From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:nc4866Fkvo9U1@mid.individual.net...

I don't necessarily accept the Inspector has a duty to absolutely ensure
that his observations and recommendations are followed to the letter.

What recomendations ?

You mean this Inspector ?

quote:

John Hoban, senior building control surveyor at RBKC, reported
councillors had signed off substantial cuts to the building control
department. It was "swamped"

Hoban had received no training or technical industry guidance and
said reading professional magazines was considered as their continuing professional development.

He had not read the document about the fire performance of external
thermal insulation for walls of multi-storey buildings known as BR135.

It detailed a 1999 cladding fire in Garnock Court in Irvine, Scotland,
and explained with pictures the rapid fire spread through cladding, and
he was not aware of the guidance differentiating between non-combustible
panels made from materials such as cement and combustible panels,
including aluminium panels which may melt and create molten debris.

Hoban had made handwritten notes and handwritten project sheets and
remembered putting all his notes into the Acolaid system, including
coming in at the weekend to do so.

These were now all missing.[38]

unquote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_Inquiry_Phase_2

(Although it does all look a bit complicated, doen't it ?
Best stick with what somebody might remember as a result
of watching a TV programme on the subject)

So just to sum, up. The senior building control surveyor appointed by
RBKC that's the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea had received
no training or technical industry guidance. And he had not read the
document about the fire performance of external thermal insulation
for walls of multi-storey buildings known as BR135.

So he was in no real position to make any recommendations in the
first place.

I
I have had a significant building project done here and the Inspector
called twice, neither time being when the work was complete.

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story
tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime.


Who knows ?



bb


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 2026-07-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:nc4866Fkvo9U1@mid.individual.net...

I have had a significant building project done here and the Inspector
called twice, neither time being when the work was complete.

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story
tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime.

I doff my hat to you sir.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 20/07/2026 21:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2026-07-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nc4866Fkvo9U1@mid.individual.net...

I have had a significant building project done here and the Inspector
called twice, neither time being when the work was complete.

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story
tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime.

I doff my hat to you sir.

Oh look, a passing moderator from the land of ulm!

Let's grab him to see what he has to say on an actual, and important, moderation issue, which is really what this groups is supposed to be about.

In case he's forgotten, let me remind him of the points that were raised
in connection with their recent banning of Billy Bookcase:

"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."

Over to you, Jon. We're waiting.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nc8jjtFb3mlU1@mid.individual.net...

On 20/07/2026 21:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2026-07-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nc4866Fkvo9U1@mid.individual.net...

I have had a significant building project done here and the Inspector
called twice, neither time being when the work was complete.

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story
tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime.

I doff my hat to you sir.

Oh look, a passing moderator from the land of ulm!

Let's grab him to see what he has to say on an actual, and important, moderation issue, which is really what this groups is supposed to be about.

In case he's forgotten, let me remind him of the points that were raised in connection with their recent banning of Billy Bookcase:

"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."

Over to you, Jon. We're waiting.

An unkind observer might be moved to suggest that in reality they're no different from the Catholic Church in shielding paedophile priests; or
the Metropolitan Police shielding racist coppers. Both of which would definitely have them jumping up and down in their prams.

That in the end, they're always going to favour one of their own, against outsiders. Despite all the high principles.

However as I explained to you before, what with Simon Parker having
already done a bunk, (despite claims to the contrary - they live in hopes
I suppose ) the last thing they need is for Roland Perry get into a
huff; and do one as well. As that would just leave the two of them.
Neither of whom exactly seem to be falling over themselves as it is
having to moderate posts by the likes of Spike or Nugent. (Whereas
you yourself do have your qualities Norman, even if they do seem to
go largely unappreciated)

As it is, I strongly suspect that were either of the two of us to be moderators, almost nothing would get passed at all; so maybe it's all
for the best in that regard. .

As to Mr Perry. Mr Perry is quite possibly feeling his age, despite my
being many years older than he is. And so possibly resents any suggestion
from anyone, that his memory is at fault. Despite my explaining
to him that this is quite common.

And so maybe on account of his age, Mr Perry now been endowed with
the status of a "Vulnerable Moderator" and is being afforded that
much greater latitude as a result. Either that or to stop him doing
a bunk.


bb




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nc8jjtFb3mlU1@mid.individual.net...

On 20/07/2026 21:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2026-07-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nc4866Fkvo9U1@mid.individual.net...

I have had a significant building project done here and the Inspector >>>>> called twice, neither time being when the work was complete.

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story
tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime.

I doff my hat to you sir.

Oh look, a passing moderator from the land of ulm!

[snip]

An unkind observer might be moved to suggest that in reality they're no different from the Catholic Church in shielding paedophile priests; or
the Metropolitan Police shielding racist coppers. Both of which would definitely have them jumping up and down in their prams.

Bloody hell. Well, that's put my hat back in its place for sure.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 20/07/2026 08:51 PM, billy bookcase wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

I don't necessarily accept the Inspector has a duty to absolutely ensure
that his observations and recommendations are followed to the letter.

What recomendations ?

Ohm dear. Are we having difficulties with plain-enough English again?

The answer is *any* recommendations or stipulations made.

No.

[snipped fanciful "example" which was plainly nothing to do with my
previous post.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_Inquiry_Phase_2

(Although it does all look a bit complicated, doen't it ?
Best stick with what somebody might remember as a result
of watching a TV programme on the subject)

If that's what you prefer, don't let me stop you.

