On 14/07/2026 14:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1135aat$chk1$1@dont-email.me...
On 13/07/2026 18:42, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 13/07/2026 14:39, Theo wrote:
Ob. legal content: can it be called radio if it's a private stream sent >>>>> over a controlled access medium to privately-owned locations? It would not
be regulated under the radio licensing regime, for example.
Hospital radio may predate radio licensing.
I don't know when such closed circuit audio systems started, but I doubt >>> they
were called "radio" until actual radio broadcasting was common.
If they existed they wouldn't have been "radio" in any case as there was no >> radio transmission element.
There are/were things called "hospital radio", which were wired into the headphones of the patients.
Thank you for your message. However the moderators have rejected it
because it appears to them that you have been attempting to disrupt
the group by posting inappropriately.
Examples of inappropriate posting include repeatedly posting a
contribution that has already been rejected more than once by the
moderators, or using an unacceptable posting name.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:1135p9o$hj5g$1@dont-email.me...
On 14/07/2026 14:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1135aat$chk1$1@dont-email.me...
On 13/07/2026 18:42, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 13/07/2026 14:39, Theo wrote:
Ob. legal content: can it be called radio if it's a private stream sent >>>>>> over a controlled access medium to privately-owned locations? It would not
be regulated under the radio licensing regime, for example.
Hospital radio may predate radio licensing.
I don't know when such closed circuit audio systems started, but I doubt >>>> they
were called "radio" until actual radio broadcasting was common.
If they existed they wouldn't have been "radio" in any case as there was no >>> radio transmission element.
There are/were things called "hospital radio", which were wired into the
headphones of the patients.
But why would they have been called radio ? When there was someone sitting
in a room speaking into a microphone which was presumably connected by wire to an amplifier which was then connected by wire to the headphones of patients.
There was no radio element to it, at all .
And in any case what did the "DJ" in the room play ? Did he have a wind up gramophone with a box of cylinders, and hold the microphone up to the horn ? That must have been quite a tiring job. And didn't the patients eventually get bored with listening to the same five cylinders,over and over again ?
bb
..................
On 15 Jul 2026 at 13:22:19 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Thank you for your message. However the moderators have rejected it
because it appears to them that you have been attempting to disrupt
the group by posting inappropriately.
Examples of inappropriate posting include repeatedly posting a
contribution that has already been rejected more than once by the
moderators, or using an unacceptable posting name.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1135p9o$hj5g$1@dont-email.me...
On 14/07/2026 14:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1135aat$chk1$1@dont-email.me...
On 13/07/2026 18:42, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 13/07/2026 14:39, Theo wrote:
Ob. legal content: can it be called radio if it's a private stream sent >>>>>>> over a controlled access medium to privately-owned locations? It would not
be regulated under the radio licensing regime, for example.
Hospital radio may predate radio licensing.
I don't know when such closed circuit audio systems started, but I doubt >>>>> they
were called "radio" until actual radio broadcasting was common.
If they existed they wouldn't have been "radio" in any case as there was no
radio transmission element.
There are/were things called "hospital radio", which were wired into the >>> headphones of the patients.
But why would they have been called radio ? When there was someone sitting >> in a room speaking into a microphone which was presumably connected by wire >> to an amplifier which was then connected by wire to the headphones of
patients.
There was no radio element to it, at all .
And in any case what did the "DJ" in the room play ? Did he have a wind up >> gramophone with a box of cylinders, and hold the microphone up to the horn ? >> That must have been quite a tiring job. And didn't the patients eventually >> get bored with listening to the same five cylinders,over and over again ?
bb
..................
An inane post because when "wireless" was the usual expression for radio in the UK it only ever referred to wireless signal transmission; the wireless set
certainly used wires, both for connection to a power supply and, indeed, for internal connections. Hospital wireless/radio, as many have said, is only using the descriptor as an analogy with broadcasting.
I can confirm that my grandparents' generation used "wireless" preferentially to "radio" with exactly the same meaning.
However, I don't see that your post is so silly as to be rejectable.
Hospital wireless/radio, as many have said, is only
using the descriptor as an analogy with broadcasting.
On 15 Jul 2026 at 13:22:19 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Thank you for your message. However the moderators have rejected it
because it appears to them that you have been attempting to disrupt
the group by posting inappropriately.
Examples of inappropriate posting include repeatedly posting a
contribution that has already been rejected more than once by the
moderators, or using an unacceptable posting name.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1135p9o$hj5g$1@dont-email.me...
On 14/07/2026 14:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1135aat$chk1$1@dont-email.me...
On 13/07/2026 18:42, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 13/07/2026 14:39, Theo wrote:
Ob. legal content: can it be called radio if it's a private stream sent >>>>>>> over a controlled access medium to privately-owned locations? It would >>>>>>> not
be regulated under the radio licensing regime, for example.
Hospital radio may predate radio licensing.
I don't know when such closed circuit audio systems started, but I doubt >>>>> they
were called "radio" until actual radio broadcasting was common.
If they existed they wouldn't have been "radio" in any case as there was no
radio transmission element.
There are/were things called "hospital radio", which were wired into the >>> headphones of the patients.
But why would they have been called radio ? When there was someone sitting >> in a room speaking into a microphone which was presumably connected by wire >> to an amplifier which was then connected by wire to the headphones of
patients.
There was no radio element to it, at all .
