A leading barrister faces prosecution for reminding a jury of their rights.
This very worthwhile and authoritative presentation is lengthy but well worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRvw66sjJU
And I'll stay on here for the time being, if it's all the
same with you.
On 01/08/2026 10:33, billy bookcase wrote:
And I'll stay on here for the time being, if it's all the
same with you.
I've been off doing other things. Have you been banned from ULM?
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:nd5qunFtq31U1@mid.individual.net...
A leading barrister faces prosecution for reminding a jury of their rights. >>
This very worthwhile and authoritative presentation is lengthy but well worth
watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRvw66sjJU
There are two differenhtv questions here IMO.
First: Was he entitled to deliberately flout the Judge's instructions,
and call into the question the integrity of the Court ?
No he damned well, wasn't ! It was the Courts which provides him with
a living and if he's unwilling to submit to the authority of the Judge
in any particular case then he should consider a change of career.
Possibly standing as an MP to seek reform of the legal system.
Second: Should he have been reported to his head of Chambers
and made to formally apologise at that stage ? Yes !
Failing that should he have been reported to the head of his Inn
and made to formally apologise at that stage ? Yes !
Failing that should he have been reported to the Bar Council and
made to formerly apologise at that stage ? Yes !
So how comes it even got the stage where he was being charged
with contempt of Court ? Because you'd imagine that if he'd been
given the opportunity to apologise and had refused then he
would already have been made subject to disciplinary measures
of some sort.
And I'll stay on here for the time being, if it's all the
same with you.
On 01/08/2026 10:33, billy bookcase wrote:
And I'll stay on here for the time being, if it's all the
same with you.
I've been off doing other things. Have you been banned from ULM?
On 01/08/2026 12:50, GB wrote:
On 01/08/2026 10:33, billy bookcase wrote:
And I'll stay on here for the time being, if it's all the
same with you.
I've been off doing other things. Have you been banned from ULM?
He was added to the banned list for a while, but that decision was not made in
the correct way
and I removed him from the banned list.
However, if BB wants to make UNNM his alternative newsgroup for discussing legal issues, I for one have no intention of participating. It is not what UNNM is for.
On 01/08/2026 10:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:nd5qunFtq31U1@mid.individual.net...
A leading barrister faces prosecution for reminding a jury of their rights. >>>
This very worthwhile and authoritative presentation is lengthy but well >>> worth
watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRvw66sjJU
There are two differenhtv questions here IMO.
First: Was he entitled to deliberately flout the Judge's instructions,
and call into the question the integrity of the Court ?
No he damned well, wasn't ! It was the Courts which provides him with
a living and if he's unwilling to submit to the authority of the Judge
in any particular case then he should consider a change of career.
Possibly standing as an MP to seek reform of the legal system.
Second: Should he have been reported to his head of Chambers
and made to formally apologise at that stage ? Yes !
Failing that should he have been reported to the head of his Inn
and made to formally apologise at that stage ? Yes !
Failing that should he have been reported to the Bar Council and
made to formerly apologise at that stage ? Yes !
So how comes it even got the stage where he was being charged
with contempt of Court ? Because you'd imagine that if he'd been
given the opportunity to apologise and had refused then he
would already have been made subject to disciplinary measures
of some sort.
And I'll stay on here for the time being, if it's all the
same with you.
Since this isn't a moderated group, I am free to say that your opinions on this topic are bollocks. You haven't bothered to watch the video or even to read up on the issues. When ignorant members of the public believe that their
views should carry more weight than the views of eminent lawyers, that's how civil liberties are eventually undermined by crowd-pleasing governments.
On 01/08/2026 10:33, billy bookcase wrote:
And I'll stay on here for the time being, if it's all the
same with you.
I've been off doing other things. Have you been banned from ULM?
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:114kmiv$3hudh$3@dont-email.me...
On 01/08/2026 10:33, billy bookcase wrote:
And I'll stay on here for the time being, if it's all the
same with you.
I've been off doing other things. Have you been banned from ULM?
Rather than sit through 2hr Youtube videos as recommended by the Todal
here is what the Court of Appeal had to say about Rajiv Menons closing
speech
quote:
Mr Menon gave his closing speech on 8 January 2026.
Extracts from the transcriptare appended to this judgment,
with line numbering added.
The 12 January ruling explained that Mr Menon'sclosing speech:
(1)Informed the jury of the principle of jury equity-see lines 246 -280,
and paragraph 15 of the 12 January ruling:"Mr Melon points out
that he never used the phrase "jury equity". He is right about that,
but it is nothing to the point. He informed the jury, in detail, of the principle. Mr Melon also says that he never said anything about
the jury being entitled "to acquit according to their conscience".
I do not agree. He expressly quoted the words from the plaque at
#the Old Bailey about the established "right of juries to give their
verdict according to their convictions." That is the same thing.
Mr Melon says that defence counsel have referred to the Old
Bailey plaque on tens of thousands of occasions. Leaving aside
possible hyperbole, he is right about that. It is not necessary
to decide whether such references are permissible where they
are designed to impress upon the jury the importance of their
task, rather than as an invitation to apply jury equity.
In this case, however, the reference was for the latter purpose.
I had, anyway, given a specific direction prohibiting such reference."(2)Asked the jury to apply the principle of jury
equity-see lines 281 -289.(3)
Told the jury on six occasions that the judge may not direct
the jury to convict-see lines 213-214, 215, 221, 239-240, 244-245 and 308-309.
(4)Invited the jury to disregard the court's directions that they
should put views of the Middle East and the war in Gaza (whether
their views or those of anyone else), and emotion, to one side:
lines 3 -14 and 32 -59.
(5)Suggested that evidence as to the history of the Middle East
and the role of Elba Systems was critical to the jury reaching
true verdicts, and that the prosecution had accepted the defence
evidence on those points-see paragraph 19:
"I ruled that evidence as to the history of the Middle East and
the role of Elbit systems in supplying weapons to Israel was not
relevant. It follows that such evidence ought not to have been
elicited, and it was not open to the prosecution to challenge it.
It MR JUSTICE JOHNSON Approved Judgment Re Rajiv Menon KC was therefore
wrong to suggest that the prosecution accepted that evidence, and
that this (irrelevant) evidence was critical to the jury reaching true verdicts [lines 118-146].
unquote:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Re-Rajiv-Menon-KC.pdf
Now whatever one thinks of Johnson, in this instance he happens to be correct.
You only have to considers what would happen were dribbling rightards
to demand the same privilege of being able to make political closing
speeches
This isn't really a hill that any thinking person should wish to die on.
However my point, which appears to have flown straight over the
indignant Mr Todal's throbbing head, was that Menon should have been
required to publicly apologise to the Court at an earlier stage;
or if not be disciplined in some way. Whereas in this instance
having allowed himself to be consumed by an overwheening sense of
political self righteousness he has rather unfortunately allowed
himself to be ambushed
On 01/08/2026 10:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:nd5qunFtq31U1@mid.individual.net...
A leading barrister faces prosecution for reminding a jury of their
rights.
This very worthwhile and authoritative presentation is lengthy but
well worth
watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRvw66sjJU
There are two differenhtv questions here IMO.
First: Was he entitled to deliberately flout the Judge's instructions,
and call into the question the integrity of the Court ?
No he damned well, wasn't !-a It was the Courts which provides him with
a living and if-a he's unwilling to submit to the authority of the Judge
in any particular case then he should consider a change of career.
Possibly standing as an MP to seek reform of the legal system.
Second: Should he have been reported to his head of Chambers
and made to formally apologise at that stage ?-a Yes !
Failing that should he have been reported to the head of his Inn
and made to formally apologise at that stage ? Yes !
Failing that should he have been reported to the Bar Council and
made to formerly apologise at that stage ? Yes !
So how comes it even got the stage where he was being charged
with contempt of Court ? Because you'd imagine that if he'd been
given the opportunity to apologise and had refused then he
would already have been made subject to disciplinary measures
of some sort.
And I'll stay on here for the time being, if it's all the
same with you.
Since this isn't a moderated group, I am free to say that your opinions
on this topic are bollocks. You haven't bothered to watch the video or
even to read up on the issues. When ignorant members of the public
believe that their views should carry more weight than the views of
eminent lawyers, that's how civil liberties are eventually undermined by crowd-pleasing governments.
On 01/08/2026 18:03, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:114kmiv$3hudh$3@dont-email.me...
On 01/08/2026 10:33, billy bookcase wrote:
And I'll stay on here for the time being, if it's all the
same with you.
I've been off doing other things. Have you been banned from ULM?
Rather than sit through 2hr Youtube videos as recommended by the Todal
here is what the Court of Appeal had to say about Rajiv Menons closing
speech
quote:
Mr Menon gave his closing speech on 8 January 2026.
Extracts from the transcriptare appended to this judgment,
with line numbering added.
The 12 January ruling explained that Mr Menon'sclosing speech:
(1)Informed the jury of the principle of jury equity-see lines 246 -280,
and paragraph 15 of the 12 January ruling:"Mr Melon points out
that he never used the phrase "jury equity". He is right about that,
but it is nothing to the point. He informed the jury, in detail, of the
principle. Mr Melon also says that he never said anything about
the jury being entitled "to acquit according to their conscience".
I do not agree. He expressly quoted the words from the plaque at
#the Old Bailey about the established "right of juries to give their
verdict according to their convictions." That is the same thing.
Mr Melon says that defence counsel have referred to the Old
Bailey plaque on tens of thousands of occasions. Leaving aside
possible hyperbole, he is right about that. It is not necessary
to decide whether such references are permissible where they
are designed to impress upon the jury the importance of their
task, rather than as an invitation to apply jury equity.
In this case, however, the reference was for the latter purpose.
I had, anyway, given a specific direction prohibiting such
reference."(2)Asked the jury to apply the principle of jury
equity-see lines 281 -289.(3)
Told the jury on six occasions that the judge may not direct
the jury to convict-see lines 213-214, 215, 221, 239-240, 244-245 and
308-309.
(4)Invited the jury to disregard the court's directions that they
should put views of the Middle East and the war in Gaza (whether
their views or those of anyone else), and emotion, to one side:
lines 3 -14 and 32 -59.
(5)Suggested that evidence as to the history of the Middle East
and the role of Elba Systems was critical to the jury reaching
true verdicts, and that the prosecution had accepted the defence
evidence on those points-see paragraph 19:
"I ruled that evidence as to the history of the Middle East and
the role of Elbit systems in supplying weapons to Israel was not
relevant. It follows that such evidence ought not to have been
elicited, and it was not open to the prosecution to challenge it.
It MR JUSTICE JOHNSON Approved Judgment Re Rajiv Menon KC was therefore
wrong to suggest that the prosecution accepted that evidence, and
that this (irrelevant) evidence was critical to the jury reaching true
verdicts [lines 118-146].
unquote:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Re-Rajiv-Menon-KC.pdf
Now whatever one thinks of Johnson, in this instance he happens to be
correct.
You only have to considers what would happen were dribbling rightards
to demand the same privilege of being able to make political closing
speeches
This isn't really a hill that any thinking person should wish to die on.
However my point, which appears to have flown straight over the
indignant Mr Todal's throbbing head, was that Menon should have been
required to publicly apologise to the Court at an earlier stage;
or if not be disciplined in some way. Whereas in this instance
having allowed himself to be consumed by an overwheening sense of
political self righteousness he has rather unfortunately allowed
himself to be ambushed
This is still not the appropriate forum in which to discuss the Menon case, so
although I could rebut your points, I won't be doing so here.
On 01/08/2026 12:50, GB wrote:
On 01/08/2026 10:33, billy bookcase wrote:
And I'll stay on here for the time being, if it's all the
same with you.
I've been off doing other things. Have you been banned from ULM?
He was added to the banned list for a while, but that decision was not
made in the correct way and I removed him from the banned list.
It was not "appropriate" that I should have been banned from posting
on ULM for seven days without being given any sort of explanation
at all.
Either then or at any time since.
On 8/1/26 13:22, The Todal wrote:
On 01/08/2026 10:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:nd5qunFtq31U1@mid.individual.net...
A leading barrister faces prosecution for reminding a jury of their
rights.
This very worthwhile and authoritative presentation is lengthy but
well worth
watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRvw66sjJU
There are two differenhtv questions here IMO.
First: Was he entitled to deliberately flout the Judge's instructions,
and call into the question the integrity of the Court ?
No he damned well, wasn't !-a It was the Courts which provides him with
a living and if-a he's unwilling to submit to the authority of the Judge >>> in any particular case then he should consider a change of career.
Possibly standing as an MP to seek reform of the legal system.
Second: Should he have been reported to his head of Chambers
and made to formally apologise at that stage ?-a Yes !
Failing that should he have been reported to the head of his Inn
and made to formally apologise at that stage ? Yes !
Failing that should he have been reported to the Bar Council and
made to formerly apologise at that stage ? Yes !
So how comes it even got the stage where he was being charged
with contempt of Court ? Because you'd imagine that if he'd been
given the opportunity to apologise and had refused then he
would already have been made subject to disciplinary measures
of some sort.
And I'll stay on here for the time being, if it's all the
same with you.
Since this isn't a moderated group, I am free to say that your
opinions on this topic are bollocks. You haven't bothered to watch the
video or even to read up on the issues. When ignorant members of the
public believe that their views should carry more weight than the
views of eminent lawyers, that's how civil liberties are eventually
undermined by crowd-pleasing governments.
You are taking a view similar to the pre-reformation Catholic Church.
Only the holy can interpret the word of god, which must be discussed in Latin.
In reality, this is a political issue, the legal niceties are just about achieving a political goal. You don't need a knowledge of law to
understand authoritarianism. In fact, it is very rarely that I have ever heard an eminent legal professional say anything profound. Lawyers stand
at the forefront of crowd pleasing: Michael Howard or even Starmer as examples.
The video you posted was mainly tedious nonsense. Eminent lawyers
blowing smoke up each other's arse. Very much like luvvies from the
acting fraternity. Which should not surprise us because that is what barristers do, act for an audience.
So have you revised your opinion of Max Blumenthal and his article that alerted us to this issue. You said: "Whenever an activist claims that
the judge is biased, that's a red flag to tell you that the activist is probably talking bollocks. "
Here is Blumenthal's article again:
<https://thegrayzone.com/2026/04/12/uk-jail-palestine-action-terrorism-uk/>
If you want to discuss legal issues, either use ULM or fuck off to uk.legal
I'm not going to indulge you here. Talk to the hand. You are mis-using
this group, and when you do that it means that people will gradually
stop using the group for the purpose for which it is intended.
In message <114n2ab$c30h$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:23:19 on Sun, 2 Aug 2026, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
It was not "appropriate" that I should have been banned from posting
on ULM for seven days without being given any sort of explanation
at all.
Either then or at any time since.
You've been given many explanations,
but true to form "LALA I can't hear you"... Which is a big part of the underlying problem.
people will gradually stop using the group for the purpose for which it is intended.
On 02/08/2026 12:14, The Todal wrote:
To Mr Pancho:
If you want to discuss legal issues, either use ULM or fuck off to
uk.legal
I'm not going to indulge you here. Talk to the hand. You are mis-using
this group, and when you do that it means that people will gradually
stop using the group for the purpose for which it is intended.
You may be judge, jury and guardian of a minor universe elsewhere, but I have to point out that here you're not.
People can freely discuss here whatever they want regardless of any dire warnings of impending global catastrophe.
And they will if they have some incentive.
On 8/2/26 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/08/2026 12:14, The Todal wrote:
To Mr Pancho:
If you want to discuss legal issues, either use ULM or fuck off to
uk.legal
I'm not going to indulge you here. Talk to the hand. You are mis-using
this group, and when you do that it means that people will gradually
stop using the group for the purpose for which it is intended.
You may be judge, jury and guardian of a minor universe elsewhere, but I
have to point out that here you're not.
People can freely discuss here whatever they want regardless of any dire
warnings of impending global catastrophe.
And they will if they have some incentive.
I think Todal, would prefer to live in a world without a memory, a world where reality doesn't contradict his learned observations. A world where people did not remind him of things that he had said.
But the long and short is that I do not trust that ulm moderation would allow my criticism and questions about judicial bias, so there is no
point posting to ulm on this subject.