I prefer to start from first principles, one of the threads being very straightforward micro-economics. Where did you think the principle of
"Caveat Emptor" (which has applied to every one of the five properties I
have serially owned) came from?

So just to sum, up. The senior building control surveyor appointed by
RBKC that's the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea had received
no training or technical industry guidance. And he had not read the
document about the fire performance of external thermal insulation
for walls of multi-storey buildings known as BR135.

So he was in no real position to make any recommendations in the
first place.

My understanding is that that is not as uncommon as you wouid perhaps
like or prefer. Personnel are promoted within an authority's building
control department. For good or ill (and partly because staff with the
top qualifications are hard to come by or attract), the practice is to
use in-house on-the-job training.

But you are such an expert in these matters that you already knew that,
of course. There's no need for me to point it out.

I have had a significant building project done here and the Inspector
called twice, neither time being when the work was complete.

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story
tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime.
Who knows ?

Clearly, not you.

Were you really that bored?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:nc8us0Fcu2uU1@mid.individual.net...

On 20/07/2026 08:51 PM, billy bookcase wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

I have had a significant building project done here and the Inspector
called twice, neither time being when the work was complete.

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story
tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime.
Who knows ?

Clearly, not you.

Were you really that bored?

Perhaps you'd have been better off, addressing that remark to the Secretary
of my fan club.


bb


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn115udg6.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc8jjtFb3mlU1@mid.individual.net...

On 20/07/2026 21:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2026-07-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nc4866Fkvo9U1@mid.individual.net...

I have had a significant building project done here and the Inspector >>>>>> called twice, neither time being when the work was complete.

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story
tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime.

I doff my hat to you sir.

Oh look, a passing moderator from the land of ulm!

[snip]

An unkind observer might be moved to suggest that in reality they're no
different from the Catholic Church in shielding paedophile priests; or
the Metropolitan Police shielding racist coppers. Both of which would
definitely have them jumping up and down in their prams.

Bloody hell. Well, that's put my hat back in its place for sure.

Whether consistently taking quotes out of context, so as to totally
distort someone's meaning, is better or worse than shielding paedophile priests, or racist coppers, is not really for me to say.



bb


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 21 Jul 2026 at 13:55:33 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn115udg6.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc8jjtFb3mlU1@mid.individual.net...

On 20/07/2026 21:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2026-07-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nc4866Fkvo9U1@mid.individual.net...

I have had a significant building project done here and the Inspector >>>>>>> called twice, neither time being when the work was complete.

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story
tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime.

I doff my hat to you sir.

Oh look, a passing moderator from the land of ulm!

[snip]

An unkind observer might be moved to suggest that in reality they're no
different from the Catholic Church in shielding paedophile priests; or
the Metropolitan Police shielding racist coppers. Both of which would
definitely have them jumping up and down in their prams.

Bloody hell. Well, that's put my hat back in its place for sure.

Whether consistently taking quotes out of context, so as to totally
distort someone's meaning, is better or worse than shielding paedophile priests, or racist coppers, is not really for me to say.

bb

Ok, I'll let you know; it's better. Maybe not good, but definitely better.
--

Roger Hayter
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn115udg6.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc8jjtFb3mlU1@mid.individual.net...

On 20/07/2026 21:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2026-07-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nc4866Fkvo9U1@mid.individual.net...

I have had a significant building project done here and the Inspector >>>>>>> called twice, neither time being when the work was complete.

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story
tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime.

I doff my hat to you sir.

Oh look, a passing moderator from the land of ulm!

[snip]

An unkind observer might be moved to suggest that in reality they're no
different from the Catholic Church in shielding paedophile priests; or
the Metropolitan Police shielding racist coppers. Both of which would
definitely have them jumping up and down in their prams.

Bloody hell. Well, that's put my hat back in its place for sure.

Whether consistently taking quotes out of context, so as to totally
distort someone's meaning, is better or worse than shielding paedophile priests, or racist coppers, is not really for me to say.

Go on, have a stab at it anyway. You can do it. I believe in you.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:4068263231.370401f4@uninhabited.net...

On 21 Jul 2026 at 13:55:33 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115udg6.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc8jjtFb3mlU1@mid.individual.net...

On 20/07/2026 21:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2026-07-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nc4866Fkvo9U1@mid.individual.net...

I have had a significant building project done here and the Inspector >>>>>>>> called twice, neither time being when the work was complete.

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story >>>>>>> tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime.

I doff my hat to you sir.

Oh look, a passing moderator from the land of ulm!

[snip]

An unkind observer might be moved to suggest that in reality they're no >>>> different from the Catholic Church in shielding paedophile priests; or >>>> the Metropolitan Police shielding racist coppers. Both of which would
definitely have them jumping up and down in their prams.

Bloody hell. Well, that's put my hat back in its place for sure.

Whether consistently taking quotes out of context, so as to totally
distort someone's meaning, is better or worse than shielding paedophile
priests, or racist coppers, is not really for me to say.



bb

Ok, I'll let you know; it's better. Maybe not good, but definitely better.

Jon Ribbens is prepared to sacrifice all his principles, and lie
through his teeth * simply in order to save himself from some extra
work as a moderator

The Catholic Church and the Metropolitan Police were prepared to
sacrifice all their principals and lie trough their teeth, in order
preserve their institutions and save thousands if not millions of
people's jobs in the process.

IOW while the ends can never justify the means, if you're going to
sacrifice all your principles and start crawling in the gutter, at
least do it for something worthwhile.


bb

* Not that any of this is necessarily anything new in Ribbens
case.