And in any case what did the "DJ" in the room play ? Did he have a wind up >> gramophone with a box of cylinders, and hold the microphone up to the horn ? >> That must have been quite a tiring job. And didn't the patients eventually >> get bored with listening to the same five cylinders,over and over again ?
bb
..................
An inane post
Hospital radio may predate radio licensing.
I don't know when such closed circuit audio systems started, but I doubt >>>>> they were called "radio" until actual radio broadcasting was common.
However, I don't see that your post is so silly as to be rejectable.
One of the moderators has put him on the banned list, which is rarely
used and rejects all his posts.
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:21:01 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
One of the moderators has put him on the banned list, which is rarely
used and rejects all his posts.
What purpose does that serve, does a change of email and modified
pseudonym not let the person continue posting?
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:21:01 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
One of the moderators has put him on the banned list, which is rarely
used and rejects all his posts.
What purpose does that serve, does a change of email and modified
pseudonym not let the person continue posting?
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:21:01 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
One of the moderators has put him on the banned list, which is rarely
used and rejects all his posts.
What purpose does that serve, does a change of email and modified
pseudonym not let the person continue posting?
The moderators can run the group in whatever way they like but I find their >behaviour in this case disappointing.
It is not clear if section f of the moderation policy means that the >moderators need to explain their decision to Mr Bookcase but taking such an >unusual step without an explanation is not a decision I would have expected >from most of them.
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:21:01 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
One of the moderators has put him on the banned list, which is rarely
used and rejects all his posts.
What purpose does that serve, does a change of email and modified
pseudonym not let the person continue posting?
I could take a look at the code to see exactly how the automatic block list works. If Mr Bookcase does make some change that bypasses the block list
then the moderators will be able to adjust it to block him again.
If that were to happen then the moderators could use it as a post-hoc rationalisation for the original block.
The moderators can run the group in whatever way they like but I find their behaviour in this case disappointing.
It is not clear if section f of the moderation policy means that the moderators need to explain their decision to Mr Bookcase but taking such an unusual step without an explanation is not a decision I would have expected from most of them.
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:21:01 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
One of the moderators has put him on the banned list, which is rarely
used and rejects all his posts.
What purpose does that serve, does a change of email and modified
pseudonym not let the person continue posting?
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:21:01 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
One of the moderators has put him on the banned list, which is rarely
used and rejects all his posts.
What purpose does that serve, does a change of email and modified
pseudonym not let the person continue posting?
I could take a look at the code to see exactly how the automatic block list works. If Mr Bookcase does make some change that bypasses the block list
then the moderators will be able to adjust it to block him again.
If that were to happen then the moderators could use it as a post-hoc rationalisation for the original block.
The moderators can run the group in whatever way they like but I find their behaviour in this case disappointing.
It is not clear if section f of the moderation policy means that the moderators need to explain their decision to Mr Bookcase but taking such an unusual step without an explanation is not a decision I would have expected from most of them.
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:21:01 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
One of the moderators has put him on the banned list, which is rarely
used and rejects all his posts.
What purpose does that serve, does a change of email and modified
pseudonym not let the person continue posting?
I could take a look at the code to see exactly how the automatic block list works. If Mr Bookcase does make some change that bypasses the block list
then the moderators will be able to adjust it to block him again.
If that were to happen then the moderators could use it as a post-hoc rationalisation for the original block.
The moderators can run the group in whatever way they like but I find their behaviour in this case disappointing.
It is not clear if section f of the moderation policy means that the moderators need to explain their decision to Mr Bookcase
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:113d45m$2ol16$1@dont-email.me...
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:21:01 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
One of the moderators has put him on the banned list, which is rarely
used and rejects all his posts.
What purpose does that serve, does a change of email and modified
pseudonym not let the person continue posting?
I could take a look at the code to see exactly how the automatic block list >> works. If Mr Bookcase does make some change that bypasses the block list
then the moderators will be able to adjust it to block him again.
If that were to happen then the moderators could use it as a post-hoc
rationalisation for the original block.
The moderators can run the group in whatever way they like but I find their >> behaviour in this case disappointing.
It is not clear if section f of the moderation policy means that the
moderators need to explain their decision to Mr Bookcase but taking such an >> unusual step without an explanation is not a decision I would have expected >> from most of them.
I assume that the fact that I use a munged email address, offers them the excuse
that I am not contactable.
On 17/07/2026 13:20, billy bookcase wrote:
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:113d45m$2ol16$1@dont-email.me...
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:21:01 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
One of the moderators has put him on the banned list, which is rarely >>>>> used and rejects all his posts.
What purpose does that serve, does a change of email and modified
pseudonym not let the person continue posting?
I could take a look at the code to see exactly how the automatic block list >>> works. If Mr Bookcase does make some change that bypasses the block list >>> then the moderators will be able to adjust it to block him again.
If that were to happen then the moderators could use it as a post-hoc
rationalisation for the original block.
The moderators can run the group in whatever way they like but I find their >>> behaviour in this case disappointing.
It is not clear if section f of the moderation policy means that the
moderators need to explain their decision to Mr Bookcase but taking such an >>> unusual step without an explanation is not a decision I would have expected >>> from most of them.
I assume that the fact that I use a munged email address, offers them the
excuse
that I am not contactable.
You are easily contactable here. And they know that.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nbv37bFp3j3U3@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2026 13:20, billy bookcase wrote:
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:113d45m$2ol16$1@dont-email.me...