I think that it is reasonable to make my lack of confidence about this aspect of moderation public, and that this is an appropriate place to do so.
On 2026-08-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/2/26 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/08/2026 12:14, The Todal wrote:
To Mr Pancho:
If you want to discuss legal issues, either use ULM or fuck off to
uk.legal
I'm not going to indulge you here. Talk to the hand. You are mis-using >>>> this group, and when you do that it means that people will gradually
stop using the group for the purpose for which it is intended.
You may be judge, jury and guardian of a minor universe elsewhere, but I >>> have to point out that here you're not.
People can freely discuss here whatever they want regardless of any dire >>> warnings of impending global catastrophe.
And they will if they have some incentive.
I think Todal, would prefer to live in a world without a memory, a world
where reality doesn't contradict his learned observations. A world where
people did not remind him of things that he had said.
But the long and short is that I do not trust that ulm moderation would
allow my criticism and questions about judicial bias, so there is no
point posting to ulm on this subject.
I think that it is reasonable to make my lack of confidence about this
aspect of moderation public, and that this is an appropriate place to do so.
You are entitled to be wrong about everything. And some of the things
that you are wrong about above are even appropriate for this group,
so well done! ;-)
On 8/2/26 17:52, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/2/26 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/08/2026 12:14, The Todal wrote:
To Mr Pancho:
If you want to discuss legal issues, either use ULM or fuck off to
uk.legal
I'm not going to indulge you here. Talk to the hand. You are mis-using >>>>> this group, and when you do that it means that people will gradually >>>>> stop using the group for the purpose for which it is intended.
You may be judge, jury and guardian of a minor universe elsewhere, but I >>>> have to point out that here you're not.
People can freely discuss here whatever they want regardless of any dire >>>> warnings of impending global catastrophe.
And they will if they have some incentive.
I think Todal, would prefer to live in a world without a memory, a world >>> where reality doesn't contradict his learned observations. A world where >>> people did not remind him of things that he had said.
But the long and short is that I do not trust that ulm moderation would
allow my criticism and questions about judicial bias, so there is no
point posting to ulm on this subject.
I think that it is reasonable to make my lack of confidence about this
aspect of moderation public, and that this is an appropriate place
to do so.
You are entitled to be wrong about everything. And some of the things
that you are wrong about above are even appropriate for this group,
so well done! ;-)
You often seem to talk about people being wrong in the abstract. I'm
never sure what you mean, specifics are so much better.
Perhaps, unlike Todal, you would like to comment on your earlier post
about Max Blumenthal's article.
<https://thegrayzone.com/2026/04/12/uk-jail-palestine-action-terrorism-uk/>
Message-ID: <slrn10u9h31.3d1.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
You said:
---
Indeed. I think the large majority of the claims on that page are
somewhere in-between "massively exaggerated" and "completely untrue".
We would not allow things in ulm that were unlawful to post, but
I don't think we need to worry overly about imaginary invisible
injunctions.
---
In the fullness of time we know that: there were reporting restrictions,
the jury were not told about the 'terrorist' designation leading to increased sentences,
Rajiv Menon did face contempt of court proceedings for reminding
jurors of their rights.
In fact, the article was almost entirely right.
I do think we should judge people's credibility based upon previous comments. I made that point when we were discussing the article.
the jury were not told about the 'terrorist' designation leading to >>increased sentences,
As I said previously, that was not some sort of conspiracy or cover-up,
it was because that was not relevant to the question of guilt that the
jury was deciding. And the report was completely wrong when it said
that the "terrorist" designation could lead to sentences that were
double the usual maximum.
On 03/08/2026 in message <slrn1170n92.4iq.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
the jury were not told about the 'terrorist' designation leading to >>>increased sentences,
As I said previously, that was not some sort of conspiracy or cover-up,
it was because that was not relevant to the question of guilt that the
jury was deciding. And the report was completely wrong when it said
that the "terrorist" designation could lead to sentences that were
double the usual maximum.
Please may I ask that your bear in mind that what you say is not
definitive, it is your opinion, which you are entitled to of course.
It is irksome for me reading some of you comments that you seem to
expect people to accept them as being carved in stone.
From what I have read the terrorist designation did open the door to
much higher sentences, do you believe that is incorrect?
I have *repeatedlly * asked for the reason why I was banned from
ULM for seven days.
And nobody had answered.
Mr Perry has now suggested that there may be numerous
explanations, but without actually specifying what they are
or committing himself to any one in particular,
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message >news:E4xKqlFDEybqFAYC@perry.uk...
In message <114n2ab$c30h$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:23:19 on Sun, 2 Aug 2026, >> billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
It was not "appropriate" that I should have been banned from posting
on ULM for seven days without being given any sort of explanation
at all.
Either then or at any time since.
You've been given many explanations,
In other words there is no "actual explanation".
But many "possible explanations" none of which
need actually apply; but which you're now falsely
claiming I've somehow "been given".
but true to form "LALA I can't hear you"... Which is a big part of the
underlying problem.
The only underlying problem here Mr Perry, is with
you yourself, I'm afraid,
You simply don't have the courage to admit that you
made a mistake.
And apologise like any decent person would do.--
It really is as simple as that, I'm afraid.
In message <114neoi$g7s5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:55:42 on Sun, 2 Aug
2026, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:E4xKqlFDEybqFAYC@perry.uk...
In message <114n2ab$c30h$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:23:19 on Sun, 2 Aug
2026,
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
It was not "appropriate" that I should have been banned from posting
on ULM for seven days without being given any sort of explanation
at all.
Either then or at any time since.
You've been given many explanations,
In other words there is no "actual explanation".
But many "possible explanations" none of which
need actually apply; but which you're now falsely
claiming I've somehow "been given".
but true to form "LALA I can't hear you"... Which is a big part of the
underlying problem.
The only underlying problem here Mr Perry, is with
you yourself, I'm afraid,
You simply don't have the courage to admit that you
made a mistake.
There wasn't a mistake.
On 8/2/26 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/08/2026 12:14, The Todal wrote:
To Mr Pancho:
If you want to discuss legal issues, either use ULM or fuck off to
uk.legal
I'm not going to indulge you here. Talk to the hand. You are
mis-using this group, and when you do that it means that people
will gradually stop using the group for the purpose for which it is
intended.
You may be judge, jury and guardian of a minor universe elsewhere,
but I have to point out that here you're not.
People can freely discuss here whatever they want regardless of any
dire warnings of impending global catastrophe.
And they will if they have some incentive.
I think Todal, would prefer to live in a world without a memory, a
world where reality doesn't contradict his learned observations. A
world where people did not remind him of things that he had said.
But the long and short is that I do not trust that ulm moderation
would allow my criticism and questions about judicial bias, so there
is no point posting to ulm on this subject.
I think that it is reasonable to make my lack of confidence about
this aspect of moderation public, and that this is an appropriate
place to do so.
People are free to killfile me if they want, but I only made 2 posts
to unnm in July, hardly swamping the group.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:nd8n5jFd30oU1@mid.individual.net...
people will gradually stop using the group for the purpose for which
it is intended.
But I *have* been using this group for the purposes for which it
was intended.
I have *repeatedlly * asked for the reason why I was banned from
ULM for seven days.
And nobody had answered.
Mr Perry has now suggested that there may be numerous
explanations, but without actually specifying what they are
or committing himself to any one in particular,
Which is of no help at all, in answering what is, after all, a
perfectly reasonable question.
bb
In message <114nf66$gd2t$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:02:58 on Sun, 2 Aug
2026, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
I have *repeatedlly * asked for the reason why I was banned from
ULM for seven days.
And nobody had answered.
Mr Perry has now suggested that there may be numerous
explanations, but without actually specifying what they are
or committing himself to any one in particular,
Oh dear oh dear. I said very clearly what the reason could have been.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:nd8n5jFd30oU1@mid.individual.net...
people will gradually stop using the group for the purpose for which it is >> intended.
But I *have* been using this group for the purposes for which it
was intended.
I have *repeatedlly * asked for the reason why I was banned from
ULM for seven days.
And nobody had answered.
Mr Perry has now suggested that there may be numerous
explanations, but without actually specifying what they are
or committing himself to any one in particular,
Which is of no help at all, in answering what is, after all, a
perfectly reasonable question.
BB claimed repeatedly in a succession of posts that ten years ago there was no
such thing as a prepaid credit card, and when Roland rebutted this claim BB effectively called Roland a liar, which is in breach of moderation guidelines.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:ndc86jFu30qU1@mid.individual.net...
BB claimed repeatedly in a succession of posts that ten years ago there was no
such thing as a prepaid credit card, and when Roland rebutted this claim BB >> effectively called Roland a liar, which is in breach of moderation guidelines.
No I did not ! I repeatedly claimed that My Perry was mistaken. As a result of having a faulty memory.
In fact I even recommended a book on the subject "The Changing Mind" by Daniel Levitin;which I thought might be of interest
All of which is a matter of record.
So if you really think you have anything to gain. by making up bare-faced lies about me, in order to justify my expulsion from the group, then I can only suggest that you think again.
bb
On 3 Aug 2026 at 22:52:42 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:ndc86jFu30qU1@mid.individual.net...
BB claimed repeatedly in a succession of posts that ten years ago there was no
such thing as a prepaid credit card, and when Roland rebutted this claim BB
effectively called Roland a liar, which is in breach of moderation guidelines.
No I did not ! I repeatedly claimed that My Perry was mistaken. As a result of having a faulty memory.
In fact I even recommended a book on the subject "The Changing Mind" by Daniel Levitin;which I thought might be of interest
All of which is a matter of record.
So if you really think you have anything to gain. by making up bare-faced lies about me, in order to justify my expulsion from the group, then I can only suggest that you think again.
bb
I must say my recollection is that only Mr Perry introduced the term "liar" when others of us were saying he was merely mistaken either over the description, or perhaps only the accuracy of the description, of his famous cards. I at least was willing to concede that the marketing liars who sold him
his cards probably called them "credit cards" while Mr Bookcase was rather hung up on the concrete thinking approach of pointing out that they did not provide credit. Mr Bookcase clearly underestimates the mendacity of salesmen.
But only Mr Perry claimed that he was being accused of lying. Perhaps, as a marketing person himself, he convinced himself he was being accused of lying because his cards' self-identification wasn't being respected?
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:ndc86jFu30qU1@mid.individual.net...
BB claimed repeatedly in a succession of posts that ten years ago there was no
such thing as a prepaid credit card, and when Roland rebutted this claim BB >> effectively called Roland a liar, which is in breach of moderation guidelines.
No I did not ! I repeatedly claimed that My Perry was mistaken. As a result of having a faulty memory.
In fact I even recommended a book on the subject "The Changing Mind" by Daniel Levitin;which I thought might be of interest
All of which is a matter of record.
So if you really think you have anything to gain. by making up bare-faced lies about me, in order to justify my expulsion from the group, then I can only suggest that you think again.
On 2026-08-03, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/2/26 17:52, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/2/26 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/08/2026 12:14, The Todal wrote:
To Mr Pancho:
If you want to discuss legal issues, either use ULM or fuck off to >>>>>> uk.legal
I'm not going to indulge you here. Talk to the hand. You are mis-using >>>>>> this group, and when you do that it means that people will gradually >>>>>> stop using the group for the purpose for which it is intended.
You may be judge, jury and guardian of a minor universe elsewhere, but I >>>>> have to point out that here you're not.
People can freely discuss here whatever they want regardless of any dire >>>>> warnings of impending global catastrophe.
And they will if they have some incentive.
I think Todal, would prefer to live in a world without a memory, a world >>>> where reality doesn't contradict his learned observations. A world where >>>> people did not remind him of things that he had said.
But the long and short is that I do not trust that ulm moderation would >>>> allow my criticism and questions about judicial bias, so there is no
point posting to ulm on this subject.
I think that it is reasonable to make my lack of confidence about this >>>> aspect of moderation public, and that this is an appropriate place
to do so.
You are entitled to be wrong about everything. And some of the things
that you are wrong about above are even appropriate for this group,
so well done! ;-)
You often seem to talk about people being wrong in the abstract. I'm
never sure what you mean, specifics are so much better.
The specific sentences you just said in the post I was responding to,
of course! Your comments about Todal are completely unjustified and unsupportable, as are your comments about the ulm moderation.
You were of course correct in your final sentence that this is the
right place to discuss your confidence in the moderation or lack
thereof.
Perhaps, unlike Todal, you would like to comment on your earlier post
about Max Blumenthal's article.
<https://thegrayzone.com/2026/04/12/uk-jail-palestine-action-terrorism-uk/> >>
Message-ID: <slrn10u9h31.3d1.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
You said:
---
Indeed. I think the large majority of the claims on that page are
somewhere in-between "massively exaggerated" and "completely untrue".
We would not allow things in ulm that were unlawful to post, but
I don't think we need to worry overly about imaginary invisible
injunctions.
---
In the fullness of time we know that: there were reporting restrictions,
Were there in fact reporting restrictions beyond the standard sub judice ones?
the jury were not told about the 'terrorist' designation leading to
increased sentences,
As I said previously, that was not some sort of conspiracy or cover-up,
it was because that was not relevant to the question of guilt that the
jury was deciding. And the report was completely wrong when it said
that the "terrorist" designation could lead to sentences that were
double the usual maximum.
Rajiv Menon did face contempt of court proceedings for reminding
jurors of their rights.
And was the article correct that there were unusual reporting
restrictions about this?
In fact, the article was almost entirely right.
As you have quoted me above saying at the time, it was in fact small
bits of truth mixed with innuendo and falsehoods.
The absolute best I could say about the article's author is that he
either has some contacts or does some good research, but then destroys
all of his own work by working it up into the sort of bullshit we see
in that article. So any other articles by the same author in future
must either be disregarded, or read extremely carefully to try and
discern what bits of truth may be glimpsed behind the smokescreen.
I do think we should judge people's credibility based upon previous
comments. I made that point when we were discussing the article.
I am pretty happy to stand on my record.
On 17:42 2 Aug 2026, Pancho said:
On 8/2/26 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/08/2026 12:14, The Todal wrote:
To Mr Pancho:
If you want to discuss legal issues, either use ULM or fuck off to
uk.legal
I'm not going to indulge you here. Talk to the hand. You are
mis-using this group, and when you do that it means that people
will gradually stop using the group for the purpose for which it is
intended.
You may be judge, jury and guardian of a minor universe elsewhere,
but I have to point out that here you're not.
People can freely discuss here whatever they want regardless of any
dire warnings of impending global catastrophe.
And they will if they have some incentive.
I think Todal, would prefer to live in a world without a memory, a
world where reality doesn't contradict his learned observations. A
world where people did not remind him of things that he had said.
But the long and short is that I do not trust that ulm moderation
would allow my criticism and questions about judicial bias, so there
is no point posting to ulm on this subject.
I think that it is reasonable to make my lack of confidence about
this aspect of moderation public, and that this is an appropriate
place to do so.
People are free to killfile me if they want, but I only made 2 posts
to unnm in July, hardly swamping the group.
Pancho, I often find your posts interesting and would encourage you to
post to ULM. About legal matters, of course, including judicial bias.
The spats currently taking place here are hardly serious enough to
prohibit you posting there.
On 03/08/2026 22:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:ndc86jFu30qU1@mid.individual.net...
BB claimed repeatedly in a succession of posts that ten years ago there was >>> no
such thing as a prepaid credit card, and when Roland rebutted this claim BB >>> effectively called Roland a liar, which is in breach of moderation
guidelines.
No I did not ! I repeatedly claimed that My Perry was mistaken. As a result >> of having a faulty memory.
In fact I even recommended a book on the subject "The Changing Mind" by
Daniel Levitin;which I thought might be of interest
All of which is a matter of record.
So if you really think you have anything to gain. by making up bare-faced
lies about me, in order to justify my expulsion from the group, then I can >> only suggest that you think again.
I have already said that you should now resume posting in ULM and that your contributions are often valuable.
I have given the "reason" for your suspension from the group. I have not said that I agree with that reason.
On 03/08/2026 22:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:ndc86jFu30qU1@mid.individual.net...
BB claimed repeatedly in a succession of posts that ten years ago there was no
such thing as a prepaid credit card, and when Roland rebutted this claim BB >>> effectively called Roland a liar, which is in breach of moderation guidelines.