--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:4068263231.370401f4@uninhabited.net...

On 21 Jul 2026 at 13:55:33 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message

news:slrn115udg6.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc8jjtFb3mlU1@mid.individual.net...

On 20/07/2026 21:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2026-07-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nc4866Fkvo9U1@mid.individual.net...

I have had a significant building project done here and the Inspector >>>>>>>>> called twice, neither time being when the work was complete.

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story >>>>>>>> tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime.

I doff my hat to you sir.

Oh look, a passing moderator from the land of ulm!

[snip]

An unkind observer might be moved to suggest that in reality they're no >>>>> different from the Catholic Church in shielding paedophile priests; or >>>>> the Metropolitan Police shielding racist coppers. Both of which would >>>>> definitely have them jumping up and down in their prams.

Bloody hell. Well, that's put my hat back in its place for sure.

Whether consistently taking quotes out of context, so as to totally
distort someone's meaning, is better or worse than shielding paedophile
priests, or racist coppers, is not really for me to say.

bb

Ok, I'll let you know; it's better. Maybe not good, but definitely
better.

Jon Ribbens is prepared to sacrifice all his principles, and lie
through his teeth * simply in order to save himself from some extra
work as a moderator

Perhaps you've forgotten that in 2024 I bet you -u50 that you couldn't
identify any lie I've ever told, about anything, ever. You couldn't
do it then, and you can't do it now.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn115ve0d.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:4068263231.370401f4@uninhabited.net...

On 21 Jul 2026 at 13:55:33 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message

news:slrn115udg6.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc8jjtFb3mlU1@mid.individual.net...

On 20/07/2026 21:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2026-07-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nc4866Fkvo9U1@mid.individual.net...

I have had a significant building project done here and the Inspector
called twice, neither time being when the work was complete. >>>>>>>>>

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story >>>>>>>>> tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime.

I doff my hat to you sir.

Oh look, a passing moderator from the land of ulm!

[snip]

An unkind observer might be moved to suggest that in reality they're no >>>>>> different from the Catholic Church in shielding paedophile priests; or >>>>>> the Metropolitan Police shielding racist coppers. Both of which would >>>>>> definitely have them jumping up and down in their prams.

Bloody hell. Well, that's put my hat back in its place for sure.

Whether consistently taking quotes out of context, so as to totally
distort someone's meaning, is better or worse than shielding paedophile >>>> priests, or racist coppers, is not really for me to say.

bb

Ok, I'll let you know; it's better. Maybe not good, but definitely
better.

Jon Ribbens is prepared to sacrifice all his principles, and lie
through his teeth * simply in order to save himself from some extra
work as a moderator

Perhaps you've forgotten that in 2024 I bet you u50 that you couldn't identify any lie I've ever told, about anything, ever. You couldn't
do it then, and you can't do it now.

But in order to win such a bet I would need to *prove* that you were
lying. Wouldn't I ?

And not that you were simply mistaken, as in the case of your fellow
moderator .

Speaking of whom, possibly paid for with your Prepaid Credit Card, as
supplied by him ?

No Ribbens you lie by omission as much as anything else; and are doing it
all the time.

When asked pointed questions, you simply shrivel up and slide away back
under that stone of yours; or wherever it is that you hide.

In addition to which you are simply not very good at UseNet.

I can only assume that that's how you both ended up, along with your
chum as NewsGroup moderators. So as to give yourselves that
necessary "extra edge" as it were, if things got really sticky.



bb.





--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn115ve0d.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:4068263231.370401f4@uninhabited.net...

On 21 Jul 2026 at 13:55:33 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message

news:slrn115udg6.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc8jjtFb3mlU1@mid.individual.net...

On 20/07/2026 21:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2026-07-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nc4866Fkvo9U1@mid.individual.net...

I have had a significant building project done here and the Inspector
called twice, neither time being when the work was complete. >>>>>>>>>>

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story >>>>>>>>>> tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime. >>>>>>>>>

I doff my hat to you sir.

Oh look, a passing moderator from the land of ulm!

[snip]

An unkind observer might be moved to suggest that in reality they're no >>>>>>> different from the Catholic Church in shielding paedophile priests; or >>>>>>> the Metropolitan Police shielding racist coppers. Both of which would >>>>>>> definitely have them jumping up and down in their prams.

Bloody hell. Well, that's put my hat back in its place for sure.

Whether consistently taking quotes out of context, so as to totally
distort someone's meaning, is better or worse than shielding paedophile >>>>> priests, or racist coppers, is not really for me to say.

bb

Ok, I'll let you know; it's better. Maybe not good, but definitely
better.

Jon Ribbens is prepared to sacrifice all his principles, and lie
through his teeth * simply in order to save himself from some extra
work as a moderator

Perhaps you've forgotten that in 2024 I bet you -u50 that you couldn't
identify any lie I've ever told, about anything, ever. You couldn't
do it then, and you can't do it now.

But in order to win such a bet I would need to *prove* that you were
lying. Wouldn't I ?

You just called me a liar, which implies you must know of a lie that
I have told. Yet when challenged, you cannot identify any lie at all.

There's a word for what you're doing there. Begins with 'L'. Five
letters. Rhymes with 'crying'.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 21/07/2026 07:58, Norman Wells wrote:

On 20/07/2026 21:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2026-07-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nc4866Fkvo9U1@mid.individual.net...

I have had a significant building project done here and the Inspector
called twice, neither time being when the work was complete.

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story
tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime.