It is not clear if section f of the moderation policy means that the
moderators need to explain their decision to Mr Bookcase but taking such an
unusual step without an explanation is not a decision I would have expected
from most of them.
I assume that the fact that I use a munged email address, offers them the >>> excuse that I am not contactable.
You are easily contactable here. And they know that.
Despite the fact that I post anonymously, presumably it might be possible
for them to argue that it would be a breach of my human rights, were they
to announce the actual reason for my blacklisting in public.
* Clearly being appointed a moderator on a Newsgroup, has enabled at
least one person to achieve their lifetime's ambition. So it's not
as if it's all bad.
On 17/07/2026 12:37, Owen Rees wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:21:01 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
One of the moderators has put him on the banned list, which is rarely
used and rejects all his posts.
What purpose does that serve, does a change of email and modified
pseudonym not let the person continue posting?
I could take a look at the code to see exactly how the automatic block list >> works. If Mr Bookcase does make some change that bypasses the block list
then the moderators will be able to adjust it to block him again.
If that were to happen then the moderators could use it as a post-hoc
rationalisation for the original block.
The moderators can run the group in whatever way they like but I find their >> behaviour in this case disappointing.
It is not clear if section f of the moderation policy means that the
moderators need to explain their decision to Mr Bookcase but taking such an >> unusual step without an explanation is not a decision I would have expected >> from most of them.
Well, it's worth looking at what the Moderation Policy actually says:
" (f) The moderators may at their discretion ban contributors who try to disrupt the group by wasting the moderators time. The moderators should confirm the decision of any one moderator by a majority of all moderators within 72 hours and should attempt to inform such contributors of their action. The moderators will use their best endeavours to avoid banning anyone and to persuade disruptive contributors to modify their posting style."
and then comparing it with the reason quoted in the first post to this thread,
namely:
"Thank you for your message. However the moderators have rejected it
because it appears to them that you have been attempting to disrupt
the group by posting inappropriately.
Examples of inappropriate posting include repeatedly posting a
contribution that has already been rejected more than once by the
moderators, or using an unacceptable posting name."
So, which of those actually applies in this case, if either?
And why is the moderator (singular, despite the plural attribution above) who is responsible apparently unable or unwilling to say? Is it because neither actually does, or perhaps because he prefers to hide instead behind vague innuendo rather than arguable specifics? IF he has a case, he owes it to Mr Bookcase to say what it is.
And where is the evidence that the moderators' time has been wasted, which is the *only* basis for any ban according to the Policy quoted above? It's their
job to spend time moderating posts, so an allegation of wasting it has to be exceptional and justified, which it hasn't been.
Mr Bookcase, whatever his faults, deserves better.
There is also no explanation of why anything 'inappropriate' falls within clause (f) of the Moderation Policy or provides any grounds for banning any contributor. The sole basis there is wasting the moderators' time, not being 'inappropriate' which is a very convenient, all things to all men, indeterminate term for any inadequate who can't actually express what he means.
Finally, I note that the moderators must, if they are to abide by their own rules, inform Mr Bookcase within 72 hours that the majority of the moderators (ie 3 out of the four since two is not a majority) confirm the banning decision if it is to be effected. I make that by lunchtime tomorrow.
On 17/07/2026 18:15, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nbv37bFp3j3U3@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2026 13:20, billy bookcase wrote:
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:113d45m$2ol16$1@dont-email.me...
It is not clear if section f of the moderation policy means that the >>>>> moderators need to explain their decision to Mr Bookcase but taking such >>>>> an
unusual step without an explanation is not a decision I would have
expected
from most of them.
I assume that the fact that I use a munged email address, offers them the >>>> excuse that I am not contactable.
You are easily contactable here. And they know that.
Despite the fact that I post anonymously, presumably it might be possible
for them to argue that it would be a breach of my human rights, were they
to announce the actual reason for my blacklisting in public.
Not if you tell them this is the way you want to be contacted and informed.
They are obliged, under their own rules, to 'attempt to inform such contributors of their action'. There's no requirement for that to be by email.
* Clearly being appointed a moderator on a Newsgroup, has enabled at
least one person to achieve their lifetime's ambition. So it's not
as if it's all bad.
We've discussed this elsewhere before. There is in fact no process in the Charter by which moderators, other than those appointed initially on formation
of the group, can validly be appointed. And that's just The Todal.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nbv7g7Fp3j3U4@mid.individual.net...
Not if you tell them this is the way you want to be contacted and informed.
Its all immaterial in any case. There is really no point in banging
one's head against a brick wall.
If you remember that last discussion with Simon Parker; over what was and wasn't off road. Now as things stood, given he couldn't find a precedent
for the test, as he'd promised, he was basically stuffed.
At which point Mr Ribbens made a rather pointed remark asking if I was
really sure of my ground.
To which I replied I wasn't. As always I was happy to be corrected
which I actually believe. As only in that way can you be cured of misconceptions.
And so I left it that.
Anyway, as a result of which Mr Parker has presumably done a bunk. And
left the other three, to do all the work.
On 2026-07-17, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nbv7g7Fp3j3U4@mid.individual.net...
Not if you tell them this is the way you want to be contacted and informed. >>Its all immaterial in any case. There is really no point in banging
one's head against a brick wall.
And yet doing exactly that is what got you suspended...
If you remember that last discussion with Simon Parker; over what was and
wasn't off road. Now as things stood, given he couldn't find a precedent
for the test, as he'd promised, he was basically stuffed.