No I did not ! I repeatedly claimed that My Perry was mistaken. As a result >> of having a faulty memory.
In fact I even recommended a book on the subject "The Changing Mind" by
Daniel Levitin;which I thought might be of interest
All of which is a matter of record.
So if you really think you have anything to gain. by making up bare-faced
lies about me, in order to justify my expulsion from the group, then I can >> only suggest that you think again.
I have already said that you should now resume posting in ULM and that
your contributions are often valuable.
I have given the "reason" for your suspension from the group. I have not said that I agree with that reason.
On 8/3/26 19:05, Pamela wrote:
On 17:42-a 2 Aug 2026, Pancho said:
On 8/2/26 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/08/2026 12:14, The Todal wrote:
To Mr Pancho:
If you want to discuss legal issues, either use ULM or fuck off to
uk.legal
I'm not going to indulge you here. Talk to the hand. You are
mis-using this group, and when you do that it means that people
will gradually stop using the group for the purpose for which it is
intended.
You may be judge, jury and guardian of a minor universe elsewhere,
but I have to point out that here you're not.
People can freely discuss here whatever they want regardless of any
dire warnings of impending global catastrophe.
And they will if they have some incentive.
I think Todal, would prefer to live in a world without a memory, a
world where reality doesn't contradict his learned observations. A
world where people did not remind him of things that he had said.
But the long and short is that I do not trust that ulm moderation
would allow my criticism and questions about judicial bias, so there
is no point posting to ulm on this subject.
I think that it is reasonable to make my lack of confidence about
this aspect of moderation public, and that this is an appropriate
place to do so.
People are free to killfile me if they want, but I only made 2 posts
to unnm in July, hardly swamping the group.
Pancho, I often find your posts interesting and would encourage you to
post to ULM. About legal matters, of course, including judicial bias.
The spats currently taking place here are hardly serious enough to
prohibit you posting there.
I'm not motivated by Billy's spat. I haven't followed.
I post to unnm in April about the Menon and the Fuilton trial, because I felt potential reporting restrictions made it inappropriate for ulm.
I responded to Todal in this thread, because he chose to make his
comments here.
In general, I don't discuss judicial corruption in ulm, because I
believe any significant, critical, points I make will be blocked. The blocking of self reflection seems to be a common theme in the UK justice system. Indeed:-a Menon is alleged to have "created a real risk of
impeding the proper administration of justice" by suggesting the court
was treating protesters unfairly. This is astonishing, of course the
justice system might be biased. Any reasonable and effective jury should consider this. Much of my career was programming diagnostic tests, one
of our critical concerns was always that the test itself was biased. However, our criminal justice system is up to its neck in fairy tale bullshit.
I'm happy to discuss other issues in ulm.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 03/08/2026 22:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:ndc86jFu30qU1@mid.individual.net...
BB claimed repeatedly in a succession of posts that ten years ago there was no
such thing as a prepaid credit card, and when Roland rebutted this claim BB
effectively called Roland a liar, which is in breach of moderation guidelines.
I did not see anything that I would consider to be a rebuttal.
Mr Perry introduced TfL in support of his argument but the press releases
did not support his claim.
Another claim that I recall was that Mr Perry spent considerable time and effort in acquiring payment cards that he described as prepaid credit
cards. The expended effort does not establish that the payment cards had
the properties associated with both the rCyprepaidrCO and rCycreditrCO labels.
No I did not ! I repeatedly claimed that My Perry was mistaken. As a result >>> of having a faulty memory.
I think it is more likely that Mr Perry remembers well enough but is insufficiently precise in the terminology he uses and is too willing to accept labels rather than looking beyond them at the underlying properties.
It also seems possible that he has spent too much time among politicians
who see admitting even the most trivial mistake as insupportable weakness
and some of that has rubbed off on him.
In fact I even recommended a book on the subject "The Changing Mind" by
Daniel Levitin;which I thought might be of interest
All of which is a matter of record.
So if you really think you have anything to gain. by making up bare-faced >>> lies about me, in order to justify my expulsion from the group, then I can >>> only suggest that you think again.
I think the remarks about faulty memory were grounds for rejecting the article but not for being put on the block list.
I have already said that you should now resume posting in ULM and that
your contributions are often valuable.
I have given the "reason" for your suspension from the group. I have not
said that I agree with that reason.
Unfortunately the lack of openness in the responses leaves the field open
for conspiracy theories.
One such hypothesis is that Mr Perry as a poster to ulm was irritated by Mr Bookcase probing his claims rather than accepting his statements as gospel. In his persona as a moderator he had the power to blocklist Mr Bookcase or
to persuade one of the other moderators to do so. If there has been a
failure to separate being a burden to a poster from being a burden to the moderators then that reflects poorly on the moderators.
On 8/3/26 10:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-03, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
You often seem to talk about people being wrong in the abstract. I'm
never sure what you mean, specifics are so much better.
The specific sentences you just said in the post I was responding to,
of course! Your comments about Todal are completely unjustified and
unsupportable, as are your comments about the ulm moderation.
Yeah, I get it. It is easy to make vague comments, such as "you are
wrong", but I don't have a clue what or why you think it is wrong.
In the fullness of time we know that: there were reporting restrictions,
Were there in fact reporting restrictions beyond the standard sub judice
ones?
There were reporting restrictions. I didn't know exactly what they were then. Even now I still don't know the full extent of what was restricted.
I do think we should judge people's credibility based upon previous
comments. I made that point when we were discussing the article.
I am pretty happy to stand on my record.
And hence, you are presumably happy for me to remind people of that
record so that they can judge the credibility they assign to your
remarks in future.
I post to unnm in April about the Menon and the Fuilton trial, because I felt potential reporting restrictions made it inappropriate for ulm.
I responded to Todal in this thread, because he chose to make his
comments here.
In general, I don't discuss judicial corruption in ulm, because I
believe any significant, critical, points I make will be blocked.
On 8/3/26 19:05, Pamela wrote:
On 17:42 2 Aug 2026, Pancho said:
On 8/2/26 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/08/2026 12:14, The Todal wrote:
To Mr Pancho:
If you want to discuss legal issues, either use ULM or fuck off
to uk.legal
I'm not going to indulge you here. Talk to the hand. You are
mis-using this group, and when you do that it means that people
will gradually stop using the group for the purpose for which it
is intended.
You may be judge, jury and guardian of a minor universe elsewhere,
but I have to point out that here you're not.
People can freely discuss here whatever they want regardless of
any dire warnings of impending global catastrophe.
And they will if they have some incentive.
I think Todal, would prefer to live in a world without a memory, a
world where reality doesn't contradict his learned observations. A
world where people did not remind him of things that he had said.
But the long and short is that I do not trust that ulm moderation
would allow my criticism and questions about judicial bias, so
there is no point posting to ulm on this subject.
I think that it is reasonable to make my lack of confidence about
this aspect of moderation public, and that this is an appropriate
place to do so.
People are free to killfile me if they want, but I only made 2
posts to unnm in July, hardly swamping the group.
Pancho, I often find your posts interesting and would encourage you
to post to ULM. About legal matters, of course, including judicial
bias.
The spats currently taking place here are hardly serious enough to
prohibit you posting there.
I'm not motivated by Billy's spat. I haven't followed.
I post to unnm in April about the Menon and the Fuilton trial,
because I felt potential reporting restrictions made it inappropriate
for ulm.
I responded to Todal in this thread, because he chose to make his
comments here.
In general, I don't discuss judicial corruption in ulm, because I
believe any significant, critical, points I make will be blocked. The blocking of self reflection seems to be a common theme in the UK
justice system. Indeed: Menon is alleged to have "created a real
risk of impeding the proper administration of justice" by suggesting
the court was treating protesters unfairly. This is astonishing, of
course the justice system might be biased. Any reasonable and
effective jury should consider this. Much of my career was
programming diagnostic tests, one of our critical concerns was always
that the test itself was biased. However, our criminal justice system
is up to its neck in fairy tale bullshit.
I'm happy to discuss other issues in ulm.
There wasn't a mistake.
Why then was it rescinded?
As Todal says, 'the decision was not made in the correct way'.
It was incorrect. Therefore, it *was* a mistake.
On 3 Aug 2026 at 17:42:21 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <114nf66$gd2t$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:02:58 on Sun, 2 Aug
2026, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
I have *repeatedlly * asked for the reason why I was banned from
ULM for seven days.
And nobody had answered.
Mr Perry has now suggested that there may be numerous
explanations, but without actually specifying what they are
or committing himself to any one in particular,
Oh dear oh dear. I said very clearly what the reason could have been.
None remotely resembling a justification in this case, however.
BB claimed repeatedly in a succession of posts that ten years ago there was no
such thing as a prepaid credit card, and when Roland rebutted this claim BB >> effectively called Roland a liar, which is in breach of moderation guidelines.
No I did not ! I repeatedly claimed that My Perry was mistaken.
As a result of having a faulty memory.
I at least was willing to concede that the marketing liars who sold him
his cards probably called them "credit cards" while Mr Bookcase was rather >hung up on the concrete thinking approach of pointing out that they did not >provide credit.
Is this 10 year old spatt still unresolved? Oh dear.
In message <ndc0udFop8kU4@mid.individual.net>, at 18:20:13 on Mon, 3 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aThere wasn't a mistake.
Why then was it rescinded?
As Todal says, 'the decision was not made in the correct way'.
It was incorrect.-a Therefore, it *was* a mistake.
Moderators are allowed to disagree with one another's decisions. That doesn't make either point of view a "mistake".
On 05/08/2026 23:11, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndc0udFop8kU4@mid.individual.net>, at 18:20:13 on Mon, 3
Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
aThere wasn't a mistake.
Why then was it rescinded?
As Todal says, 'the decision was not made in the correct way'.
It was incorrect.a Therefore, it *was* a mistake.
Moderators are allowed to disagree with one another's decisions.
That doesn't make either point of view a "mistake".
As Todal says, 'the decision was not made in the correct way'.
It was incorrect. Therefore, it *was* a mistake.
In message <ndinikF8vskU1@mid.individual.net>, at 07:23:14 on Thu, 6 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 05/08/2026 23:11, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndc0udFop8kU4@mid.individual.net>, at 18:20:13 on Mon, 3
Aug-a 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aThere wasn't a mistake.
Why then was it rescinded?
As Todal says, 'the decision was not made in the correct way'.
It was incorrect.-a Therefore, it *was* a mistake.
-aModerators are allowed to disagree with one another's decisions.
That-a doesn't make either point of view a "mistake".
As Todal says, 'the decision was not made in the correct way'.
As I've said several times already, I disagree with that analysis.
The whole debate about credit cards is off topic for ulm, extremely "not new", and contained "offensive personal remarks".
Together with the traffic here, it was clearly designed to "waste moderators' time" and the due process was followed, with the vote by moderators being one in favour, three abstained. Which complies with
the charter.
It was incorrect.-a Therefore, it *was* a mistake.
A mistake isn't the same as a decision people disagree with. A mistake
would be banning the wrong person due to finger trouble.
A mistake isn't the same as a decision people disagree with. A
mistake would be banning the wrong person due to finger trouble.
Then why was it rescinded?
In message <0055809631.f5bb995e@uninhabited.net>, at 23:42:38 on Mon, 3
Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I at least was willing to concede that the marketing liars who sold him
his cards probably called them "credit cards" while Mr Bookcase was rather >> hung up on the concrete thinking approach of pointing out that they did not >> provide credit.
The issue here is that there were three kinds of card:
1. Charge cards, where you pay the whole amount off at the end of the
month
2. Debit cards, where the funds are extracted from a linked bank
account.
3. Credit cards, where there were two kinds:
a. That you pay off some of the bill at the end of the month
b. Where the funds are extracted from a pre-paid amount.
I can't make it any clearer than that.
Nowadays you can get a fourth kind, which identifies itself as a debit
card, but the funds are extracted from a pre-paid amount, rather than a linked bank account.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <0055809631.f5bb995e@uninhabited.net>, at 23:42:38 on Mon, 3
Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I at least was willing to concede that the marketing liars who sold him
his cards probably called them "credit cards" while Mr Bookcase was rather >>> hung up on the concrete thinking approach of pointing out that they did not >>> provide credit.
The issue here is that there were three kinds of card:
1. Charge cards, where you pay the whole amount off at the end of the
month
2. Debit cards, where the funds are extracted from a linked bank
account.
3. Credit cards, where there were two kinds:
a. That you pay off some of the bill at the end of the month
b. Where the funds are extracted from a pre-paid amount.
I can't make it any clearer than that.
You have described four kinds of card, not three. Using the same name for
two kinds of payment cards with fundamentally incompatible properties is >consistent with misleading marketing but not helpful where the properties
are the key issue. The original issue was age verification and offering >credit with the associated legal restrictions on who may enter into the >necessary agreement is what matters, not what marketing chooses to call the >card.
Nowadays you can get a fourth kind, which identifies itself as a debit
card, but the funds are extracted from a pre-paid amount, rather than a
linked bank account.
The Payment Systems Regulator describes prepaid cards as distinct from
either credit or debit cards.
https://www.psr.org.uk/information-for-consumers/ways-of-paying/
If the card is a stored value prepaid card that is not linked to a bank >account then it may be identified as a debit card in the mind of the >marketing department but the payment processing is necessarily different so >as far as the machinery is concerned it is not a debit card.
If the prepaid card is linked to an account that is not a bank account then >the processing may be done in the same way as for a debit card but I would >need more than repeated assertions to accept that it is identified as a
debit card in anything other than the marketing and the minds of those who >are taken in by it.
A debit card linked to a bank account with zero overdraft would be similar
to a prepaid card in some respects but there would have been different >processes for setting up the account.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <0055809631.f5bb995e@uninhabited.net>, at 23:42:38 on Mon, 3
Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I at least was willing to concede that the marketing liars who sold him
his cards probably called them "credit cards" while Mr Bookcase was rather >>> hung up on the concrete thinking approach of pointing out that they did not >>> provide credit.
The issue here is that there were three kinds of card:
1. Charge cards, where you pay the whole amount off at the end of the
month
2. Debit cards, where the funds are extracted from a linked bank
account.
3. Credit cards, where there were two kinds:
a. That you pay off some of the bill at the end of the month
b. Where the funds are extracted from a pre-paid amount.
I can't make it any clearer than that.
You have described four kinds of card, not three. Using the same name for
two kinds of payment cards with fundamentally incompatible properties is consistent with misleading marketing but not helpful where the properties
are the key issue. The original issue was age verification and offering credit with the associated legal restrictions on who may enter into the necessary agreement is what matters, not what marketing chooses to call the card.
Nowadays you can get a fourth kind, which identifies itself as a debit
card, but the funds are extracted from a pre-paid amount, rather than a
linked bank account.
The Payment Systems Regulator describes prepaid cards as distinct from
either credit or debit cards.
https://www.psr.org.uk/information-for-consumers/ways-of-paying/
If the card is a stored value prepaid card that is not linked to a bank account then it may be identified as a debit card in the mind of the marketing department but the payment processing is necessarily different so as far as the machinery is concerned it is not a debit card.
If the prepaid card is linked to an account that is not a bank account then the processing may be done in the same way as for a debit card but I would need more than repeated assertions to accept that it is identified as a
debit card in anything other than the marketing and the minds of those who are taken in by it.
A debit card linked to a bank account with zero overdraft would be similar
to a prepaid card in some respects but there would have been different processes for setting up the account.
A debit card linked to a bank account with zero overdraft
--would be similar
to a prepaid card in some respects but there would have been different >>processes for setting up the account.
The main difference for the user is that a pre-paid card has the funds >already loaded, whereas if you are trying to imitate a pre-paid card
with a bank account, you'd have to not only lend someone the card, but
go to the bother of transferring a smallish amount of money to that
bank account. Which 10yrs ago wasn't as easy as it is today.
But it's all just a smokescreen, while bb tries to prove
he's untouchable when abusing moderators
Together with the traffic here, it was clearly designed to "waste moderators'
time"
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:y5VXqAIIrAdqFAvM@perry.uk...
But it's all just a smokescreen, while bb tries to prove
he's untouchable when abusing moderators
I haven't abused anyone.
I presume you imagine that if you repeat some baseless
allegation a sufficient number of times. people will start
to believe it.