I doff my hat to you sir.

Oh look, a passing moderator from the land of ulm!

Let's grab him to see what he has to say on an actual, and important, moderation issue, which is really what this groups is supposed to be about.

In case he's forgotten, let me remind him of the points that were raised
in connection with their recent banning of Billy Bookcase:

"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?-a Is it because neither actually does, or perhaps because he prefers to hide
instead behind vague innuendo rather than arguable specifics?-a 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?-a 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.-a 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.-a I make that by lunchtime tomorrow."

Over to you, Jon.-a We're waiting.

Come on Mr Ribbens. You must have been involved, so tell us what the
truth is.

As you said earlier:

'Go on, have a stab at it anyway. You can do it. I believe in you.'




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn115vjj4.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115ve0d.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:4068263231.370401f4@uninhabited.net...

On 21 Jul 2026 at 13:55:33 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115udg6.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nc8jjtFb3mlU1@mid.individual.net...

On 20/07/2026 21:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2026-07-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nc4866Fkvo9U1@mid.individual.net...

I have had a significant building project done here and the >>>>>>>>>>>> Inspector
called twice, neither time being when the work was complete. >>>>>>>>>>>

Possibly the rules applying the construction of your own 24 story >>>>>>>>>>> tower block, whenever it was, have changed in the meantime. >>>>>>>>>>

I doff my hat to you sir.

Oh look, a passing moderator from the land of ulm!

[snip]

An unkind observer might be moved to suggest that in reality they're no
different from the Catholic Church in shielding paedophile priests; or >>>>>>>> the Metropolitan Police shielding racist coppers. Both of which would >>>>>>>> definitely have them jumping up and down in their prams.

Bloody hell. Well, that's put my hat back in its place for sure.

Whether consistently taking quotes out of context, so as to totally >>>>>> distort someone's meaning, is better or worse than shielding paedophile >>>>>> priests, or racist coppers, is not really for me to say.

bb

Ok, I'll let you know; it's better. Maybe not good, but definitely >>>>> better.

Jon Ribbens is prepared to sacrifice all his principles, and lie
through his teeth * simply in order to save himself from some extra
work as a moderator

Perhaps you've forgotten that in 2024 I bet you u50 that you couldn't
identify any lie I've ever told, about anything, ever. You couldn't
do it then, and you can't do it now.

But in order to win such a bet I would need to *prove* that you were
lying. Wouldn't I ?

You just called me a liar, which implies you must know of a lie that
I have told. Yet when challenged, you cannot identify any lie at all.

As I explained in the part you just snipped, you are a liar by omission.

If you don't know what this means, then I'm afraid you're simply going
to have to ask somebody else

This of course, is always going to be a problem with having to rely
on moderators, some of whom such as yourself, aren't exactly the
sharpest knife in the box, at the best of times.

You know the actual reason why I've been blacklisted from the group;
basically for winning an argument with one of your fellow moderators,
But because this isn't actually forbidden by the Charter (surprise surprise) you're simply refusing to answer any totally reasonable questions, as
to why I've been blacklisted.

One can only surmise that this deeply unpleasant, snivelling. gloating
persona, with its contemptuous, sarcastic, tone, you chose to adopt on
UseNet, is as a result of your having to be nice to people in your day
job; having to grovel, to people whom you secretly despise.

Well, they have my deepest sympathy.



bb




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn115vjj4.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115ve0d.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens is prepared to sacrifice all his principles, and lie
through his teeth * simply in order to save himself from some extra
work as a moderator

Perhaps you've forgotten that in 2024 I bet you -u50 that you couldn't >>>> identify any lie I've ever told, about anything, ever. You couldn't
do it then, and you can't do it now.

But in order to win such a bet I would need to *prove* that you were
lying. Wouldn't I ?

You just called me a liar, which implies you must know of a lie that
I have told. Yet when challenged, you cannot identify any lie at all.

As I explained in the part you just snipped, you are a liar by omission.

If you don't know what this means, then I'm afraid you're simply going
to have to ask somebody else

Haha. The irony there, of course, is that I know perfectly well what
it means whereas you, apparently, do not.

A "lie by omission" is not when someone simply doesn't answer your
question, or won't tell you what you want to know, even if you really
really want them to and scream and stamp your feet and call them names.

A "lie by omission" is when someone *does* give you an answer, which
they imply is the whole truth, when in actuality a key fact has been
omitted so that you are left with a false impression.

I'm glad we've got that cleared up!

You are no longer suspended from the moderated group, by the way.
I was going to remove you from the suspension list just now, but
it looks like someone else got there first.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 22/07/2026 12:19 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens is prepared to sacrifice all his principles, and lie
through his teeth * simply in order to save himself from some extra >>>>>> work as a moderator

Perhaps you've forgotten that in 2024 I bet you -u50 that you couldn't >>>>> identify any lie I've ever told, about anything, ever. You couldn't
do it then, and you can't do it now.

But in order to win such a bet I would need to *prove* that you were
lying. Wouldn't I ?

You just called me a liar, which implies you must know of a lie that
I have told. Yet when challenged, you cannot identify any lie at all.

As I explained in the part you just snipped, you are a liar by omission.

If you don't know what this means, then I'm afraid you're simply going
to have to ask somebody else

Haha. The irony there, of course, is that I know perfectly well what
it means whereas you, apparently, do not.

A "lie by omission" is not when someone simply doesn't answer your
question, or won't tell you what you want to know, even if you really
really want them to and scream and stamp your feet and call them names.