It was a while ago, so this is from memory only: but as far as I recall,
he wasn't stuffed at all, he was right, but clearly other things in his
life have taken priority over posting to uk.legal.moderated, which is understandable given the length of his average post!
At which point Mr Ribbens made a rather pointed remark asking if I was
really sure of my ground.
To which I replied I wasn't. As always I was happy to be corrected
which I actually believe. As only in that way can you be cured of
misconceptions.
And so I left it that.
Sadly I think you completely missed the point of my remark, which is
not that one cannot disagree with others, but that it is unwise to
take such a contemptuous, sarcastic, and superior tone unless one is
quite certain that one actually is holding a superior position, and
that the other person deserves such scorn.
Anyway, as a result of which Mr Parker has presumably done a bunk. And
left the other three, to do all the work.
That isn't true. Simon has been fairly continuously active as a
moderator - most recently today.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn115l7hl.4lt.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-07-17, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nbv7g7Fp3j3U4@mid.individual.net...
Not if you tell them this is the way you want to be contacted and
informed.
Its all immaterial in any case. There is really no point in banging
one's head against a brick wall.
And yet doing exactly that is what got you suspended...
Unfortunately I've never been over impresssed by your relianec
on this priviledged knowledge of yours; from which others are
necessarily excluded.
Beacause that might suggest that it was one of the main reasons
you became a moderator in the firsts palce.
Finally giving you access to all these supposed "secrets", that
outsiders could never challenge you on.
Making you "special"; some one with real power at last.
Well its a start, anyway I suppose.
If you remember that last discussion with Simon Parker; over what was and >>> wasn't off road. Now as things stood, given he couldn't find a precedent >>> for the test, as he'd promised, he was basically stuffed.
It was a while ago, so this is from memory only: but as far as I recall,
he wasn't stuffed at all, he was right, but clearly other things in his
life have taken priority over posting to uk.legal.moderated, which is
understandable given the length of his average post!
He never produced the test he promised, as in "that isn't the test".
Which should have been at hand.
At which point Mr Ribbens made a rather pointed remark asking if I was
really sure of my ground.
To which I replied I wasn't. As always I was happy to be corrected
which I actually believe. As only in that way can you be cured of
misconceptions.
And so I left it that.
Sadly I think you completely missed the point of my remark, which is
not that one cannot disagree with others, but that it is unwise to
take such a contemptuous, sarcastic, and superior tone unless one is
quite certain that one actually is holding a superior position, and
that the other person deserves such scorn.
" contemptuous, sarcastic, and superior tone"
You're projecting again. I never adopt a superior tone.
The fact that someone such as yourself, would quite naturally regard
me as being superior to yourself, as is being amply demonstrated
in this very exchange, to say nothing of past humiliations, is
possibly the cause of your confusion.
You're seeing something that simply isn't there; from somebody
who is always the first to admit that they may be mistaken
But other than that, this is not something I have any control
over really. Is it ?
On 2026-07-17, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115l7hl.4lt.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-07-17, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nbv7g7Fp3j3U4@mid.individual.net...
Not if you tell them this is the way you want to be contacted and
informed.
Its all immaterial in any case. There is really no point in banging
one's head against a brick wall.
And yet doing exactly that is what got you suspended...
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn115le8f.4lt.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-07-17, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115l7hl.4lt.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-07-17, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nbv7g7Fp3j3U4@mid.individual.net...
Not if you tell them this is the way you want to be contacted and
informed.
Its all immaterial in any case. There is really no point in banging
one's head against a brick wall.
And yet doing exactly that is what got you suspended...
So let's start all over again, shall we ?
snip bulk of trolling
No Jon its because you're a shit-stirrer par excellance; of
rather limited intelligence; full of resentment but unable
to hide it; and extracting as much value as you can from
your oh so crafty move.
bb
On 18 Jul 2026 at 09:38:59 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115le8f.4lt.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-07-17, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115l7hl.4lt.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-07-17, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nbv7g7Fp3j3U4@mid.individual.net...
Not if you tell them this is the way you want to be contacted and >>>>>>> informed.
Its all immaterial in any case. There is really no point in banging >>>>>> one's head against a brick wall.
And yet doing exactly that is what got you suspended...
So let's start all over again, shall we ?
snip bulk of trolling
No Jon its because you're a shit-stirrer par excellance; of
rather limited intelligence; full of resentment but unable
to hide it; and extracting as much value as you can from
your oh so crafty move.
bb
That is very irritating trolling; unless you believe any of it, which
would suggest you are deeply deluded. I suppose that is why your
posting style tends to annoy people.
On 18 Jul 2026 at 09:38:59 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115le8f.4lt.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-07-17, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115l7hl.4lt.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-07-17, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nbv7g7Fp3j3U4@mid.individual.net...
Not if you tell them this is the way you want to be contacted and >>>>>>> informed.
Its all immaterial in any case. There is really no point in banging >>>>>> one's head against a brick wall.
And yet doing exactly that is what got you suspended...
So let's start all over again, shall we ?
No Jon its because you're a shit-stirrer par excellance; of
rather limited intelligence; full of resentment but unable
to hide it; and extracting as much value as you can from
your oh so crafty move.
bb
That is very irritating trolling;
His main fault, in fact, is to become irrationally
enraged if anyone disputes his own amateur legal analysis
On 18 Jul 2026 at 09:38:59 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115le8f.4lt.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
Its all immaterial in any case. There is really no point in banging
one's head against a brick wall.