Although based on your track record thus far on Usenet,
circa 25 years of often posting patent nonsense,which you've
singularly failed to persuade *anyone* to actually believe,
I don't actually rate your chances of success very highly,
I'm afraid.
As it is you've singularly failed to offer a substantive
reply to *any* of the questions asked of you, concerning
these supposed "Pre-Paid Credit Cards" of yours, by a
number of different posters.
Which are instead met by the usual evasion and obfuscation.
Neither have you produced any actual evidence at all, for
the existence these cards.
Thus if anyone is guilty of "abuse", it is you yourself.
In wasting everybody's time in expecting them to believe
much of the nonsense, which you've been posting for the
past 25 odd years.
bb
To be fair, having successfully made your point about credit cards it
did seem a little excessive to go on and on about it just because of
Roland's compulsion to get the last word.
In message <ndivv9F8vskU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:46:31 on Thu, 6 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aA mistake isn't the same as a decision people disagree with. A
mistake-a would be banning the wrong person due to finger trouble.
Then why was it rescinded?
Because the ban I asked for a vote on, was only to last a week.
But you are saying that Roland Perry is in some material sense not right to be >taken in by marketing; is that not risking a retaliatory ban?
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message >news:y5VXqAIIrAdqFAvM@perry.uk...
But it's all just a smokescreen, while bb tries to prove
he's untouchable when abusing moderators
I haven't abused anyone.
I presume you imagine that if you repeat some baseless
allegation a sufficient number of times. people will start
to believe it.
Although based on your track record thus far on Usenet,
circa 25 years of often posting patent nonsense,which you've
singularly failed to persuade *anyone* to actually believe,
I don't actually rate your chances of success very highly,
I'm afraid.
As it is you've singularly failed to offer a substantive
reply to *any* of the questions asked of you, concerning
these supposed "Pre-Paid Credit Cards" of yours, by a
number of different posters.
Which are instead met by the usual evasion and obfuscation.
Neither have you produced any actual evidence at all, for
the existence these cards.
Thus if anyone is guilty of "abuse", it is you yourself.
In wasting everybody's time in expecting them to believe
much of the nonsense, which you've been posting for the
past 25 odd years.
On 06/08/2026 10:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndivv9F8vskU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:46:31 on Thu, 6
Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
aA mistake isn't the same as a decision people disagree with. A >>>>mistakea would be banning the wrong person due to finger trouble.
Then why was it rescinded?
Because the ban I asked for a vote on, was only to last a week.
How on earth does that answer the question?
It should, according to the rules, have been agreed by a majority of
the moderators within 72 hours, not a week, whatever your proposal was.
And it wasn't.
On 2026-08-06, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
To be fair, having successfully made your point about credit cards it
did seem a little excessive to go on and on about it just because of
Roland's compulsion to get the last word.
I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand
that all of the
following could be true at once:
1) A prepaid card that only allows you to spend up to the amount you
have pre-loaded onto it does not offer "credit" and therefore
calling it a "[prepaid] credit card" is misleading and inaccurate.
2) Companies offering such cards might call them "prepaid credit cards"
notwithstanding point (1).
3) Nowadays, payment systems know about prepaid cards and categorise
them specifically as such.
4) Previously, payment systems did not know about prepaid cards per se
and categorised them as generic "credit cards" notwithstanding points
(1) and (3).
It's not even clear that there is any actual disagreement, as opposed
to people just shouting abuse at each other for no reason.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message >news:A797quRoCEdqFAIz@perry.uk...
Together with the traffic here, it was clearly designed to "waste moderators'
time"
But surely Mr Perry, by the same token anyone attempting to get a
straight answer out of you on any topic whatsoever is equally
guilty of "wasting the moderators time" ?
As all such efforts are equally doomed. As should already have been
obvious, from a cursory perusal of your posting history.
And indeed have been for the past 25 years.
On 2026-08-06, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
To be fair, having successfully made your point about credit cards it
did seem a little excessive to go on and on about it just because of
Roland's compulsion to get the last word.
I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that all of the following could be true at once:
1) A prepaid card that only allows you to spend up to the amount you
have pre-loaded onto it does not offer "credit" and therefore
calling it a "[prepaid] credit card" is misleading and inaccurate.
2) Companies offering such cards might call them "prepaid credit cards"
notwithstanding point (1).
3) Nowadays, payment systems know about prepaid cards and categorise
them specifically as such.
4) Previously, payment systems did not know about prepaid cards per se
and categorised them as generic "credit cards" notwithstanding points
(1) and (3).
It's not even clear that there is any actual disagreement, as opposed
to people just shouting abuse at each other for no reason.
In message <slrn1178tgp.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at
11:55:05 on Thu, 6 Aug 2026, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
On 2026-08-06, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
To be fair, having successfully made your point about credit cards it
did seem a little excessive to go on and on about it just because of
Roland's compulsion to get the last word.
I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand
I think it's because they are being deliberately awkward, and trying to
flog horses which are so dead they've been boiled for glue.
that all of the
following could be true at once:
1) A prepaid card that only allows you to spend up to the amount you
have pre-loaded onto it does not offer "credit" and therefore
calling it a "[prepaid] credit card" is misleading and inaccurate.
What name would you give it, given there was a choice of three at the
time? (Charge, Credit and Debit).
2) Companies offering such cards might call them "prepaid credit cards"
notwithstanding point (1).
3) Nowadays, payment systems know about prepaid cards and categorise
them specifically as such.
Yes, because it's 2026, not 2016.
4) Previously, payment systems did not know about prepaid cards per se
and categorised them as generic "credit cards" notwithstanding points
(1) and (3).
It's not even clear that there is any actual disagreement, as opposed
to people just shouting abuse at each other for no reason.
I've repeatedly called on people to cease and desist, but they refuse
to.
On 2026-08-06, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
To be fair, having successfully made your point about credit cards it
did seem a little excessive to go on and on about it just because of
Roland's compulsion to get the last word.
I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that all of the following could be true at once:
1) A prepaid card that only allows you to spend up to the amount you
have pre-loaded onto it does not offer "credit" and therefore
calling it a "[prepaid] credit card" is misleading and inaccurate.
2) Companies offering such cards might call them "prepaid credit cards"
notwithstanding point (1).
3) Nowadays, payment systems know about prepaid cards and categorise
them specifically as such.
4) Previously, payment systems did not know about prepaid cards per se
and categorised them as generic "credit cards" notwithstanding points
(1) and (3).
It's not even clear that there is any actual disagreement, as opposed
to people just shouting abuse at each other for no reason.
On 6 Aug 2026 at 12:55:05 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-06, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
To be fair, having successfully made your point about credit cards it
did seem a little excessive to go on and on about it just because of
Roland's compulsion to get the last word.
I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that all of the
following could be true at once:
1) A prepaid card that only allows you to spend up to the amount you
have pre-loaded onto it does not offer "credit" and therefore
calling it a "[prepaid] credit card" is misleading and inaccurate.
2) Companies offering such cards might call them "prepaid credit cards"
notwithstanding point (1).
3) Nowadays, payment systems know about prepaid cards and categorise
them specifically as such.
4) Previously, payment systems did not know about prepaid cards per se
and categorised them as generic "credit cards" notwithstanding points
(1) and (3).
It's not even clear that there is any actual disagreement, as opposed
to people just shouting abuse at each other for no reason.
Well put, indeed! But point 4) is I think supposition, though likely,
as we don't really know that.
On 2026-08-06, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
To be fair, having successfully made your point about credit cards it
did seem a little excessive to go on and on about it just because of
Roland's compulsion to get the last word.
I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that all of the following could be true at once:
1) A prepaid card that only allows you to spend up to the amount you
have pre-loaded onto it does not offer "credit" and therefore
calling it a "[prepaid] credit card" is misleading and inaccurate.
2) Companies offering such cards might call them "prepaid credit cards"
notwithstanding point (1).
3) Nowadays, payment systems know about prepaid cards and categorise
them specifically as such.
4) Previously, payment systems did not know about prepaid cards per se
and categorised them as generic "credit cards" notwithstanding points
(1) and (3).
It's not even clear that there is any actual disagreement,
as opposed
to people just shouting abuse at each other for no reason.
In message <1151pr7$3p9n4$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:06:13 on Thu, 6 Aug 2026, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:y5VXqAIIrAdqFAvM@perry.uk...
But it's all just a smokescreen, while bb tries to prove
he's untouchable when abusing moderators
I haven't abused anyone.
Yes, you have, it's there plain to see, and I posted you an example.
If you don't think your posting style is abusivehen you probably need to get counselling before you reall get into trouble one day.
In message <ndjcjrFc4g6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:22:18 on Thu, 6 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 06/08/2026 10:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndivv9F8vskU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:46:31 on Thu, 6
Aug-a 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aA mistake isn't the same as a decision people disagree with. A
mistake-a would be banning the wrong person due to finger trouble.
Then why was it rescinded?
-aBecause the ban I asked for a vote on, was only to last a week.
How on earth does that answer the question?
It should, according to the rules, have been agreed by a majority of
the moderators within 72 hours, not a week, whatever your proposal was.
And it wasn't.
It was agreed in a vote, within the 72hrs, by a majority of one in
favour, three abstentions. Is that clear enough?
On 06/08/2026 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndjcjrFc4g6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:22:18 on Thu, 6 Aug
2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 06/08/2026 10:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndivv9F8vskU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:46:31 on Thu, 6 Aug >>>> 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
A mistake isn't the same as a decision people disagree with. A mistake >>>>>> would be banning the wrong person due to finger trouble.
Then why was it rescinded?
Because the ban I asked for a vote on, was only to last a week.
How on earth does that answer the question?
It should, according to the rules, have been agreed by a majority of the >>> moderators within 72 hours, not a week, whatever your proposal was.
And it wasn't.
It was agreed in a vote, within the 72hrs, by a majority of one in favour, >> three abstentions. Is that clear enough?
Hang on a mo! There are four moderators.
How many out of four constitutes 'a majority'?
It's not just one, is it?
And the moderation policy doesn't say 'a majority of those who could be arsed to vote', does it?
No, it says 'The moderators should confirm the decision of any one moderator by a majority of *all* moderators'.
Which it wasn't.
Do stop being so utterly disingenuous.
He was added to the banned list for a while, but that decision was not
made in the correct way and I removed him from the banned list.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn1178tgp.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-06, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
To be fair, having successfully made your point about credit cards it
did seem a little excessive to go on and on about it just because of
Roland's compulsion to get the last word.
I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that all of the
following could be true at once:
1) A prepaid card that only allows you to spend up to the amount you
have pre-loaded onto it does not offer "credit" and therefore
calling it a "[prepaid] credit card" is misleading and inaccurate.
2) Companies offering such cards might call them "prepaid credit cards"
notwithstanding point (1).
Which, as I have humbly sought to point out more than once,
would be directly contrary to the provisions of
The Consumer Credit Act of 1974
quote:
43 Advertisements to which Part IV applies
(1)This Part applies to any advertisement, published
for the purposes of a business carried on by the advertiser,
indicating that he is willing-
(a) to provide credit, or
(b)to enter into an agreement for the bailment or (in Scotland)
the hiring of goods by him.
46 False or misleading advertisements
(1)If an advertisement to which this Part applies conveys
information which in a material respect is false or
misleading the advertiser commits an offence.
(2)Information stating or implying an intention on the
advertiser's part which he has not got is false.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/part/IV/crossheading/advertising/enacted
On 6 Aug 2026 at 18:12:41 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn1178tgp.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
2) Companies offering such cards might call them "prepaid credit cards"
notwithstanding point (1).
Which, as I have humbly sought to point out more than once,
would be directly contrary to the provisions of
The Consumer Credit Act of 1974
quote:
43 Advertisements to which Part IV applies
(1)This Part applies to any advertisement, published
for the purposes of a business carried on by the advertiser,
indicating that he is willing-
(a) to provide credit, or
(b)to enter into an agreement for the bailment or (in Scotland)
the hiring of goods by him.
46 False or misleading advertisements
The trouble is that I doubt that section applies to firms which are *not* offering credit at all!
On 6 Aug 2026 at 18:12:41 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn1178tgp.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-06, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
To be fair, having successfully made your point about credit cards it
did seem a little excessive to go on and on about it just because of
Roland's compulsion to get the last word.
I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that all of the
following could be true at once:
1) A prepaid card that only allows you to spend up to the amount you
have pre-loaded onto it does not offer "credit" and therefore
calling it a "[prepaid] credit card" is misleading and inaccurate.
2) Companies offering such cards might call them "prepaid credit cards"
notwithstanding point (1).
Which, as I have humbly sought to point out more than once,
would be directly contrary to the provisions of
The Consumer Credit Act of 1974
quote:
43 Advertisements to which Part IV applies
(1)This Part applies to any advertisement, published
for the purposes of a business carried on by the advertiser,
indicating that he is willing-
(a) to provide credit, or
(b)to enter into an agreement for the bailment or (in Scotland)
the hiring of goods by him.
46 False or misleading advertisements
(1)If an advertisement to which this Part applies conveys
information which in a material respect is false or
misleading the advertiser commits an offence.
(2)Information stating or implying an intention on the
advertiser's part which he has not got is false.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/part/IV/crossheading/advertising/enacted
The trouble is that I doubt that section applies to firms which are *not* offering credit at all!
On 2026-08-06, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 6 Aug 2026 at 18:12:41 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn1178tgp.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
2) Companies offering such cards might call them "prepaid credit cards" >>>> notwithstanding point (1).
Which, as I have humbly sought to point out more than once,
would be directly contrary to the provisions of
The Consumer Credit Act of 1974
quote:
43 Advertisements to which Part IV applies
(1)This Part applies to any advertisement, published
for the purposes of a business carried on by the advertiser,
indicating that he is willing-
(a) to provide credit, or
(b)to enter into an agreement for the bailment or (in Scotland)
the hiring of goods by him.
46 False or misleading advertisements
The trouble is that I doubt that section applies to firms which are *not*
offering credit at all!
Yes, it's a bit weird that billy has quoted s43(1), but failed to quote s43(2), which as you suspected says that the quoted sections do not
apply if the advertiser "does not carry on a consumer credit business".
Also a bit weird that he hasn't noticed that the whole section was
repealed in 2014, so doesn't in fact apply to anyone at all.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn1179nrp.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-06, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 6 Aug 2026 at 18:12:41 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn1178tgp.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
2) Companies offering such cards might call them "prepaid credit cards" >>>>> notwithstanding point (1).
Which, as I have humbly sought to point out more than once,
would be directly contrary to the provisions of
The Consumer Credit Act of 1974
quote:
43 Advertisements to which Part IV applies
(1)This Part applies to any advertisement, published
for the purposes of a business carried on by the advertiser,
indicating that he is willing-
(a) to provide credit, or
(b)to enter into an agreement for the bailment or (in Scotland)
the hiring of goods by him.
46 False or misleading advertisements
The trouble is that I doubt that section applies to firms which are *not* >>> offering credit at all!
Yes, it's a bit weird that billy has quoted s43(1), but failed to quote
s43(2), which as you suspected says that the quoted sections do not
apply if the advertiser "does not carry on a consumer credit business".
Also a bit weird that he hasn't noticed that the whole section was
repealed in 2014, so doesn't in fact apply to anyone at all.
quote:
Changes to legislation:
Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 43 is up to date with all changes
known to be in force on or before 06 August 2026. There are changes
that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have
been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/43
On 2026-08-06, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn1179nrp.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-06, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 6 Aug 2026 at 18:12:41 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn1178tgp.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
2) Companies offering such cards might call them "prepaid credit cards" >>>>>> notwithstanding point (1).
Which, as I have humbly sought to point out more than once,
would be directly contrary to the provisions of
The Consumer Credit Act of 1974
quote:
43 Advertisements to which Part IV applies
(1)This Part applies to any advertisement, published
for the purposes of a business carried on by the advertiser,
indicating that he is willing-
(a) to provide credit, or
(b)to enter into an agreement for the bailment or (in Scotland)
the hiring of goods by him.
46 False or misleading advertisements
The trouble is that I doubt that section applies to firms which are *not* >>>> offering credit at all!
Yes, it's a bit weird that billy has quoted s43(1), but failed to quote
s43(2), which as you suspected says that the quoted sections do not
apply if the advertiser "does not carry on a consumer credit business".