A "lie by omission" is when someone *does* give you an answer, which
they imply is the whole truth, when in actuality a key fact has been
omitted so that you are left with a false impression.

I'm glad we've got that cleared up!

You are no longer suspended from the moderated group, by the way.
I was going to remove you from the suspension list just now, but
it looks like someone else got there first.

Thank Gawd for that.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 22/07/2026 00:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:

To Mr Bookcase:

You are no longer suspended from the moderated group, by the way.
I was going to remove you from the suspension list just now, but
it looks like someone else got there first.

Why? What changed?

I think he and the rest of us deserve an explanation for this sudden, apparently random volte face.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn115vvkp.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115vjj4.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115ve0d.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens is prepared to sacrifice all his principles, and lie
through his teeth * simply in order to save himself from some extra >>>>>> work as a moderator

Perhaps you've forgotten that in 2024 I bet you u50 that you couldn't >>>>> identify any lie I've ever told, about anything, ever. You couldn't
do it then, and you can't do it now.

But in order to win such a bet I would need to *prove* that you were
lying. Wouldn't I ?

You just called me a liar, which implies you must know of a lie that
I have told. Yet when challenged, you cannot identify any lie at all.

As I explained in the part you just snipped, you are a liar by omission.

If you don't know what this means, then I'm afraid you're simply going
to have to ask somebody else

Haha. The irony there, of course, is that I know perfectly well what
it means whereas you, apparently, do not.

A "lie by omission" is not when someone simply doesn't answer your
question, or won't tell you what you want to know, even if you really
really want them to and scream and stamp your feet and call them names.

A "lie by omission" is when someone *does* give you an answer, which
they imply is the whole truth, when in actuality a key fact has been
omitted so that you are left with a false impression.

Which is *exactly* what you do *all of the time*

So that either you're lying again; or are simply suffering from a very convenient, short term memory problem,

Because you did give me an answer; or have you forgotten already ?

...........

."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:

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 that according to you, I was suspended for banging my head
against a brick wall.

But you know that's a downright lie of omission.

Because I could go on *banging my head against a brick wall* arguing with Spike,
or Nugent, or Norman until the cows came home; and nobody would give a damn.
At least not until things started getting a bit too repetitive, and merited some "not new"rejections.

The conspicuous absence of which, rejections, was a notable feature in my suspension.

No Mr Ribbens "the key fact", your phrase I believe, which you somehow
omitted in your explanation as to why I got suspended, was that I was
arguing with a fellow moderator of yours.

No other reason. And when I say arguing, I was in fact simply putting some rather inconvenient facts before him.

I'm glad we've got that cleared up!

Except of course that you haven't. Merely made yourself look ever more duplicitous. Assuming that were even possible.

You are no longer suspended from the moderated group, by the way.

You seem to be rather overlooking the fact, there was never any
justification for suspending me in the first place.

I was going to remove you from the suspension list just now, but
it looks like someone else got there first.

Most likely another lie.

As I've already noted, on any number of occasions clearly this power
you're able to wield as a moderator on this newsgroup , the sarcastic
comments, the threats, this access you enjoy to all this secret knowledge
is clearly very important to you.

But maybe its just as well for everyone's sake that thus far at least you've not gravitated much beyond overseeing a newsgroup with maybe just 20 or 30 regular posters.

And as I've tried to explain to you on numerous occasions, you're simply not very good at this; so you should maybe give it a rest. But will you be told ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Which may be of some relevance in your case. But then again, as always I
am always happy to be proved wrong.


bb





--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 2026-07-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn115vvkp.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115vjj4.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115ve0d.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens is prepared to sacrifice all his principles, and lie >>>>>>> through his teeth * simply in order to save himself from some extra >>>>>>> work as a moderator

Perhaps you've forgotten that in 2024 I bet you -u50 that you couldn't >>>>>> identify any lie I've ever told, about anything, ever. You couldn't >>>>>> do it then, and you can't do it now.

But in order to win such a bet I would need to *prove* that you were >>>>> lying. Wouldn't I ?

You just called me a liar, which implies you must know of a lie that
I have told. Yet when challenged, you cannot identify any lie at all.

As I explained in the part you just snipped, you are a liar by omission. >>>
If you don't know what this means, then I'm afraid you're simply going
to have to ask somebody else

Haha. The irony there, of course, is that I know perfectly well what
it means whereas you, apparently, do not.

A "lie by omission" is not when someone simply doesn't answer your
question, or won't tell you what you want to know, even if you really
really want them to and scream and stamp your feet and call them names.

A "lie by omission" is when someone *does* give you an answer, which
they imply is the whole truth, when in actuality a key fact has been
omitted so that you are left with a false impression.

Which is *exactly* what you do *all of the time*

So that either you're lying again; or are simply suffering from a very convenient, short term memory problem,

Because you did give me an answer; or have you forgotten already ?

...........

."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:

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 that according to you, I was suspended for banging my head
against a brick wall.

But you know that's a downright lie of omission.

Because I could go on *banging my head against a brick wall* arguing
with Spike, or Nugent, or Norman until the cows came home; and nobody
would give a damn. At least not until things started getting a bit too repetitive, and merited some "not new"rejections.

The conspicuous absence of which, rejections, was a notable feature in my suspension.

No Mr Ribbens "the key fact", your phrase I believe, which you somehow omitted in your explanation as to why I got suspended, was that I was
arguing with a fellow moderator of yours.