And yet doing exactly that is what got you suspended...
No Jon its because you're a shit-stirrer par excellance; of
rather limited intelligence; full of resentment but unable
to hide it; and extracting as much value as you can from
your oh so crafty move.
bb
That is very irritating trolling; unless you believe any of it, which
would suggest you are deeply deluded. I suppose that is why your
posting style tends to annoy people.
To be fair, accusing *someone else* of "putting in a whole lot of effort
for very little reward" in the midst of that 140-line unhinged triumph
of imagination and paranoia over reality was absolutely <chef's kiss>.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn115mpdv.4lt.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
No Jon its because you're a shit-stirrer par excellance; of
rather limited intelligence; full of resentment but unable
to hide it; and extracting as much value as you can from
your oh so crafty move.
bb
That is very irritating trolling; unless you believe any of it, which
would suggest you are deeply deluded. I suppose that is why your
posting style tends to annoy people.
To be fair, accusing *someone else* of "putting in a whole lot of effort
for very little reward" in the midst of that 140-line unhinged triumph
of imagination and paranoia over reality was absolutely <chef's kiss>.
Well it is, very little reward. Isn't it?
Claiming gloating rights on the basis of moderating a newsgroup
featuring around 20 regular posters, would hardly feature very
highly in my own list of lifetime achievements.
But needs must, as they say.
It's a start,
Anyway it looks like you've probably cracked it. It looks like most
people will think it was Mr Perry, and your secret will be safe.
bb
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, a Card that
doesn't offer credit is known as a Credit Card
On 18 Jul 2026 at 15:08:57 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115mpdv.4lt.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
No Jon its because you're a shit-stirrer par excellance; of
rather limited intelligence; full of resentment but unable
to hide it; and extracting as much value as you can from
your oh so crafty move.
bb
That is very irritating trolling; unless you believe any of it, which
would suggest you are deeply deluded. I suppose that is why your
posting style tends to annoy people.
To be fair, accusing *someone else* of "putting in a whole lot of effort >>> for very little reward" in the midst of that 140-line unhinged triumph
of imagination and paranoia over reality was absolutely <chef's kiss>.
Well it is, very little reward. Isn't it?
Claiming gloating rights on the basis of moderating a newsgroup
featuring around 20 regular posters, would hardly feature very
highly in my own list of lifetime achievements.
But needs must, as they say.
It's a start,
Anyway it looks like you've probably cracked it. It looks like most
people will think it was Mr Perry, and your secret will be safe.
bb
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, a Card that
doesn't offer credit is known as a Credit Card
Surely this a feeble, primary school level, ploy to provoke them into telling you who banned you???
On 18 Jul 2026 at 15:08:57 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115mpdv.4lt.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
No Jon its because you're a shit-stirrer par excellance; of
rather limited intelligence; full of resentment but unable
to hide it; and extracting as much value as you can from
your oh so crafty move.
bb
That is very irritating trolling; unless you believe any of it, which
would suggest you are deeply deluded. I suppose that is why your
posting style tends to annoy people.
To be fair, accusing *someone else* of "putting in a whole lot of effort >>> for very little reward" in the midst of that 140-line unhinged triumph
of imagination and paranoia over reality was absolutely <chef's kiss>.
Well it is, very little reward. Isn't it?
Claiming gloating rights on the basis of moderating a newsgroup
featuring around 20 regular posters, would hardly feature very
highly in my own list of lifetime achievements.
But needs must, as they say.
It's a start,
Anyway it looks like you've probably cracked it. It looks like most
people will think it was Mr Perry, and your secret will be safe.
bb
Surely this a feeble, primary school level, ploy to provoke them into telling you who banned you???
On 18/07/2026 15:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jul 2026 at 15:08:57 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115mpdv.4lt.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
No Jon its because you're a shit-stirrer par excellance; of
rather limited intelligence; full of resentment but unable
to hide it; and extracting as much value as you can from
your oh so crafty move.
bb
That is very irritating trolling; unless you believe any of it, which >>>>> would suggest you are deeply deluded. I suppose that is why your
posting style tends to annoy people.
To be fair, accusing *someone else* of "putting in a whole lot of effort >>>> for very little reward" in the midst of that 140-line unhinged triumph >>>> of imagination and paranoia over reality was absolutely <chef's kiss>.
Well it is, very little reward. Isn't it?
Claiming gloating rights on the basis of moderating a newsgroup
featuring around 20 regular posters, would hardly feature very
highly in my own list of lifetime achievements.
But needs must, as they say.
It's a start,
Anyway it looks like you've probably cracked it. It looks like most
people will think it was Mr Perry, and your secret will be safe.
bb
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, a Card that
doesn't offer credit is known as a Credit Card
Surely this a feeble, primary school level, ploy to provoke them into telling
you who banned you???
Why should they be so coy, or uncertain of their position, that they're not prepared to say openly up-front?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nc1kr6F8cfaU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2026 15:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
Surely this a feeble, primary school level, ploy to provoke them into telling
you who banned you???
Why should they be so coy, or uncertain of their position, that they're not >> prepared to say openly up-front?
Its all they've really got, their secrets.
Without it the job would hardly be worth the candle.
On 18/07/2026 16:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc1kr6F8cfaU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2026 15:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
Surely this a feeble, primary school level, ploy to provoke them into >>>> telling
you who banned you???
Why should they be so coy, or uncertain of their position, that they're not >>> prepared to say openly up-front?