Also a bit weird that he hasn't noticed that the whole section was
repealed in 2014, so doesn't in fact apply to anyone at all.
quote:
Changes to legislation:
Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 43 is up to date with all changes
known to be in force on or before 06 August 2026. There are changes
that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have
been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/43
Have you, er, actually looked at the page at that URL?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:ndjvm8FevqiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 06/08/2026 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndjcjrFc4g6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:22:18 on Thu, 6 Aug >>> 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 06/08/2026 10:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndivv9F8vskU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:46:31 on Thu, 6 Aug >>>>> 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
A mistake isn't the same as a decision people disagree with. A mistake >>>>>>> would be banning the wrong person due to finger trouble.
Then why was it rescinded?
Because the ban I asked for a vote on, was only to last a week.
How on earth does that answer the question?
It should, according to the rules, have been agreed by a majority of the >>>> moderators within 72 hours, not a week, whatever your proposal was.
And it wasn't.
It was agreed in a vote, within the 72hrs, by a majority of one in favour, >>> three abstentions. Is that clear enough?
Hang on a mo! There are four moderators.
How many out of four constitutes 'a majority'?
It's not just one, is it?
And the moderation policy doesn't say 'a majority of those who could be arsed
to vote', does it?
No, it says 'The moderators should confirm the decision of any one moderator >> by a majority of *all* moderators'.
Which it wasn't.
Do stop being so utterly disingenuous.
I really do hate putting The Todal on the spot, as he seems to have
given what I assume, is the most honest account of proceedings.
But I now find myself in difficulties; in reconciling Mr Perry's claim
above that three moderators abstained from voting within 72 hours,
with the Todal's claim that
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:nd66ktF11l1U1@mid.individual.net...
He was added to the banned list for a while, but that decision was not
made in the correct way and I removed him from the banned list.
Because if the Todal knew that the decision was not made in the correct way, then why would he have abstained from voting ?
On 06/08/2026 19:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:ndjvm8FevqiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 06/08/2026 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndjcjrFc4g6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:22:18 on Thu, 6 Aug >>>> 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 06/08/2026 10:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndivv9F8vskU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:46:31 on Thu, 6 Aug >>>>>> 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
A mistake isn't the same as a decision people disagree with. A mistake >>>>>>>> would be banning the wrong person due to finger trouble.
Then why was it rescinded?
Because the ban I asked for a vote on, was only to last a week.
How on earth does that answer the question?
It should, according to the rules, have been agreed by a majority of the >>>>> moderators within 72 hours, not a week, whatever your proposal was.
And it wasn't.
It was agreed in a vote, within the 72hrs, by a majority of one in favour, >>>> three abstentions. Is that clear enough?
Hang on a mo! There are four moderators.
How many out of four constitutes 'a majority'?
It's not just one, is it?
And the moderation policy doesn't say 'a majority of those who could be
arsed
to vote', does it?
No, it says 'The moderators should confirm the decision of any one moderator
by a majority of *all* moderators'.
Which it wasn't.
Do stop being so utterly disingenuous.
I really do hate putting The Todal on the spot, as he seems to have
given what I assume, is the most honest account of proceedings.
But I now find myself in difficulties; in reconciling Mr Perry's claim
above that three moderators abstained from voting within 72 hours,
with the Todal's claim that
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:nd66ktF11l1U1@mid.individual.net...
He was added to the banned list for a while, but that decision was not
made in the correct way and I removed him from the banned list.
Because if the Todal knew that the decision was not made in the correct way, >> then why would he have abstained from voting ?
Why would any of them? It was a matter on which they should all have had, and
were really required to have, a view, and one which they should have expressed
at least within their own closed little circle.
It seems absolutely clear to me that there was no proper vote or consultation within the required period, hence Todal's comment that it was not made in the correct way.
The most likely scenario in my view is that an email or other communication may have been sent out at some time by Mr Perry who then conveniently concluded, because none of the others said anything within a very short time afterwards, that he had won. That was shabby and disingenuous but suited his purposes because he was totally unable to admit he was wrong, which the subsequent rescinding of the ban showed he was.
I doubt very much that all the other moderators positively said that they abstained from deciding, which was actually their job and responsibility. I think he just appropriated their alleged indifference for his own ends.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:ndk8ttFgaiaU1@mid.individual.net...
On 06/08/2026 19:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:ndjvm8FevqiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 06/08/2026 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndjcjrFc4g6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:22:18 on Thu, 6 Aug >>>>> 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 06/08/2026 10:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndivv9F8vskU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:46:31 on Thu, 6 Aug
2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
A mistake isn't the same as a decision people disagree with. A mistake
would be banning the wrong person due to finger trouble.
Then why was it rescinded?
Because the ban I asked for a vote on, was only to last a week.
How on earth does that answer the question?
It should, according to the rules, have been agreed by a majority of the >>>>>> moderators within 72 hours, not a week, whatever your proposal was. >>>>>>
And it wasn't.
It was agreed in a vote, within the 72hrs, by a majority of one in favour,
three abstentions. Is that clear enough?
Hang on a mo! There are four moderators.
How many out of four constitutes 'a majority'?
It's not just one, is it?
And the moderation policy doesn't say 'a majority of those who could be >>>> arsed
to vote', does it?
No, it says 'The moderators should confirm the decision of any one moderator
by a majority of *all* moderators'.
Which it wasn't.
Do stop being so utterly disingenuous.
I really do hate putting The Todal on the spot, as he seems to have
given what I assume, is the most honest account of proceedings.
But I now find myself in difficulties; in reconciling Mr Perry's claim
above that three moderators abstained from voting within 72 hours,
with the Todal's claim that
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:nd66ktF11l1U1@mid.individual.net...
He was added to the banned list for a while, but that decision was not >>>> made in the correct way and I removed him from the banned list.
Because if the Todal knew that the decision was not made in the correct way,
then why would he have abstained from voting ?
Why would any of them? It was a matter on which they should all have had, and
were really required to have, a view, and one which they should have expressed
at least within their own closed little circle.
It seems absolutely clear to me that there was no proper vote or consultation
within the required period, hence Todal's comment that it was not made in the
correct way.
The most likely scenario in my view is that an email or other communication >> may have been sent out at some time by Mr Perry who then conveniently
concluded, because none of the others said anything within a very short time >> afterwards, that he had won. That was shabby and disingenuous but suited his
purposes because he was totally unable to admit he was wrong, which the
subsequent rescinding of the ban showed he was.
I doubt very much that all the other moderators positively said that they
abstained from deciding, which was actually their job and responsibility. I >> think he just appropriated their alleged indifference for his own ends.
What intrigues me the most, is that they apparently have a range of
sentences at their disposal.
So that I got seven days, possibly now extended to a lifetime ban.
While other lesser offenders, may only get two or three days.
Presumably they have their own Secret Website which gives all the
details of the "Real Charter"; which nobody else is allowed to
know about.
bb
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn1179p7v.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-06, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/43
Have you, er, actually looked at the page at that URL?
Fair enough. So the offences covered by Section 43 are also
covered by The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Hence
Section 43 being omitted; "in so far as not already in force".
So that "Pre Paid Credit Cards" would be just as illegal under
the terms of The Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000, in
so far as not already in force, as they were under the Consumer
Credit Act of 1974
The Consumer Credit Act of 1974
quote:
43 Advertisements to which Part IV applies
(1)This Part applies to any advertisement, published
for the purposes of a business carried on by the advertiser,
indicating that he is willing-
(a) to provide credit, or
(b)to enter into an agreement for the bailment or (in Scotland)
the hiring of goods by him.
46 False or misleading advertisements
The trouble is that I doubt that section applies to firms which are *not*
offering credit at all!
Yes, it's a bit weird that billy has quoted s43(1), but failed to quote >s43(2), which as you suspected says that the quoted sections do not
apply if the advertiser "does not carry on a consumer credit business".
Also a bit weird that he hasn't noticed that the whole section was
repealed in 2014, so doesn't in fact apply to anyone at all.
On 2026-08-06, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn1179p7v.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-06, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/43
Have you, er, actually looked at the page at that URL?
Fair enough. So the offences covered by Section 43 are also
covered by The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Hence
Section 43 being omitted; "in so far as not already in force".
So that "Pre Paid Credit Cards" would be just as illegal under
the terms of The Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000, in
so far as not already in force, as they were under the Consumer
Credit Act of 1974
Ok, super. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 has
four hundred and thirty three sections, and 22 schedules.
Which bit are you saying made it illegal to advertise a
prepaid card as a "prepaid credit card" ten years ago?
On 06/08/2026 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndjcjrFc4g6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:22:18 on Thu, 6
Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 06/08/2026 10:08, Roland Perry wrote:It was agreed in a vote, within the 72hrs, by a majority of one in >>favour, three abstentions. Is that clear enough?
In message <ndivv9F8vskU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:46:31 on Thu,
6 Auga 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
aA mistake isn't the same as a decision people disagree with. A >>>>>>mistakea would be banning the wrong person due to finger trouble.
Then why was it rescinded?
aBecause the ban I asked for a vote on, was only to last a week.
How on earth does that answer the question?
It should, according to the rules, have been agreed by a majority of >>>the moderators within 72 hours, not a week, whatever your proposal
was.
And it wasn't.
Hang on a mo! There are four moderators.
How many out of four constitutes 'a majority'?
It's not just one, is it?
And the moderation policy doesn't say 'a majority of those who could be >arsed to vote', does it?
No, it says 'The moderators should confirm the decision of any one
moderator by a majority of *all* moderators'.
Which it wasn't.
Do stop being so utterly disingenuous.
The most likely scenario in my view is that an email or other
communication may have been sent out at some time by Mr Perry who then >conveniently concluded, because none of the others said anything within
a very short time afterwards, that he had won. That was shabby and >disingenuous but suited his purposes because he was totally unable to
admit he was wrong, which the subsequent rescinding of the ban showed
he was.
AFAICS we have no evidence that anyone other than Mr Perry envisaged a fixed >term at all, let alone one of specifically seven days. So we have no evidence >of this "parallel charter".
On 2026-08-06, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn1179p7v.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-06, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/43
Have you, er, actually looked at the page at that URL?
Fair enough. So the offences covered by Section 43 are also
covered by The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Hence
Section 43 being omitted; "in so far as not already in force".
So that "Pre Paid Credit Cards" would be just as illegal under
the terms of The Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000, in
so far as not already in force, as they were under the Consumer
Credit Act of 1974
Ok, super. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 has
four hundred and thirty three sections, and 22 schedules.
Which bit are you saying made it illegal to advertise a
prepaid card as a "prepaid credit card" ten years ago?
A prepaid card that only allows you to spend up to the amount you
have pre-loaded onto it does not offer "credit" and therefore
calling it a "[prepaid] credit card" is misleading and inaccurate.
I've repeatedly called on people to cease and desist, but they refuse
to.
You could perhaps set a good example, and stop bothering to angrily >contradict them?
1) A prepaid card that only allows you to spend up to the amount you
have pre-loaded onto it does not offer "credit" and therefore
calling it a "[prepaid] credit card" is misleading and inaccurate.
Hmmm... Isee the force of that, but I'm not so sure (and this is the
very first time I've made any comment on this matter).
Surely a loadable card ("elecyronic wallet" as I seem to remember them
being called) is analogous to a PAYG phone?
I haven't abused anyone.
Yes, you have, it's there plain to see, and I posted you an example.
No you didn't.
In message <slrn117a3td.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 22:50:21 on Thu, 6 Aug 2026, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
On 2026-08-06, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn1179p7v.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-06, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/43
Have you, er, actually looked at the page at that URL?
Fair enough. So the offences covered by Section 43 are also
covered by The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Hence
Section 43 being omitted; "in so far as not already in force".
So that "Pre Paid Credit Cards" would be just as illegal under
the terms of The Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000, in
so far as not already in force, as they were under the Consumer
Credit Act of 1974
Ok, super. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 has
four hundred and thirty three sections, and 22 schedules.
Which bit are you saying made it illegal to advertise a
prepaid card as a "prepaid credit card" ten years ago?
He doesn't know, because he's an armchair (aka barrack-room) lawyer
with no formal training.
In message <ndjvm8FevqiU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:47:52 on Thu, 6 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 06/08/2026 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndjcjrFc4g6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:22:18 on Thu, 6
Aug-a 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 06/08/2026 10:08, Roland Perry wrote:-aIt was agreed in a vote, within the 72hrs, by a majority of one in
In message <ndivv9F8vskU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:46:31 on Thu,
6-a Aug-a 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aA mistake isn't the same as a decision people disagree with. A >>>>>>> mistake-a would be banning the wrong person due to finger trouble. >>>>>>Then why was it rescinded?
-aBecause the ban I asked for a vote on, was only to last a week.
How on earth does that answer the question?
It should, according to the rules, have been agreed by a majority of
the moderators within 72 hours, not a week, whatever your proposal was. >>>>
And it wasn't.
favour, three abstentions. Is that clear enough?
Hang on a mo!-a There are four moderators.
How many out of four constitutes 'a majority'?
It's not just one, is it?
And the moderation policy doesn't say 'a majority of those who could
be arsed to vote', does it?
No, it says 'The moderators should confirm the decision of any one
moderator by a majority of *all* moderators'.
Which it wasn't.
Do stop being so utterly disingenuous.
You clearly don't understand voting systems. So stop being so silly.
AFAICS we have no evidence that anyone other than Mr Perry envisaged a fixed term at all, let alone one of specifically seven days. So we have no evidence of this "parallel charter".
It is really a shame you do not publish a useable email address (it would not have to be publicly linked to your RL identity) as then the moderators would probably have been impelled by their own rules to communicate details of their
decision to you.
In message <ndk8ttFgaiaU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:25:33 on Thu, 6 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
The most likely scenario in my view is that an email or other
communication may have been sent out at some time by Mr Perry who then
conveniently concluded, because none of the others said anything
within a very short time afterwards, that he had won.-a That was shabby
and disingenuous but suited his purposes because he was totally unable
to admit he was wrong, which the subsequent rescinding of the ban
showed he was.
Your abusive attitude is noted.
And so presumably I was mistaken
on the one hand Mr Perry has specifically stated, that he banned
me for a period of seven days
Whilst on the other hand, two other moderators claimed that my ban was >"lifted" after seven days.
It is really a shame you do not publish a useable email address (it would not have to be publicly linked to your RL identity) as then the moderators would probably have been impelled by their own rules to communicate details of their
decision to you.
In message <2356662131.12707c3b@uninhabited.net>, at 13:39:26 on Thu, 6
Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I've repeatedly called on people to cease and desist, but they refuse
to.
You could perhaps set a good example, and stop bothering to angrily
contradict them?
When people make false allegations (repeatedly), I have a right of
reply.
Which bit are you saying made it illegal to advertise a
prepaid card as a "prepaid credit card" ten years ago?
He doesn't know, because he's an armchair (aka barrack-room) lawyer
with no formal training.
I don't need to know.
On 7 Aug 2026 at 08:33:27 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <2356662131.12707c3b@uninhabited.net>, at 13:39:26 on Thu, 6
Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I've repeatedly called on people to cease and desist, but they refuse
to.
You could perhaps set a good example, and stop bothering to angrily
contradict them?
When people make false allegations (repeatedly), I have a right of
reply.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it is always expedient to take advantage of >that right.
In message <9294192752.92bd1995@uninhabited.net>, at 08:55:42 on Fri, 7
Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 08:33:27 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <2356662131.12707c3b@uninhabited.net>, at 13:39:26 on Thu, 6
Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I've repeatedly called on people to cease and desist, but they refuse >>>>> to.
You could perhaps set a good example, and stop bothering to angrily
contradict them?
When people make false allegations (repeatedly), I have a right of
reply.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it is always expedient to take advantage of
that right.
It someone repeatedly accused you here, of in their opinion having been
fired from your job in the NHS because of accusations of kiddy-fiddling, would you just ignore it?
On 7 Aug 2026 at 10:09:23 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <9294192752.92bd1995@uninhabited.net>, at 08:55:42 on Fri, 7
Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 08:33:27 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <2356662131.12707c3b@uninhabited.net>, at 13:39:26 on Thu, 6 >>>> Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I've repeatedly called on people to cease and desist, but they refuse >>>>>> to.