My final comment on this nonsense: please, I know it's hard for you,
but read to the end of the sentences. A lie of omission is where a key
fact is omitted which results in you being left with a false impression.
It is not when any particular sentence fails to contain every fact known
to man.

You obviously already knew you were arguing with Roland, so this fact
was not "omitted" but merely redundant, and this could not have conveyed
a false impression.

Honestly the fact that you seem to have taken great umbrage at a
comment where I was *expressing sympathy with you* (albeit qualified)
feels somewhat ironic.

(To be fair you seem to be labouring under a very great number of false impressions and delusions, but you cannot lay any of them at my door.)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn116168v.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115vvkp.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115vjj4.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115ve0d.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens is prepared to sacrifice all his principles, and lie >>>>>>>> through his teeth * simply in order to save himself from some extra >>>>>>>> work as a moderator

Perhaps you've forgotten that in 2024 I bet you u50 that you couldn't >>>>>>> identify any lie I've ever told, about anything, ever. You couldn't >>>>>>> do it then, and you can't do it now.

But in order to win such a bet I would need to *prove* that you were >>>>>> lying. Wouldn't I ?

You just called me a liar, which implies you must know of a lie that >>>>> I have told. Yet when challenged, you cannot identify any lie at all. >>>>

As I explained in the part you just snipped, you are a liar by omission. >>>>
If you don't know what this means, then I'm afraid you're simply going >>>> to have to ask somebody else

Haha. The irony there, of course, is that I know perfectly well what
it means whereas you, apparently, do not.

A "lie by omission" is not when someone simply doesn't answer your
question, or won't tell you what you want to know, even if you really
really want them to and scream and stamp your feet and call them names.

A "lie by omission" is when someone *does* give you an answer, which
they imply is the whole truth, when in actuality a key fact has been
omitted so that you are left with a false impression.

Which is *exactly* what you do *all of the time*

So that either you're lying again; or are simply suffering from a very
convenient, short term memory problem,

Because you did give me an answer; or have you forgotten already ?

...........

."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:

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 that according to you, I was suspended for banging my head
against a brick wall.

But you know that's a downright lie of omission.

Because I could go on *banging my head against a brick wall* arguing
with Spike, or Nugent, or Norman until the cows came home; and nobody
would give a damn. At least not until things started getting a bit too
repetitive, and merited some "not new"rejections.

The conspicuous absence of which, rejections, was a notable feature in my
suspension.

No Mr Ribbens "the key fact", your phrase I believe, which you somehow
omitted in your explanation as to why I got suspended, was that I was
arguing with a fellow moderator of yours.

My final comment on this nonsense: please, I know it's hard for you,
but read to the end of the sentences. A lie of omission is where a key
fact is omitted which results in you being left with a false impression.
It is not when any particular sentence fails to contain every fact known
to man.

You obviously already knew you were arguing with Roland, so this fact
was not "omitted" but merely redundant, and this could not have conveyed
a false impression.

What has my arguing with Roland got to do with anything ?

Are you now admitting that I was blacklisted from the Group, as a result
of my arguing with Roland ?

But because if that is so, then any such decision was quite clearly contrary
to the provisions of the Charter.

And you just happened, to forget to mention it ?

Thus creating the false impression for anyone happening to read this
thread, that my blacklisting was nothing to do with my argument with
Roland.

Presumably, were in your power to do so, you'd now blacklist me
from posting on UNNM as well.

Honestly the fact that you seem to have taken great umbrage at a
comment where I was *expressing sympathy with you* (albeit qualified)
feels somewhat ironic.

I never take umbrage at anything. That's a first rule of UseNet;
just as its a first rule of successful debating. You just weigh
your opponent's arguments with cold objectivity, and carefully
consider your response.

As to the (albeit qualified) sympathy, I really wouldn't want you
to find yourself in any agonising moral dilemmas on my account.
Truly.



bb



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:ncba0fFoj0hU1@mid.individual.net...

On 22/07/2026 00:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:

To Mr Bookcase:

You are no longer suspended from the moderated group, by the way.
I was going to remove you from the suspension list just now, but
it looks like someone else got there first.

Why? What changed?

I think he and the rest of us deserve an explanation for this sudden, apparently random volte face.

Norman, would you agree to let bye-gones be bye-gones and wipe the
slate clean; if Simon Parker returned to the Group ?

Not that he necessarily would; as I have absolutely no knowledge at all

Because, as it is, if he did return to the Group, the first thing
he could expect is you jumping down his throat in an attempt to revive
the off-road flower bed thing.

I myself regret my part in his leaving; as I really did think he had
something up his sleeve which he was going to pull out at the
last minute. Except that he didn't.

But apart from his regrettable run-ins with you, he did make a real contribution to the Group. In fact along with the Todal he was the
only contributor introducing legal material at all. While giving
detailed advice to people backed up by actual homework.

So would you back off ?



bb



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 22/07/2026 14:44, billy bookcase wrote:

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:ncba0fFoj0hU1@mid.individual.net...

On 22/07/2026 00:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:

To Mr Bookcase:

You are no longer suspended from the moderated group, by the way.
I was going to remove you from the suspension list just now, but
it looks like someone else got there first.

Why? What changed?

I think he and the rest of us deserve an explanation for this sudden,
apparently random volte face.

Norman, would you agree to let bye-gones be bye-gones and wipe the
slate clean; if Simon Parker returned to the Group ?

Where on earth has that come from? It has absolutely nothing to do with
what we were discussing.

Not that he necessarily would; as I have absolutely no knowledge at all

So, who has suggested it?

