't.

We don't want YOU in ukram. That's why the RFD to create it.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 5:52 PM, the well-known troll wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 12/2/2014 7:15 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

I'm old enough that I've learned people like him just aren't worth
getting all upset over.

Then why bother responding at all?


If you both cut each other a lot more slack, you'll both have more room to
maneouvre. For past couple of days you both reminded me of boxers in a
clinch, bounding together from rope to rope. Not a lot I can do about that,
but I can at least say how it looks.


Notice how he has to respond to my comments even when I'm not talking to
him? Another trait of a troll. The poor guy.

If you had been on USENET as long as you claim, you would know USENET is
an open forum and everybody is free to respond to anybody.

And you can shove your troll comment up your egomaniacal Stuckle.




Yes, I know USENET is an open forum for everybody. Including TROLLS
like you, unfortunately.

Then why the snide "he has to respond to my comments even when I'm not
talking to him"?

You can shove your troll comment up your egomaniacal Stuckle.


--
Jim Pennino