Its all they've really got, their secrets.
Without it the job would hardly be worth the candle.
I was wondering, since more than 3 days have now passed ... have the moderators complied with their very own policy rules that they 'should confirm
the decision of any one moderator by a majority of all moderators within 72 hours and should attempt to inform such contributors of their action'?
Have they also 'used their best endeavours to avoid banning anyone and to persuade disruptive contributors to modify their posting style'?
I'd be interested to know.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nc1nbjF8cfaU2@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2026 16:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc1kr6F8cfaU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2026 15:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
Surely this a feeble, primary school level, ploy to provoke them into >>>>> telling
you who banned you???
Why should they be so coy, or uncertain of their position, that they're not
prepared to say openly up-front?
Its all they've really got, their secrets.
Without it the job would hardly be worth the candle.
I was wondering, since more than 3 days have now passed ... have the
moderators complied with their very own policy rules that they 'should confirm
the decision of any one moderator by a majority of all moderators within 72 >> hours and should attempt to inform such contributors of their action'?
Have they also 'used their best endeavours to avoid banning anyone and to
persuade disruptive contributors to modify their posting style'?
I'd be interested to know.
I was going to say "Thank you for your support Norman"
but then I remebered the punchline.
But as things stand you know as much as I do
Which is precisely nothing . And having given the matter further
thought I have no wish at present* to subject myself to the possibility
of further injustices, at someone's anonymous hands.,
On 18/07/2026 18:47, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc1nbjF8cfaU2@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2026 16:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc1kr6F8cfaU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2026 15:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
Surely this a feeble, primary school level, ploy to provoke them into >>>>>> telling
you who banned you???
Why should they be so coy, or uncertain of their position, that they're >>>>> not
prepared to say openly up-front?
Its all they've really got, their secrets.
Without it the job would hardly be worth the candle.
I was wondering, since more than 3 days have now passed ... have the
moderators complied with their very own policy rules that they 'should
confirm
the decision of any one moderator by a majority of all moderators within 72 >>> hours and should attempt to inform such contributors of their action'?
Have they also 'used their best endeavours to avoid banning anyone and to >>> persuade disruptive contributors to modify their posting style'?
I'd be interested to know.
I was going to say "Thank you for your support Norman"
but then I remebered the punchline.
But as things stand you know as much as I do
Which is precisely nothing . And having given the matter further
thought I have no wish at present* to subject myself to the possibility
of further injustices, at someone's anonymous hands.,
If they haven't followed their own rules, which I really think they should, then they're just as bad as they (or maybe just one of them) allege you have been. Seeking to apply their rules against others when they disregard them themselves is pretty shabby. It's also marks them as hypocrites.
Isn't that what did ultimately for Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson?
If the moderators had any honour, they'd surely reinstate you immediately, if necessary making sure they put their own house in order before the next time they petulantly seek to silence someone.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nc279fFb7flU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2026 18:47, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc1nbjF8cfaU2@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2026 16:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc1kr6F8cfaU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2026 15:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
Surely this a feeble, primary school level, ploy to provoke them into >>>>>>> telling
you who banned you???
Why should they be so coy, or uncertain of their position, that they're >>>>>> not
prepared to say openly up-front?
Its all they've really got, their secrets.
Without it the job would hardly be worth the candle.
I was wondering, since more than 3 days have now passed ... have the
moderators complied with their very own policy rules that they 'should >>>> confirm
the decision of any one moderator by a majority of all moderators within 72
hours and should attempt to inform such contributors of their action'? >>>>
Have they also 'used their best endeavours to avoid banning anyone and to >>>> persuade disruptive contributors to modify their posting style'?
I'd be interested to know.
I was going to say "Thank you for your support Norman"
but then I remebered the punchline.
But as things stand you know as much as I do
Which is precisely nothing . And having given the matter further
thought I have no wish at present* to subject myself to the possibility >>> of further injustices, at someone's anonymous hands.,
If they haven't followed their own rules, which I really think they should, >> then they're just as bad as they (or maybe just one of them) allege you have >> been. Seeking to apply their rules against others when they disregard them >> themselves is pretty shabby. It's also marks them as hypocrites.
Isn't that what did ultimately for Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson?
If the moderators had any honour, they'd surely reinstate you immediately, if
necessary making sure they put their own house in order before the next time >> they petulantly seek to silence someone.
Norman they may well have re-instated me, for all I know,
However the point is, I'm not some sort of clockwork monkey which
they can switch on and off whenever they feel like it, without
offering me or anyone else, any sort of explanation.
Basically its a Kangaroo Court, accountable to no one, which
conducts all its proccedings in private, in the absence
of the accused.
Running a legal newsgroup
And all because one of the moderators, has such a high opinion
of himself, that he can't ever admit that he's ever wrong
Imagine if I'd been having the same argument with yourself,
or Spike, JNugent, or Panache about these non-existent
"Pay As You Go Credit Cards that don't offer any Credit",
by citing all the available evidence. Is anyone seriously
suggesting that I could be blacklisted from the Group as
a result ? No. Possibly right at the end one or two "not
new" rejections, but that would have bean about it.
Anyway don't worry Norman, you haven't heard the last from
me, on this one.
bb
On 19 Jul 2026 at 09:42:29 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc279fFb7flU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2026 18:47, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc1nbjF8cfaU2@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2026 16:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc1kr6F8cfaU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2026 15:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
Surely this a feeble, primary school level, ploy to provoke them into >>>>>>>> telling
you who banned you???