You could perhaps set a good example, and stop bothering to angrily
contradict them?
When people make false allegations (repeatedly), I have a right of
reply.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it is always expedient to take advantage of
that right.
It someone repeatedly accused you here, of in their opinion having been
fired from your job in the NHS because of accusations of kiddy-fiddling,
would you just ignore it?
I certainly wouldn't indulge in an endless dialogue of accusation and rebuttal!
In message <115426g$fqi6$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:41:02 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
Which bit are you saying made it illegal to advertise a
prepaid card as a "prepaid credit card" ten years ago?
He doesn't know, because he's an armchair (aka barrack-room) lawyer
with no formal training.
I don't need to know.
If you don't need to know,
In message <9294192752.92bd1995@uninhabited.net>, at 08:55:42 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 08:33:27 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <2356662131.12707c3b@uninhabited.net>, at 13:39:26 on Thu, 6
Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I've repeatedly called on people to cease and desist, but they refuse >>>>> to.
You could perhaps set a good example, and stop bothering to angrily
contradict them?
When people make false allegations (repeatedly), I have a right of
reply.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it is always expedient to take advantage of
that right.
It someone repeatedly accused you here, of in their opinion having been fired
from your job in the NHS because of accusations of kiddy-fiddling, would you just ignore it?
In message <1154337$g48b$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:56:21 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
on the one hand Mr Perry has specifically stated, that he banned
me for a period of seven days
Whilst on the other hand, two other moderators claimed that my ban was >>"lifted" after seven days.
I'm happy for other moderators to action the lifting of such a ban. Saves me some work.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:jgDDMZLQMZdqFAcT@perry.uk...
In message <1154337$g48b$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:56:21 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, >> billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
on the one hand Mr Perry has specifically stated, that he banned
me for a period of seven days
Whilst on the other hand, two other moderators claimed that my ban was >>>"lifted" after seven days.
I'm happy for other moderators to action the lifting of such a ban.
Saves me some work.
If it was only for seven days then it wouldn't need to be lifted
once the seven days elapsed, would it ?
That would happen automatcally.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:jgDDMZLQMZdqFAcT@perry.uk...
In message <1154337$g48b$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:56:21 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, >> billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
on the one hand Mr Perry has specifically stated, that he banned
me for a period of seven days
Whilst on the other hand, two other moderators claimed that my ban was
"lifted" after seven days.
I'm happy for other moderators to action the lifting of such a ban. Saves me
some work.
If it was only for seven days then it wouldn't need to be lifted
once the seven days elapsed, would it ?
That would happen automatcally.
Go on !
Why not snip that bit again; you know you want to !
bb
In message <1151ke7$3nf7t$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:33:59 on Thu, 6 Aug
2026, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <0055809631.f5bb995e@uninhabited.net>, at 23:42:38 on Mon, 3
Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I at least was willing to concede that the marketing liars who sold him >>>> his cards probably called them "credit cards" while Mr Bookcase was rather >>>> hung up on the concrete thinking approach of pointing out that they did not
provide credit.
The issue here is that there were three kinds of card:
1. Charge cards, where you pay the whole amount off at the end of the
month
2. Debit cards, where the funds are extracted from a linked bank
account.
3. Credit cards, where there were two kinds:
a. That you pay off some of the bill at the end of the month
b. Where the funds are extracted from a pre-paid amount.
I can't make it any clearer than that.
You have described four kinds of card, not three. Using the same name for
two kinds of payment cards with fundamentally incompatible properties is
consistent with misleading marketing but not helpful where the properties
are the key issue. The original issue was age verification and offering
credit with the associated legal restrictions on who may enter into the
necessary agreement is what matters, not what marketing chooses to call the >> card.
I think you'll find that the payments system only recognised the three
types of card, and not the nuance of the two different type-3.
Nowadays you can get a fourth kind, which identifies itself as a debit
card, but the funds are extracted from a pre-paid amount, rather than a
linked bank account.
The Payment Systems Regulator describes prepaid cards as distinct from
either credit or debit cards.
https://www.psr.org.uk/information-for-consumers/ways-of-paying/
Was that rule in place ten years ago?
Or did you perhaps fail to read my posting. Here I'll help:
Nowadays you can get a fourth kind
If the card is a stored value prepaid card that is not linked to a bank
account then it may be identified as a debit card in the mind of the
marketing department but the payment processing is necessarily different so >> as far as the machinery is concerned it is not a debit card.
In what way does the payment system work differently? For example do TfL gates behave differently as a result.
If the prepaid card is linked to an account that is not a bank account then >> the processing may be done in the same way as for a debit card but I would >> need more than repeated assertions to accept that it is identified as a
debit card in anything other than the marketing and the minds of those who >> are taken in by it.
Find some evidence that payment terminals treat them differently.
A debit card linked to a bank account with zero overdraft would be similar >> to a prepaid card in some respects but there would have been different
processes for setting up the account.
The main difference for the user is that a pre-paid card has the funds already loaded, whereas if you are trying to imitate a pre-paid card
with a bank account, you'd have to not only lend someone the card, but
go to the bother of transferring a smallish amount of money to that bank account. Which 10yrs ago wasn't as easy as it is today.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message >news:TSHvAkMDDadqFAJd@perry.uk...
In message <9294192752.92bd1995@uninhabited.net>, at 08:55:42 on Fri, 7 >>Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 08:33:27 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <2356662131.12707c3b@uninhabited.net>, at 13:39:26 on Thu, 6 >>>>Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I've repeatedly called on people to cease and desist, but they refuse >>>>>>to.
You could perhaps set a good example, and stop bothering to angrily >>>>>contradict them?
When people make false allegations (repeatedly), I have a right of >>>>reply.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it is always expedient to take >>>advantage of
that right.
It someone repeatedly accused you here, of in their opinion having been >>fired from your job in the NHS because of accusations of kiddy-fiddling, >>would you just ignore it?
ROFK&S&LMAO ! *
Talk about desperate !
bb
* For the benefit of younger readers; as this phrase no longer seems
to feature on Google searches
"Rolling on the Floor, Kicking and Screaming, and Laughing My Ass Off
If it was only for seven days then it wouldn't need to be lifted
once the seven days elapsed, would it ?
That would happen automatcally.
If the prepaid card is linked to an account that is not a bank account then >>> the processing may be done in the same way as for a debit card but I would >>> need more than repeated assertions to accept that it is identified as a
debit card in anything other than the marketing and the minds of those who >>> are taken in by it.
Find some evidence that payment terminals treat them differently.
Read your own response and reflect on the nature of the mechanisms
necessary to implement what you have described.
On 7 Aug 2026 at 10:09:23 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <9294192752.92bd1995@uninhabited.net>, at 08:55:42 on Fri, 7
Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 08:33:27 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <2356662131.12707c3b@uninhabited.net>, at 13:39:26 on Thu, 6 >>>> Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I've repeatedly called on people to cease and desist, but they refuse >>>>>> to.
You could perhaps set a good example, and stop bothering to angrily
contradict them?
When people make false allegations (repeatedly), I have a right of
reply.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it is always expedient to take >>>advantage of
that right.
It someone repeatedly accused you here, of in their opinion having been
fired from your job in the NHS because of accusations of kiddy-fiddling,
would you just ignore it?
I certainly wouldn't indulge in an endless dialogue of accusation and >rebuttal!
In message <9524612291.3cdf3b53@uninhabited.net>, at 09:34:06 on Fri, 7
Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 10:09:23 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <9294192752.92bd1995@uninhabited.net>, at 08:55:42 on Fri, 7
Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 08:33:27 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <2356662131.12707c3b@uninhabited.net>, at 13:39:26 on Thu, 6 >>>>> Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I've repeatedly called on people to cease and desist, but they refuse >>>>>>> to.
You could perhaps set a good example, and stop bothering to angrily >>>>>> contradict them?
When people make false allegations (repeatedly), I have a right of
reply.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it is always expedient to take
advantage of
that right.
It someone repeatedly accused you here, of in their opinion having been
fired from your job in the NHS because of accusations of kiddy-fiddling, >>> would you just ignore it?
I certainly wouldn't indulge in an endless dialogue of accusation and
rebuttal!
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then you
agree the accusation is true.
On 7 Aug 2026 at 10:34:06 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 10:09:23 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <9294192752.92bd1995@uninhabited.net>, at 08:55:42 on Fri, 7
Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 08:33:27 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <2356662131.12707c3b@uninhabited.net>, at 13:39:26 on Thu, 6 >>>>> Aug 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I've repeatedly called on people to cease and desist, but they refuse >>>>>>> to.
You could perhaps set a good example, and stop bothering to angrily >>>>>> contradict them?
When people make false allegations (repeatedly), I have a right of
reply.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it is always expedient to take >>>>advantage of
that right.
It someone repeatedly accused you here, of in their opinion having been
fired from your job in the NHS because of accusations of kiddy-fiddling, >>> would you just ignore it?
I certainly wouldn't indulge in an endless dialogue of accusation and
rebuttal!
And in a moderated group I might well decide to sue the moderators or a >relevant news server operator if they failed to respond appropriately to a >request to prevent repetition. As you know, there are precedents!
My point being that if you had actually been called a liar (which you weren't)
the individual posts would have been rejectable according to your policy.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message >news:vREQwEMP3ZdqFA+b@perry.uk...
In message <115426g$fqi6$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:41:02 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, >> billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
Which bit are you saying made it illegal to advertise a
prepaid card as a "prepaid credit card" ten years ago?
He doesn't know, because he's an armchair (aka barrack-room) lawyer
with no formal training.
I don't need to know.
If you don't need to know,
As I go on to explain, in the paragraph that you snipped.
Ban me on ULM; snip my posts on UNNM.
There really are no depths to which you won't lower yourself
in your vain attempts to hide your utter humiliation, are
there ?
If someone repeatedly accused you here, of in their opinion having
been fired from your job in the NHS because of accusations of
kiddy-fiddling, would you just ignore it?
I certainly wouldn't indulge in an endless dialogue of accusation and
rebuttal!
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then you
agree the accusation is true.
Well again, I only need to say this once; I think that is nonsense. Repeat >your assertion every half hour for the next ten years if you like.
In message <1154i9a$l60m$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:15:38 on Fri, 7 Aug
2026, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
If the prepaid card is linked to an account that is not a bank account then
the processing may be done in the same way as for a debit card but I would >>>> need more than repeated assertions to accept that it is identified as a >>>> debit card in anything other than the marketing and the minds of those who >>>> are taken in by it.
Find some evidence that payment terminals treat them differently.
Read your own response and reflect on the nature of the mechanisms
necessary to implement what you have described.
That's already been discussed, do try to keep up!
Tools which say how cards are treated in 2026 do not appear to have a feature to backdate the query ten years.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <1154i9a$l60m$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:15:38 on Fri, 7 Aug
2026, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
If the prepaid card is linked to an account that is not a bank >>>>>account then
the processing may be done in the same way as for a debit card but I would
need more than repeated assertions to accept that it is identified as a >>>>> debit card in anything other than the marketing and the minds of those who
are taken in by it.
Find some evidence that payment terminals treat them differently.
Read your own response and reflect on the nature of the mechanisms
necessary to implement what you have described.
That's already been discussed, do try to keep up!
The issue has not been discussed.
Tools which say how cards are treated in 2026 do not appear to have a
feature to backdate the query ten years.
Selective quotation and misrepresentation of what I originally wrote do not >make your case.
On 07/08/2026 07:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndjvm8FevqiU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:47:52 on Thu, 6
Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 06/08/2026 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndjcjrFc4g6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:22:18 on Thu,
6 Auga 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 06/08/2026 10:08, Roland Perry wrote:aIt was agreed in a vote, within the 72hrs, by a majority of one in >>>>favour, three abstentions. Is that clear enough?
In message <ndivv9F8vskU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:46:31 on >>>>>>Thu, 6a Auga 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
aA mistake isn't the same as a decision people disagree with. A >>>>>>>>mistakea would be banning the wrong person due to finger >>>>>>>>trouble.
Then why was it rescinded?
aBecause the ban I asked for a vote on, was only to last a week.
How on earth does that answer the question?
It should, according to the rules, have been agreed by a majority >>>>>of the moderators within 72 hours, not a week, whatever your >>>>>proposal was.
And it wasn't.
Hang on a mo!a There are four moderators.
How many out of four constitutes 'a majority'?
It's not just one, is it?
And the moderation policy doesn't say 'a majority of those who could
be arsed to vote', does it?
No, it says 'The moderators should confirm the decision of any one >>>moderator by a majority of *all* moderators'.
Which it wasn't.
Do stop being so utterly disingenuous.
You clearly don't understand voting systems. So stop being so silly.
There are four moderators. How many constitute 'a majority of all >moderators', as required by the moderation policy?
It's a simple question.
On 07/08/2026 08:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndk8ttFgaiaU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:25:33 on Thu, 6
Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
The most likely scenario in my view is that an email or other >>>communication may have been sent out at some time by Mr Perry who
then conveniently concluded, because none of the others said
anything within a very short time afterwards, that he had won.a That >>>was shabby and disingenuous but suited his purposes because he was >>>totally unable to admit he was wrong, which the subsequent
rescinding of the ban showed he was.
Your abusive attitude is noted.
As is your very revealing evasion and sensitivity about this.
The truth cannot be abusive.
If you think it is not the truth, contradict it and tell us what you
say the truth is.
On 06/08/2026 22:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
It is really a shame you do not publish a useable email address (it would not
have to be publicly linked to your RL identity) as then the moderators would >> probably have been impelled by their own rules to communicate details
of their
decision to you.
That implies that they were following their own rules in this case,
which is extremely dubious for the reasons that have been discussed.
Anyway, there is no requirement for anything to be done by email. The >moderation policy merely says:
"The moderators ... 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."
He could easily have been informed here in this group, for example.
But I don't think they made any attempt at all.
If they did, they'll be able to say what, won't they?
In message <ndlhteFm09gU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:05:01 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 07/08/2026 08:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndk8ttFgaiaU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:25:33 on Thu, 6
Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
The most likely scenario in my view is that an email or other
communication may have been sent out at some time by Mr Perry who
then conveniently concluded, because none of the others said
anything within a very short time afterwards, that he had won. That
was shabby and disingenuous but suited his purposes because he was
totally unable to admit he was wrong, which the subsequent
rescinding of the ban showed he was.
Your abusive attitude is noted.
As is your very revealing evasion and sensitivity about this.
The truth cannot be abusive.
If you think it is not the truth, contradict it and tell us what you
say the truth is.
The truth is that several people posting here are abusive towards myself (perhaps because I'm a moderator, or maybe I did something else to
offend them).
In message <ndlh7pFm09gU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:53:28 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 07/08/2026 07:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndjvm8FevqiU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:47:52 on Thu, 6
Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 06/08/2026 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndjcjrFc4g6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:22:18 on Thu,
6 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 06/08/2026 10:08, Roland Perry wrote:It was agreed in a vote, within the 72hrs, by a majority of one in
In message <ndivv9F8vskU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:46:31 on
Thu, 6 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
A mistake isn't the same as a decision people disagree with. A >>>>>>>>> mistake would be banning the wrong person due to finger
trouble.
Then why was it rescinded?
Because the ban I asked for a vote on, was only to last a week.
How on earth does that answer the question?
It should, according to the rules, have been agreed by a majority
of the moderators within 72 hours, not a week, whatever your
proposal was.
And it wasn't.
favour, three abstentions. Is that clear enough?
Hang on a mo! There are four moderators.
How many out of four constitutes 'a majority'?
It's not just one, is it?
And the moderation policy doesn't say 'a majority of those who could
be arsed to vote', does it?
No, it says 'The moderators should confirm the decision of any one
moderator by a majority of *all* moderators'.
Which it wasn't.
Do stop being so utterly disingenuous.
You clearly don't understand voting systems. So stop being so silly.
There are four moderators. How many constitute 'a majority of all
moderators', as required by the moderation policy?
It's a simple question.
More voting "for" than "against".
I didn't think you were so ignorant of voting procedures, or are you
being deliberately obtuse?