Because, as it is, if he did return to the Group, the first thing
he could expect is you jumping down his throat in an attempt to revive
the off-road flower bed thing.

Not unreasonably, I'd have thought, given all his continuously abusive
ad homs and the promised proof of my supposed ignorance that never materialised.

I myself regret my part in his leaving; as I really did think he had something up his sleeve which he was going to pull out at the
last minute. Except that he didn't.

But apart from his regrettable run-ins with you, he did make a real contribution to the Group. In fact along with the Todal he was the
only contributor introducing legal material at all. While giving
detailed advice to people backed up by actual homework.

So would you back off ?

There is nothing I need to back off from. I have always been perfectly
civil to him even on the many occasions when he has not been to me. You
see, all of my posts have been moderated to ensure that. Unlike his.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 22 Jul 2026 at 14:22:50 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn116168v.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115vvkp.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115vjj4.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115ve0d.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens is prepared to sacrifice all his principles, and lie >>>>>>>>> through his teeth * simply in order to save himself from some extra >>>>>>>>> work as a moderator

Perhaps you've forgotten that in 2024 I bet you N+u50 that you couldn't
identify any lie I've ever told, about anything, ever. You couldn't >>>>>>>> do it then, and you can't do it now.

But in order to win such a bet I would need to *prove* that you were >>>>>>> lying. Wouldn't I ?

You just called me a liar, which implies you must know of a lie that >>>>>> I have told. Yet when challenged, you cannot identify any lie at all. >>>>>

As I explained in the part you just snipped, you are a liar by omission. >>>>>
If you don't know what this means, then I'm afraid you're simply going >>>>> to have to ask somebody else

Haha. The irony there, of course, is that I know perfectly well what
it means whereas you, apparently, do not.

A "lie by omission" is not when someone simply doesn't answer your
question, or won't tell you what you want to know, even if you really
really want them to and scream and stamp your feet and call them names. >>>>
A "lie by omission" is when someone *does* give you an answer, which
they imply is the whole truth, when in actuality a key fact has been
omitted so that you are left with a false impression.

Which is *exactly* what you do *all of the time*

So that either you're lying again; or are simply suffering from a very
convenient, short term memory problem,

Because you did give me an answer; or have you forgotten already ?

...........

."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:

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 that according to you, I was suspended for banging my head
against a brick wall.

But you know that's a downright lie of omission.

Because I could go on *banging my head against a brick wall* arguing
with Spike, or Nugent, or Norman until the cows came home; and nobody
would give a damn. At least not until things started getting a bit too
repetitive, and merited some "not new"rejections.

The conspicuous absence of which, rejections, was a notable feature in my >>> suspension.

No Mr Ribbens "the key fact", your phrase I believe, which you somehow
omitted in your explanation as to why I got suspended, was that I was
arguing with a fellow moderator of yours.

My final comment on this nonsense: please, I know it's hard for you,
but read to the end of the sentences. A lie of omission is where a key
fact is omitted which results in you being left with a false impression.
It is not when any particular sentence fails to contain every fact known
to man.

You obviously already knew you were arguing with Roland, so this fact
was not "omitted" but merely redundant, and this could not have conveyed
a false impression.

What has my arguing with Roland got to do with anything ?

Are you now admitting that I was blacklisted from the Group, as a result
of my arguing with Roland ?

But because if that is so, then any such decision was quite clearly contrary to the provisions of the Charter.

And you just happened, to forget to mention it ?

Thus creating the false impression for anyone happening to read this
thread, that my blacklisting was nothing to do with my argument with
Roland.

The only "impressio" it creates in my mind is that the moderators have a very sensible policy of not committing themselves to giving reasons for their actions especially in public.

snip
--

Roger Hayter
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:5705027227.bb403091@uninhabited.net...

On 22 Jul 2026 at 14:22:50 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn116168v.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115vvkp.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115vjj4.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn115ve0d.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...

On 2026-07-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens is prepared to sacrifice all his principles, and lie >>>>>>>>>> through his teeth * simply in order to save himself from some extra >>>>>>>>>> work as a moderator

Perhaps you've forgotten that in 2024 I bet you ?50 that you couldn't >>>>>>>>> identify any lie I've ever told, about anything, ever. You couldn't >>>>>>>>> do it then, and you can't do it now.

But in order to win such a bet I would need to *prove* that you were >>>>>>>> lying. Wouldn't I ?

You just called me a liar, which implies you must know of a lie that >>>>>>> I have told. Yet when challenged, you cannot identify any lie at all. >>>>>>

As I explained in the part you just snipped, you are a liar by omission. >>>>>>
If you don't know what this means, then I'm afraid you're simply going >>>>>> to have to ask somebody else

Haha. The irony there, of course, is that I know perfectly well what >>>>> it means whereas you, apparently, do not.

A "lie by omission" is not when someone simply doesn't answer your
question, or won't tell you what you want to know, even if you really >>>>> really want them to and scream and stamp your feet and call them names. >>>>>
A "lie by omission" is when someone *does* give you an answer, which >>>>> they imply is the whole truth, when in actuality a key fact has been >>>>> omitted so that you are left with a false impression.

Which is *exactly* what you do *all of the time*

So that either you're lying again; or are simply suffering from a very >>>> convenient, short term memory problem,

Because you did give me an answer; or have you forgotten already ?

...........

."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:

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 that according to you, I was suspended for banging my head
against a brick wall.

But you know that's a downright lie of omission.