Why should they be so coy, or uncertain of their position, that they're >>>>>>> not
prepared to say openly up-front?
Its all they've really got, their secrets.
Without it the job would hardly be worth the candle.
I was wondering, since more than 3 days have now passed ... have the >>>>> moderators complied with their very own policy rules that they 'should >>>>> confirm
the decision of any one moderator by a majority of all moderators within >>>>> 72
hours and should attempt to inform such contributors of their action'? >>>>>
Have they also 'used their best endeavours to avoid banning anyone and to >>>>> persuade disruptive contributors to modify their posting style'?
I'd be interested to know.
I was going to say "Thank you for your support Norman"
but then I remebered the punchline.
But as things stand you know as much as I do
Which is precisely nothing . And having given the matter further
thought I have no wish at present* to subject myself to the possibility >>>> of further injustices, at someone's anonymous hands.,
If they haven't followed their own rules, which I really think they should, >>> then they're just as bad as they (or maybe just one of them) allege you have
been. Seeking to apply their rules against others when they disregard them >>> themselves is pretty shabby. It's also marks them as hypocrites.
Isn't that what did ultimately for Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson?
If the moderators had any honour, they'd surely reinstate you immediately, >>> if
necessary making sure they put their own house in order before the next time
they petulantly seek to silence someone.
Norman they may well have re-instated me, for all I know,
However the point is, I'm not some sort of clockwork monkey which
they can switch on and off whenever they feel like it, without
offering me or anyone else, any sort of explanation.
Basically its a Kangaroo Court, accountable to no one, which
conducts all its proccedings in private, in the absence
of the accused.
Running a legal newsgroup
And all because one of the moderators, has such a high opinion
of himself, that he can't ever admit that he's ever wrong
Imagine if I'd been having the same argument with yourself,
or Spike, JNugent, or Panache about these non-existent
"Pay As You Go Credit Cards that don't offer any Credit",
by citing all the available evidence. Is anyone seriously
suggesting that I could be blacklisted from the Group as
a result ? No. Possibly right at the end one or two "not
new" rejections, but that would have bean about it.
Anyway don't worry Norman, you haven't heard the last from
me, on this one.
bb
As you have pointed out, it is inappropriate for the moderators to discuss your affairs in public.
On 19 Jul 2026 at 09:42:29 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc279fFb7flU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2026 18:47, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc1nbjF8cfaU2@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2026 16:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc1kr6F8cfaU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2026 15:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
Surely this a feeble, primary school level, ploy to provoke them into >>>>>>>> telling
you who banned you???
Why should they be so coy, or uncertain of their position, that they're >>>>>>> not
prepared to say openly up-front?
Its all they've really got, their secrets.
Without it the job would hardly be worth the candle.
I was wondering, since more than 3 days have now passed ... have the >>>>> moderators complied with their very own policy rules that they 'should >>>>> confirm
the decision of any one moderator by a majority of all moderators within 72
hours and should attempt to inform such contributors of their action'? >>>>>
Have they also 'used their best endeavours to avoid banning anyone and to >>>>> persuade disruptive contributors to modify their posting style'?
I'd be interested to know.
I was going to say "Thank you for your support Norman"
but then I remebered the punchline.
But as things stand you know as much as I do
Which is precisely nothing . And having given the matter further
thought I have no wish at present* to subject myself to the possibility >>>> of further injustices, at someone's anonymous hands.,
If they haven't followed their own rules, which I really think they should, >>> then they're just as bad as they (or maybe just one of them) allege you have
been. Seeking to apply their rules against others when they disregard them >>> themselves is pretty shabby. It's also marks them as hypocrites.
Isn't that what did ultimately for Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson?
If the moderators had any honour, they'd surely reinstate you immediately, if
necessary making sure they put their own house in order before the next time
they petulantly seek to silence someone.
Norman they may well have re-instated me, for all I know,
However the point is, I'm not some sort of clockwork monkey which
they can switch on and off whenever they feel like it, without
offering me or anyone else, any sort of explanation.
Basically its a Kangaroo Court, accountable to no one, which
conducts all its proccedings in private, in the absence
of the accused.
Running a legal newsgroup
And all because one of the moderators, has such a high opinion
of himself, that he can't ever admit that he's ever wrong
Imagine if I'd been having the same argument with yourself,
or Spike, JNugent, or Panache about these non-existent
"Pay As You Go Credit Cards that don't offer any Credit",
by citing all the available evidence. Is anyone seriously
suggesting that I could be blacklisted from the Group as
a result ? No. Possibly right at the end one or two "not
new" rejections, but that would have bean about it.
Anyway don't worry Norman, you haven't heard the last from
me, on this one.
As you have pointed out, it is inappropriate for the moderators to discuss your affairs in public.
You could choose to give them a valid email address in
confidence so they could tell you what is going on. Just a thought.
I am all in favour of the principles of open justice; where processes
and decisions are made available to as much public scrutiny as
possible.
Not hidden away behind closed doors.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 10:31:13 +0100
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
I am all in favour of the principles of open justice; where processes
and decisions are made available to as much public scrutiny as
possible.
Not hidden away behind closed doors.
And yet you make use of moderated groups.
Have you considered T shirts or maybe a tattoo as an alternative ?
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 19:43:30 +0100
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Have you considered T shirts or maybe a tattoo as an alternative ?