In message <ndlh7pFm09gU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:53:28 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 07/08/2026 07:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndjvm8FevqiU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:47:52 on Thu, 6
Aug-a 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 06/08/2026 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndjcjrFc4g6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:22:18 on Thu,
6-a Aug-a 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 06/08/2026 10:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndivv9F8vskU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:46:31 on
Thu,-a 6-a Aug-a 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
It should, according to the rules, have been agreed by a majority >>>>>> of-a the moderators within 72 hours, not a week, whatever your
proposal was.
And it wasn't.
-aIt was agreed in a vote, within the 72hrs, by a majority of one in >>>>> favour, three abstentions. Is that clear enough?
Hang on a mo!-a There are four moderators.
How many out of four constitutes 'a majority'?
It's not just one, is it?
And the moderation policy doesn't say 'a majority of those who could
be arsed to vote', does it?
No, it says 'The moderators should confirm the decision of any one
moderator by a majority of *all* moderators'.
Which it wasn't.
Do stop being so utterly disingenuous.
-aYou clearly don't understand voting systems. So stop being so silly.
There are four moderators.-a How many constitute 'a majority of all
moderators', as required by the moderation policy?
It's a simple question.
More voting "for" than "against".
I didn't think you were so ignorant of voting procedures, or are you
being deliberately obtuse?
On 2026-08-07, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jgDDMZLQMZdqFAcT@perry.uk...
In message <1154337$g48b$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:56:21 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, >>> billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
on the one hand Mr Perry has specifically stated, that he banned
me for a period of seven days
Whilst on the other hand, two other moderators claimed that my ban was >>>>"lifted" after seven days.
I'm happy for other moderators to action the lifting of such a ban.
Saves me some work.
If it was only for seven days then it wouldn't need to be lifted
once the seven days elapsed, would it ?
That would happen automatcally.
Why do you keep making things up out of whole cloth and asserting
them as fact when they are nothing of the sort, they are just figments
of your imagination?
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn117bfoe.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-07, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jgDDMZLQMZdqFAcT@perry.uk...
In message <1154337$g48b$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:56:21 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, >>>> billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
on the one hand Mr Perry has specifically stated, that he banned
me for a period of seven days
Whilst on the other hand, two other moderators claimed that my ban was >>>>> "lifted" after seven days.
I'm happy for other moderators to action the lifting of such a ban.
Saves me some work.
If it was only for seven days then it wouldn't need to be lifted
once the seven days elapsed, would it ?
That would happen automatcally.
Why do you keep making things up out of whole cloth and asserting
them as fact when they are nothing of the sort, they are just figments
of your imagination?
The only fact we have from Mr Perry is the following
Mr Perry banned me for seven days.
But if he only banned me for seven days, (and say not eight or nine
days ) then to most people at least that would seem to imply
that I *wasn't*banned on the eighth day.
And given Mr Perry was so insistent on this seven day limit, I
naturally assumed like many people no doubt, that it would
work like setting the timer on a video recorder, or similar.
Otherwise Mr. Perry could have simply banned me, and decided
the sentence later. Except he didn't, did he ?. He decided
on seven days and you all voted on it. Or at least abstained.
bb
In message <ndlhteFm09gU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:05:01 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 07/08/2026 08:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndk8ttFgaiaU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:25:33 on Thu, 6
Aug-a 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
The most likely scenario in my view is that an email or other
communication may have been sent out at some time by Mr Perry who
then-a conveniently concluded, because none of the others said
anything-a within a very short time afterwards, that he had won.
That was shabby-a and disingenuous but suited his purposes because he >>>> was totally unable-a to admit he was wrong, which the subsequent
rescinding of the ban-a showed he was.
-aYour abusive attitude is noted.
As is your very revealing evasion and sensitivity about this.
The truth cannot be abusive.
If you think it is not the truth, contradict it and tell us what you
say the truth is.
The truth is that several people posting here are abusive towards myself (perhaps because I'm a moderator, or maybe I did something else to
offend them).
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then you agree
the accusation is true.
There are no depths to which I will not sink, Michael Adams,
The only fact we have from Mr Perry is the following
Mr Perry banned me for seven days.
But if he only banned me for seven days, (and say not eight or nine
days ) then to most people at least that would seem to imply
that I *wasn't*banned on the eighth day.
And given Mr Perry was so insistent on this seven day limit, I
naturally assumed like many people no doubt, that it would
work like setting the timer on a video recorder, or similar.
Otherwise Mr. Perry could have simply banned me, and decided
the sentence later. Except he didn't, did he ?. He decided
on seven days and you all voted on it. Or at least abstained.
In message <ndlietFm09gU3@mid.individual.net>, at 09:14:20 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 06/08/2026 22:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
It is really a shame you do not publish a useable email address (it
would not
have to be publicly linked to your RL identity) as then the
moderators would
probably have been impelled by their own rules to communicate details
of their
decision to you.
That implies that they were following their own rules in this case,
which is extremely dubious for the reasons that have been discussed.
Anyway, there is no requirement for anything to be done by email.-a The
moderation policy merely says:
"The moderators ... 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."
He could easily have been informed here in this group, for example.
But I don't think they made any attempt at all.
If they did, they'll be able to say what, won't they?
Before we had a chance to (emailing billy@anon.com is hardly likely to
be fruitful), he popped up here complaining. Those complaints all
answered in full.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn117bfoe.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-07, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
If it was only for seven days then it wouldn't need to be lifted
once the seven days elapsed, would it ?
That would happen automatcally.
Why do you keep making things up out of whole cloth and asserting
them as fact when they are nothing of the sort, they are just figments
of your imagination?
The only fact we have from Mr Perry is the following
Mr Perry banned me for seven days.
But if he only banned me for seven days, (and say not eight or nine
days ) then to most people at least that would seem to imply
that I *wasn't*banned on the eighth day.
And given Mr Perry was so insistent on this seven day limit, I
naturally assumed like many people no doubt, that it would
work like setting the timer on a video recorder, or similar.
On 2026-08-07, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn117bfoe.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-07, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
If it was only for seven days then it wouldn't need to be lifted
once the seven days elapsed, would it ?
That would happen automatcally.
Why do you keep making things up out of whole cloth and asserting
them as fact when they are nothing of the sort, they are just figments
of your imagination?
The only fact we have from Mr Perry is the following
Mr Perry banned me for seven days.
But if he only banned me for seven days, (and say not eight or nine
days ) then to most people at least that would seem to imply
that I *wasn't*banned on the eighth day.
Yes. And you weren't "banned" on the eighth day, and you know you
weren't, and you know it is a manual process, because I informed
you on the 7th day that I had gone to remove you from the suspension
list and found you were already removed from it.
https://usenet.id/slrn115vvkp.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu
And given Mr Perry was so insistent on this seven day limit, I
naturally assumed like many people no doubt, that it would
work like setting the timer on a video recorder, or similar.
Your assumption was incorrect. That's the danger with assumptions.
Many people would naturally proceed a bit more cautiously than you,
knowing that they were basing their assertions upon an assumption.
On 2026-08-07, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn117bfoe.69j.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-07, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
If it was only for seven days then it wouldn't need to be lifted
once the seven days elapsed, would it ?
That would happen automatcally.
Why do you keep making things up out of whole cloth and asserting
them as fact when they are nothing of the sort, they are just figments
of your imagination?
The only fact we have from Mr Perry is the following
Mr Perry banned me for seven days.
But if he only banned me for seven days, (and say not eight or nine
days ) then to most people at least that would seem to imply
that I *wasn't*banned on the eighth day.
Yes. And you weren't "banned" on the eighth day, and you know you
weren't, and you know it is a manual process, because I informed
you on the 7th day that I had gone to remove you from the suspension
list and found you were already removed from it.
https://usenet.id/slrn115vvkp.sfa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu
Because on the one hand Mr Perry has specifically stated, that he banned
me for a period of seven days
Whilst on the other hand, two other moderators claimed that my ban was "lifted" after seven days. With one of them actually claiming responsibility.
In message <1154pgf$nn25$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:18:55 on Fri, 7 Aug
2026, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <1154i9a$l60m$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:15:38 on Fri, 7 Aug
2026, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
If the prepaid card is linked to an account that is not a bank
account then
the processing may be done in the same way as for a debit card but I would
need more than repeated assertions to accept that it is identified as a >>>>>> debit card in anything other than the marketing and the minds of those who
are taken in by it.
Find some evidence that payment terminals treat them differently.
Read your own response and reflect on the nature of the mechanisms
necessary to implement what you have described.
That's already been discussed, do try to keep up!
The issue has not been discussed.
It has, so I can't imagine what you motivation is in denying it.
Tools which say how cards are treated in 2026 do not appear to have a
feature to backdate the query ten years.
Selective quotation and misrepresentation of what I originally wrote do not >> make your case.
But the evidence I've provided, does. If you've forgotten, or weren't
paying attention then that's not my fault.
The truth is that several people posting here are abusive towards myself
(perhaps because I'm a moderator, or maybe I did something else to
offend them).
Perhaps you regard any doubt expressed as to the accuracy of your opinions or >recollections as abusive?
Many of us take this in our stride. Indeed, sometimes, if rarely, we
admit we were mistaken or misled about something!
The truth is that several people posting here are abusive towards
myself (perhaps because I'm a moderator, or maybe I did something
else to offend them).
So, you don't deny or rebut anything I posited, or even address it, but >continue to be revealingly evasive and foggy.
Wasn't it you who said earlier:
"Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then
you agree the accusation is true"?
Yes, I think it was. And only a few hours ago too.
He could easily have been informed here in this group, for example.
But I don't think they made any attempt at all.
If they did, they'll be able to say what, won't they?
Before we had a chance to (emailing billy@anon.com is hardly likely
to be fruitful), he popped up here complaining. Those complaints all >>answered in full.
If you believe that, you are deluding yourself.
But you don't believe that, so you're lying.
And given Mr Perry was so insistent on this seven day limit, I
naturally assumed like many people no doubt, that it would
work like setting the timer on a video recorder, or similar.
You don't really have much of a clue about anything, do you ?
On 07/08/2026 16:45, billy bookcase wrote:
The only fact we have from Mr Perry is the following
Mr Perry banned me for seven days.
But if he only banned me for seven days, (and say not eight or nine
days ) then to most people at least that would seem to imply
that I *wasn't*banned on the eighth day.
And given Mr Perry was so insistent on this seven day limit, I
naturally assumed like many people no doubt, that it would
work like setting the timer on a video recorder, or similar.
Otherwise Mr. Perry could have simply banned me, and decided
the sentence later. Except he didn't, did he ?. He decided
on seven days and you all voted on it. Or at least abstained.
Or weren't actually asked, or weren't asked in a realistic time frame
to respond within their own rules, or non-replies were rapidly assumed
and classified by him as what he calls 'abstentions'. We don't know,
and the moderators are so reluctant to say that the inevitable
conclusion is that it smells.
In message <ndmd4bFq0j4U2@mid.individual.net>, at 16:49:30 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aThe truth is that several people posting here are abusive towards
myself-a (perhaps because I'm a moderator, or maybe I did something
else to-a offend them).
So, you don't deny or rebut anything I posited, or even address it,
but continue to be revealingly evasive and foggy.
It's your comprehension which is foggy, responses evasive.
Wasn't it you who said earlier:
"Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then
you agree the accusation is true"?
Yes, I think it was.-a And only a few hours ago too.
This looks to me like AI-slop. Has your account been hacked?
In message <ndmdp4Fq0j4U3@mid.individual.net>, at 17:00:36 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 07/08/2026 16:45, billy bookcase wrote:
The only fact we have from Mr Perry is the following
-aMr Perry banned me for seven days.
-aBut if he only banned me for seven days, (and say not eight or nine
days ) then to most people at least that would seem to imply
that I *wasn't*banned on the eighth day.
-aAnd given Mr Perry was so insistent on this seven day limit, I
naturally assumed like many people no doubt, that it would
work like setting the timer on a video recorder, or similar.
-aOtherwise Mr. Perry could have simply banned me, and decided
the sentence later. Except he didn't, did he ?. He decided
on seven days and you all voted on it. Or at least abstained.
Or weren't actually asked, or weren't asked in a realistic time frame
to respond within their own rules, or non-replies were rapidly assumed
and classified by him as what he calls 'abstentions'.-a We don't know,
and the moderators are so reluctant to say that the inevitable
conclusion is that it smells.
The thing which smells most is your insistence on trying to fabricated a non-existent scandal.
In message <ndmdtnFq0j4U4@mid.individual.net>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 7 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
He could easily have been informed here in this group, for example.
But I don't think they made any attempt at all.
If they did, they'll be able to say what, won't they?
-aBefore we had a chance to (emailing billy@anon.com is hardly likely
to-a be fruitful), he popped up here complaining. Those complaints all
answered in full.
If you believe that, you are deluding yourself.
If you believe I'm deluding myself, then you are either deluded or
lying, or trolling.
But you don't believe that, so you're lying.
So which are you?
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then you agree
the accusation is true.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:eGXsFoCCtddqFA5+@perry.uk...
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then you agree
the accusation is true.
So that had I not consistently argued that, contrary to your claim,
there are and never have been any such things as Pre-Paid Credit Cards,
then I would have agreed that your claim was true.
On 8 Aug 2026 at 10:31:59 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eGXsFoCCtddqFA5+@perry.uk...
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then you >>> agree
the accusation is true.
So that had I not consistently argued that, contrary to your claim,
there are and never have been any such things as Pre-Paid Credit Cards,
then I would have agreed that your claim was true.
Leaving aside for a moment the absurdity of Roland's "etiquette" statement, would it matter?
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
You don't really have much of a clue about anything, do you ?
Are you talking to yourself in a mirror?
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:8219376964.571011e2@uninhabited.net...
On 8 Aug 2026 at 10:31:59 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eGXsFoCCtddqFA5+@perry.uk...
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then you >>>> agree
the accusation is true.
So that had I not consistently argued that, contrary to your claim,
there are and never have been any such things as Pre-Paid Credit Cards,
then I would have agreed that your claim was true.
Leaving aside for a moment the absurdity of Roland's "etiquette" statement, >> would it matter?
It certainly would for anyone, who having read Mt Perry's original posts
then spent the next days, weeks or even months vainly searching for a pre-paid credit card or their own.
bb
On 8 Aug 2026 at 10:51:52 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8219376964.571011e2@uninhabited.net...
On 8 Aug 2026 at 10:31:59 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eGXsFoCCtddqFA5+@perry.uk...
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then you >>>>> agree
the accusation is true.
So that had I not consistently argued that, contrary to your claim,
there are and never have been any such things as Pre-Paid Credit Cards, >>>> then I would have agreed that your claim was true.
Leaving aside for a moment the absurdity of Roland's "etiquette" statement, >>> would it matter?
It certainly would for anyone, who having read Mt Perry's original posts
then spent the next days, weeks or even months vainly searching for a
pre-paid credit card or their own.
bb
Are you trying to be humorous? I'm not sure it worked. Your statement just sounds deranged.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:8333303843.bb7c2f6d@uninhabited.net...
On 8 Aug 2026 at 10:51:52 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8219376964.571011e2@uninhabited.net...
On 8 Aug 2026 at 10:31:59 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eGXsFoCCtddqFA5+@perry.uk...
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then you >>>>>> agree
the accusation is true.
So that had I not consistently argued that, contrary to your claim,
there are and never have been any such things as Pre-Paid Credit Cards, >>>>> then I would have agreed that your claim was true.
Leaving aside for a moment the absurdity of Roland's "etiquette" statement,
would it matter?
It certainly would for anyone, who having read Mt Perry's original posts >>> then spent the next days, weeks or even months vainly searching for a
pre-paid credit card or their own.
bb
Are you trying to be humorous? I'm not sure it worked. Your statement just >> sounds deranged.
You asked "would it matter?".
And I gave you an example of where it would.
Are you sure you were replying to the correct post ?
bb
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message >news:eGXsFoCCtddqFA5+@perry.uk...
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then
you agree the accusation is true.
So that had I not consistently argued that, contrary to your claim,
there are and never have been any such things as Pre-Paid Credit Cards,
then I would have agreed that your claim was true.
In message <1156t2i$1c8p0$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:31:59 on Sat, 8 Aug 2026, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:eGXsFoCCtddqFA5+@perry.uk...
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then you
agree the accusation is true.