Because I could go on *banging my head against a brick wall* arguing
with Spike, or Nugent, or Norman until the cows came home; and nobody
would give a damn. At least not until things started getting a bit too >>>> repetitive, and merited some "not new"rejections.

The conspicuous absence of which, rejections, was a notable feature in my >>>> suspension.

No Mr Ribbens "the key fact", your phrase I believe, which you somehow >>>> omitted in your explanation as to why I got suspended, was that I was
arguing with a fellow moderator of yours.

My final comment on this nonsense: please, I know it's hard for you,
but read to the end of the sentences. A lie of omission is where a key
fact is omitted which results in you being left with a false impression. >>> It is not when any particular sentence fails to contain every fact known >>> to man.

You obviously already knew you were arguing with Roland, so this fact
was not "omitted" but merely redundant, and this could not have conveyed >>> a false impression.

What has my arguing with Roland got to do with anything ?

Are you now admitting that I was blacklisted from the Group, as a result
of my arguing with Roland ?

But because if that is so, then any such decision was quite clearly contrary >> to the provisions of the Charter.

And you just happened, to forget to mention it ?

Thus creating the false impression for anyone happening to read this
thread, that my blacklisting was nothing to do with my argument with
Roland.

The only "impressio" it creates in my mind is that the moderators have a very sensible policy of not committing themselves to giving reasons for their actions especially in public.

snip

So that you're not yourself in favour of adhering to the principles of
open justice. And you don't think that the moderators should be either ?

I see. Although we have already gone over this ground before, I believe *

I don't know if you're aware of the fact but the moderators rather
undermined "that rather sensible policy", by committing themselves to a
Charter which is open to public inspection; and to which their decisions
can reasonably be expected to adhere.

Thus when they take an action which on the face of it manifestly breaches
that Charter, then they can reasonably be expected to explain the reason why

As a failure to do so, constitutes an admission on their part that they have no real intention of following the provisions of their own Charter; but intend
to act purely arbitrarily for reasons entirely of their own.

That is in general.

In the particular case of Mr Ribbens, one gains the distinct impression that he is not in the habit of giving a straight answer to any question put to him, under any circumstances whatsoever. Whether on UseNet, or anywhere else.



bb

To satisfactorily perform the function of a devil's advocate one's argument must maintain at least some shred of credibility. Driven home by constant repetition no doubt.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:ncc3rqFsaq4U1@mid.individual.net...

On 22/07/2026 14:44, billy bookcase wrote:

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:ncba0fFoj0hU1@mid.individual.net...

On 22/07/2026 00:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:

To Mr Bookcase:

You are no longer suspended from the moderated group, by the way.
I was going to remove you from the suspension list just now, but
it looks like someone else got there first.

Why? What changed?

I think he and the rest of us deserve an explanation for this sudden,
apparently random volte face.

Norman, would you agree to let bye-gones be bye-gones and wipe the
slate clean; if Simon Parker returned to the Group ?

Where on earth has that come from? It has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing.

Nothing.

Simon Parker was clearly conscientious.

I'm only thinking of the Todal and the impact Mr Parker's leaving had
on the group. For which I hold myself partially responsible;

Now he's lumbered with these two

Of whom the least said, the better.

Not that he necessarily would; as I have absolutely no knowledge at all

So, who has suggested it?

Because, as it is, if he did return to the Group, the first thing
he could expect is you jumping down his throat in an attempt to revive
the off-road flower bed thing.

Not unreasonably, I'd have thought, given all his continuously abusive ad homs
and the promised proof of my supposed ignorance that never materialised.

I myself regret my part in his leaving; as I really did think he had
something up his sleeve which he was going to pull out at the
last minute. Except that he didn't.

But apart from his regrettable run-ins with you, he did make a real
contribution to the Group. In fact along with the Todal he was the
only contributor introducing legal material at all. While giving
detailed advice to people backed up by actual homework.

So would you back off ?

There is nothing I need to back off from. I have always been perfectly civil to him even on the many occasions when he has not been to me. You see, all of
my posts have been moderated to ensure that. Unlike his.

So that's a no then, I take it ?


bb




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 22/07/2026 22:50, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 22 Jul 2026 at 14:22:50 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

Thus creating the false impression for anyone happening to read this
thread, that my blacklisting was nothing to do with my argument with
Roland.

The only "impressio" it creates in my mind is that the moderators have a very sensible policy of not committing themselves to giving reasons for their actions especially in public.

"Big Brother is watching you."

"You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him: you must love
him."

"There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother."

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:ncdt3jF6jv9U1@mid.individual.net...

On 22/07/2026 22:50, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 22 Jul 2026 at 14:22:50 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>

Thus creating the false impression for anyone happening to read this
thread, that my blacklisting was nothing to do with my argument with
Roland.

The only "impressio" it creates in my mind is that the moderators have a very
sensible policy of not committing themselves to giving reasons for their
actions especially in public.

"Big Brother is watching you."

"You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him: you must love him."

"There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother."

Norman I sometimess suspect that owing to an over-use of irony in the
past the former Dr Hayter is sometimes in danger of confusng himself;
let alone anyone else.


bb.





--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

In message <113n9j9$1qnsj$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:11:17 on Tue, 21 Jul
2026, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:

As to Mr Perry. Mr Perry is quite possibly feeling his age, despite my
being many years older than he is. And so possibly resents any suggestion >from anyone, that his memory is at fault.

I do hope you are enjoying typing thousands of lines of abuse postings
into thin air. I'm so busy at the moment I don't have time to pander to responding to more than a handful of them.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2