They're not really suitable for IP networks.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nbv2pdFp3j3U1@mid.individual.net...
Finally, I note that the moderators must, if they are to abide by their own >> rules, inform Mr Bookcase within 72 hours that the majority of the moderators
(ie 3 out of the four since two is not a majority) confirm the banning
decision if it is to be effected. I make that by lunchtime tomorrow.
Thank you for your diligent research, Mr Wells.
As a conswquence of which I will, if the opportunity arises post a message
to ULM at some time on Saturday afternoon.
On 17/07/2026 18:59, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nbv2pdFp3j3U1@mid.individual.net...
Finally, I note that the moderators must, if they are to abide by their own >>> rules, inform Mr Bookcase within 72 hours that the majority of the
moderators
(ie 3 out of the four since two is not a majority) confirm the banning
decision if it is to be effected. I make that by lunchtime tomorrow.
Thank you for your diligent research, Mr Wells.
As a conswquence of which I will, if the opportunity arises post a message >> to ULM at some time on Saturday afternoon.
I don't think you did that,
but can I ask you please to post something (anything) now in ulm that would be
unobjectionable on any of the usual grounds? Then we'll be able to tell if you're still banned by whether it comes back with a 'reject blocklist' notification. If it does, all the queries I've had will remain live, focussed
and unanswered, and I will certainly continue to press for answers.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nc8mteFb3mlU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2026 18:59, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nbv2pdFp3j3U1@mid.individual.net...
Finally, I note that the moderators must, if they are to abide by their own
rules, inform Mr Bookcase within 72 hours that the majority of the
moderators
(ie 3 out of the four since two is not a majority) confirm the banning >>>> decision if it is to be effected. I make that by lunchtime tomorrow.
Thank you for your diligent research, Mr Wells.
As a conswquence of which I will, if the opportunity arises post a message >>> to ULM at some time on Saturday afternoon.
I don't think you did that,
No I didn't. Because I had second thoughts on the matter, as explained
below.
but can I ask you please to post something (anything) now in ulm that would be
unobjectionable on any of the usual grounds? Then we'll be able to tell if >> you're still banned by whether it comes back with a 'reject blocklist'
notification. If it does, all the queries I've had will remain live, focussed
and unanswered, and I will certainly continue to press for answers.
You're rather missing the point.
Which is that regardless of whether it's been lifted or not, I should never have been blacklisted in the first place.
So why should I want to go out my way to find out whether its been
lifted or not ?
Thus potentially allowing them to claim "it was all a big joke o.k ?"
It only lasted three days after all.
Lighten up ! Only don't give
Roland a hard time as he doesn't like it. But all water under the
bridge eh ?
I feel you have really let yourself down on this one, Norman.
You are clearly not quite as devious as I'd imagined.
On 21/07/2026 09:41, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc8mteFb3mlU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2026 18:59, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nbv2pdFp3j3U1@mid.individual.net...
Finally, I note that the moderators must, if they are to abide by their >>>>> ownThank you for your diligent research, Mr Wells.
rules, inform Mr Bookcase within 72 hours that the majority of the
moderators
(ie 3 out of the four since two is not a majority) confirm the banning >>>>> decision if it is to be effected. I make that by lunchtime tomorrow. >>>>
As a conswquence of which I will, if the opportunity arises post a message >>>> to ULM at some time on Saturday afternoon.
I don't think you did that,
No I didn't. Because I had second thoughts on the matter, as explained
below.
but can I ask you please to post something (anything) now in ulm that would >>> be
unobjectionable on any of the usual grounds? Then we'll be able to tell if >>> you're still banned by whether it comes back with a 'reject blocklist'
notification. If it does, all the queries I've had will remain live,
focussed
and unanswered, and I will certainly continue to press for answers.
You're rather missing the point.
Which is that regardless of whether it's been lifted or not, I should never >> have been blacklisted in the first place.
Well, that's as may be, but the fact remains that any single moderator can do that just by pressing a button.
But the rules require a majority of all the moderators to agree with that decision within 72 hours, to attempt to inform you of their decision and to use their best endeavours not to ban anyone. I want to know if they did that because it's a situation that any contributor might find applies to them too. If the rules haven't been followed, I want to know why, hold them to account, and know what they're going to do about it.
So why should I want to go out my way to find out whether its been
lifted or not ?
Because this is not just about you but a relevant fact that may affect us all.
It would be helpful.
Thus potentially allowing them to claim "it was all a big joke o.k ?"
It only lasted three days after all.
I don't appreciate 'jokes' like that, but don't think they can claim that as an excuse anyway.
Lighten up ! Only don't give
Roland a hard time as he doesn't like it. But all water under the
bridge eh ?
I feel you have really let yourself down on this one, Norman.
You are clearly not quite as devious as I'd imagined.
I've never been devious, just up-front with a considerable distaste for hypocrisy.
Imagine if I'd been having the same argument with yourself,
or Spike, JNugent, or Panache about these non-existent
On 7/19/26 09:42, billy bookcase wrote:
Imagine if I'd been having the same argument with yourself,
or Spike, JNugent, or Panache about these non-existent
Who is this Panache fellow? I would like to have arguments with Panache!
On 7/19/26 09:42, billy bookcase wrote:
Imagine if I'd been having the same argument with yourself,
or Spike, JNugent, or Panache about these non-existent
Who is this Panache fellow? I would like to have arguments with Panache!
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 51:15:55 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,016 |