So that had I not consistently argued that, contrary to your claim,
there are and never have been any such things as Pre-Paid Credit Cards, >>then I would have agreed that your claim was true.
My claim was true,
so keep on flogging the dead horse.
Or preferably shut the fuck up.
Leaving aside for a moment the absurdity of Roland's "etiquette" statement, >> would it matter?
It certainly would for anyone, who having read Mt Perry's original posts
then spent the next days, weeks or even months vainly searching for a >pre-paid credit card or their own.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message >news:5YkFysFC7CeqFAVk@perry.uk...
In message <1156t2i$1c8p0$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:31:59 on Sat, 8 Aug 2026, >> billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message >>>news:eGXsFoCCtddqFA5+@perry.uk...
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then you >>>> agree the accusation is true.
So that had I not consistently argued that, contrary to your claim,
there are and never have been any such things as Pre-Paid Credit Cards, >>>then I would have agreed that your claim was true.
My claim was true,
Your claim of remembering having applied for and been issued with
two or more of these cards, is undoubtedly true,
And nobody had ever denied that.
What is in question is whether or not your memory is accurate
in this particular instance
Which is clearly open to question; given that you have yet to
produce any actual evidence for the existence of such cards.
Nor for that matter, thus far at least can anybody apart from
yourself apparently remember such cards; and from only ten years
ago at that.
You do see the problem here, I take it ?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <1154pgf$nn25$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:18:55 on Fri, 7 Aug
2026, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <1154i9a$l60m$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:15:38 on Fri, 7 Aug
2026, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
If the prepaid card is linked to an account that is not a bank >>>>>>>account then the processing may be done in the same way as for a >>>>>>>debit card but I would need more than repeated assertions to >>>>>>>accept that it is identified as a debit card in anything other >>>>>>>than the marketing and the minds of those who are taken in by it. >>>>>>Find some evidence that payment terminals treat them differently.
Read your own response and reflect on the nature of the mechanisms
necessary to implement what you have described.
That's already been discussed, do try to keep up!
The issue has not been discussed.
It has, so I can't imagine what you motivation is in denying it.
Tools which say how cards are treated in 2026 do not appear to have a
feature to backdate the query ten years.
Selective quotation and misrepresentation of what I originally wrote do not >>> make your case.
But the evidence I've provided, does. If you've forgotten, or weren't
paying attention then that's not my fault.
In accordance with usenet etiquette I am replying to say that you are
wrong.
In order to avoid endless replies I will say now that however you choose to >respond I do not now not will I ever accept that the points you make have
any merit.
You may now, if you wish, have the final, worthless and irrelevant word in >this sub-thread.
On 08/08/2026 06:33, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndmdp4Fq0j4U3@mid.individual.net>, at 17:00:36 on Fri, 7
Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 07/08/2026 16:45, billy bookcase wrote:
The only fact we have from Mr Perry is the following
aMr Perry banned me for seven days.
aBut if he only banned me for seven days, (and say not eight or nine
days ) then to most people at least that would seem to imply
that I *wasn't*banned on the eighth day.
aAnd given Mr Perry was so insistent on this seven day limit, I
naturally assumed like many people no doubt, that it would
work like setting the timer on a video recorder, or similar.
aOtherwise Mr. Perry could have simply banned me, and decided
the sentence later. Except he didn't, did he ?. He decided
on seven days and you all voted on it. Or at least abstained.
Or weren't actually asked, or weren't asked in a realistic time
frame to respond within their own rules, or non-replies were rapidly >>>assumed and classified by him as what he calls 'abstentions'.a We
don't know, and the moderators are so reluctant to say that the >>>inevitable conclusion is that it smells.
The thing which smells most is your insistence on trying to
fabricated a non-existent scandal.
Then tell us your version of the truth on the matters raised above.
On 08/08/2026 06:31, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndmdtnFq0j4U4@mid.individual.net>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 7
Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
If you believe I'm deluding myself, then you are either deluded or >>lying, or trolling.He could easily have been informed here in this group, for
example.
But I don't think they made any attempt at all.
If they did, they'll be able to say what, won't they?
aBefore we had a chance to (emailing billy@anon.com is hardly
likely toa be fruitful), he popped up here complaining. Those >>>>complaints all answered in full.
If you believe that, you are deluding yourself.
But you don't believe that, so you're lying.So which are you?
You are the one refusing to answer straight questions here.
You are the one who's maintaining he's answered in full when that is so >obviously not the truth.
You are the one who, like some cheap politician, thinks he can pull the
wool over anyone's eyes if he just blusters on long enough.
You are the one who maintains he has followed the rules when he hasn't.
You are the troll, sir.
On 08/08/2026 06:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndmd4bFq0j4U2@mid.individual.net>, at 16:49:30 on Fri, 7
Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
It's your comprehension which is foggy, responses evasive.aThe truth is that several people posting here are abusive towards >>>>myselfa (perhaps because I'm a moderator, or maybe I did something >>>>else toa offend them).
So, you don't deny or rebut anything I posited, or even address it,
but continue to be revealingly evasive and foggy.
Wasn't it you who said earlier:
"Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then >>>you agree the accusation is true"?
Yes, I think it was.a And only a few hours ago too.
This looks to me like AI-slop. Has your account been hacked?
You're trolling again I see.
Never addressing the issue.
You've done it before, and it's now looking very much like an innate >characteristic.
In message <ndo2iqF44baU2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:01:46 on Sat, 8 Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 08/08/2026 06:33, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndmdp4Fq0j4U3@mid.individual.net>, at 17:00:36 on Fri, 7
Aug-a 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 07/08/2026 16:45, billy bookcase wrote:
The only fact we have from Mr Perry is the following
-aMr Perry banned me for seven days.
-aBut if he only banned me for seven days, (and say not eight or nine >>>>> days ) then to most people at least that would seem to imply
that I *wasn't*banned on the eighth day.
-aAnd given Mr Perry was so insistent on this seven day limit, I
naturally assumed like many people no doubt, that it would
work like setting the timer on a video recorder, or similar.
-aOtherwise Mr. Perry could have simply banned me, and decided
the sentence later. Except he didn't, did he ?. He decided
on seven days and you all voted on it. Or at least abstained.
Or weren't actually asked, or weren't asked in a realistic time
frame-a to respond within their own rules, or non-replies were
rapidly assumed-a and classified by him as what he calls
'abstentions'.-a We don't know,-a and the moderators are so reluctant >>>> to say that the inevitable-a conclusion is that it smells.
-aThe thing which smells most is your insistence on trying to
fabricated a-a non-existent scandal.
Then tell us your version of the truth on the matters raised above.
Someone else with attention-span of a gnat.
BB was repeatedly abusive, so I asked for a vote to suspend him for a
week. [Passed]
He was reinstated towards the end of the week.
You are taking a view similar to the pre-reformation Catholic Church.
Only the holy can interpret the word of god, which must be discussed in >Latin.
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 09:25:44 +0100, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
You are taking a view similar to the pre-reformation Catholic Church.
Only the holy can interpret the word of god, which must be discussed in
Latin.
LOL, it never fails to amuse me when someone wants to have a pop at
the Catholic Church and have to go back hundreds of years to do so.
There are four moderators.a How many constitute 'a majority of all >>>moderators', as required by the moderation policy?
It's a simple question.
More voting "for" than "against".
I didn't think you were so ignorant of voting procedures, or are you >>being deliberately obtuse?
None of the other moderators agreed with you.
None.
None of them 'confirmed' your decision, as the rules specifically state
is required.
BB was repeatedly abusive, so I asked for a vote to suspend him for
a week. [Passed]
Passed, you say? When not one of the other moderators supported you or >confirmed your decision,
In message <ndtt0aF1rquU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:03:22 on Mon, 10
Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aBB was repeatedly abusive, so I asked for a vote to suspend him for
a-a week. [Passed]
Passed, you say?-a When not one of the other moderators supported you
or confirmed your decision,
They had the opportunity to vote against, but didn't.
On 12/08/2026 08:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ndtt0aF1rquU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:03:22 on Mon, 10
Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
aBB was repeatedly abusive, so I asked for a vote to suspend him
for aa week. [Passed]
Passed, you say?a When not one of the other moderators supported you
or confirmed your decision,
They had the opportunity to vote against, but didn't.
They had the opportunity to vote for, but didn't. And yet you needed
some to vote for in order to 'confirm' your decision as required by the >moderation policy. Not voting doesn't 'confirm' anything.
On 11 Aug 2026 at 12:47:11 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 09:25:44 +0100, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
You are taking a view similar to the pre-reformation Catholic Church.
Only the holy can interpret the word of god, which must be discussed in
Latin.
LOL, it never fails to amuse me when someone wants to have a pop at
the Catholic Church and have to go back hundreds of years to do so.
That was not a criticism of the Catholic church, it was a criticism of the >previous poster's (alleged, and not accurate) position.
On 11 Aug 2026 14:37:01 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Aug 2026 at 12:47:11 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 09:25:44 +0100, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
You are taking a view similar to the pre-reformation Catholic Church.
Only the holy can interpret the word of god, which must be discussed in >>>> Latin.
LOL, it never fails to amuse me when someone wants to have a pop at
the Catholic Church and have to go back hundreds of years to do so.
That was not a criticism of the Catholic church, it was a criticism of the >> previous poster's (alleged, and not accurate) position.
Pancho has a 'thing' about the Catholic Church.
On 11 Aug 2026 14:37:01 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Aug 2026 at 12:47:11 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 09:25:44 +0100, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
You are taking a view similar to the pre-reformation Catholic Church.
Only the holy can interpret the word of god, which must be discussed in >>>> Latin.
LOL, it never fails to amuse me when someone wants to have a pop at
the Catholic Church and have to go back hundreds of years to do so.
That was not a criticism of the Catholic church, it was a criticism of the >> previous poster's (alleged, and not accurate) position.
Pancho has a 'thing' about the Catholic Church.
On 8/13/26 07:50, Martin Harran wrote:
On 11 Aug 2026 14:37:01 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Aug 2026 at 12:47:11 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 09:25:44 +0100, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
You are taking a view similar to the pre-reformation Catholic Church. >>>>> Only the holy can interpret the word of god, which must be
discussed in
Latin.
LOL, it never fails to amuse me when someone wants to have a pop at
the Catholic Church and have to go back hundreds of years to do so.
That was not a criticism of the Catholic church, it was a criticism
of the
previous poster's (alleged, and not accurate) position.
Pancho has a 'thing' about the Catholic Church.
I rather think that it is you who have a 'thing' about the Catholic Church.
I am disproving of religion in general, but Catholicism has never been significant in my life. I was much more affected by CoE.
On 8/14/26 07:59, Pancho wrote:
On 8/13/26 07:50, Martin Harran wrote:
On 11 Aug 2026 14:37:01 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Aug 2026 at 12:47:11 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 09:25:44 +0100, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
You are taking a view similar to the pre-reformation Catholic Church. >>>>> Only the holy can interpret the word of god, which must be
discussed in
Latin.
LOL, it never fails to amuse me when someone wants to have a pop at
the Catholic Church and have to go back hundreds of years to do so.
That was not a criticism of the Catholic church, it was a criticism
of the
previous poster's (alleged, and not accurate) position.
Pancho has a 'thing' about the Catholic Church.
I rather think that it is you who have a 'thing' about the Catholic Church.
I am disproving of religion in general, but Catholicism has never been significant in my life. I was much more affected by CoE.
That should have been disapproving, I wish that I could disprove it, but
I can't.
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 08:01:53 +0100
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/14/26 07:59, Pancho wrote:
On 8/13/26 07:50, Martin Harran wrote:
On 11 Aug 2026 14:37:01 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Aug 2026 at 12:47:11 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >> >>> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 09:25:44 +0100, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
You are taking a view similar to the pre-reformation Catholic Church. >> >>>>> Only the holy can interpret the word of god, which must be
discussed in
Latin.
LOL, it never fails to amuse me when someone wants to have a pop at
the Catholic Church and have to go back hundreds of years to do so.
That was not a criticism of the Catholic church, it was a criticism
of the
previous poster's (alleged, and not accurate) position.
Pancho has a 'thing' about the Catholic Church.
I rather think that it is you who have a 'thing' about the Catholic Church.
I am disproving of religion in general, but Catholicism has never been
significant in my life. I was much more affected by CoE.
That should have been disapproving, I wish that I could disprove it, but
I can't.
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have
at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did
with geo-centrism.
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have >>at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did >>with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the
opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have >>>at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did >>>with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the
opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have >>>> at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did >>>> with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the
opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues
but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common
in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic. The mainstream Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have
at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did >>>>> with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the
opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues
but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common
in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic. The mainstream
Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
But do Jews and Christians reject "God created the heavens and the
earth"? The opening chapters of Genesis?
Do they accept that science has overtaken Genesis
and that actually much
of Genesis should be stricken from the record lest it mislead the people?
Faith means never having to say you're sorry.
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have >>>> at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did >>>> with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the
opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues
but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common
in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic.
The mainstream
Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have
at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did >>>>> with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the
opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues
but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common
in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic. The mainstream
Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
But do Jews and Christians reject "God created the heavens and the
earth"? The opening chapters of Genesis?
Do they accept that science has overtaken Genesis and that actually much
of Genesis should be stricken from the record lest it mislead the people?
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 10:19:39 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have
at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did >>>>>> with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the
opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues
but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common
in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic. The mainstream
Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
But do Jews and Christians reject "God created the heavens and the
earth"? The opening chapters of Genesis?
No they don't - why should they reject it?
Do they accept that science has overtaken Genesis
Care to tell me what science says about what caused the Big Bang and
what preceded it?
and that actually much
of Genesis should be stricken from the record lest it mislead the people?
"Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the
second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed
without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may
so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to
believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted a paradise
eastward in Eden,' and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of
life,' of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily
teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of 'good and
evil' by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And
when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the cool of the day' and
Adam to hide himself behind a tree I do not think anyone will doubt
that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual events."
That was not written by some modern-day writer scoffing Genesis, it
was written around 230 AD by Origen, the most important theologian and biblical scholar of the early Greek church and identified as a Father
of the Christian Church. When he pointed out these things 1800 years
ago, it beats me how anyone can try to make an argument that it took
modern science to prove them wrong.
Once again we see Harran's Law (c) in action where the degree of
confidence with which someone attacks religious belief is directly proportional to how little they know about those beliefs,
Faith means never having to say you're sorry.
What a profoundly stupid statement.
On 2026-08-15, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have
at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did >>>>>> with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the
opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues
but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common
in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic. The mainstream
Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
But do Jews and Christians reject "God created the heavens and the
earth"? The opening chapters of Genesis?
Do they accept that science has overtaken Genesis and that actually much
of Genesis should be stricken from the record lest it mislead the people?
That was my point though, the Bible doesn't say *how* god created
everything, and "let there be light" and "there was an enormous
explosion" could easily be descriptions of the same event. The
creation part of the Bible and modern science don't seem to be
at loggerheads at all.
When it comes to the bit about putting between 2 and 7 of every
non-aquatic living thing in the world onto one boat, however...
On 15/08/2026 13:14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-15, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:That was my point though, the Bible doesn't say *how* god created
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues
but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common
in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic. The mainstream >>>> Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
But do Jews and Christians reject "God created the heavens and the
earth"? The opening chapters of Genesis?
Do they accept that science has overtaken Genesis and that actually much >>> of Genesis should be stricken from the record lest it mislead the people? >>
everything, and "let there be light" and "there was an enormous
explosion" could easily be descriptions of the same event. The
creation part of the Bible and modern science don't seem to be
at loggerheads at all.
When it comes to the bit about putting between 2 and 7 of every
non-aquatic living thing in the world onto one boat, however...
What about all the longevity? Noah is said to have lived for 950 years.
The oldest character was Methuselah, 969 years. Is there a learned
scholar somewhere who will justify this as merely figurative, not to be taken literally? Were the years much shorter than they are now,
perhaps, because in those days we all lived on a different galaxy?
Well again my point was that specifically the creation mythos in
Genesis is not incompatible with science, not that all of the Bible
is capable of being literally true.
But I think that the ark is much more clearly false than the claim
that some people thousands of years ago lived for a long time, which
is obviously implausible but impossible to actually falsify with the
evidence available to us today.
On 15/08/2026 10:49, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 10:19:39 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. >>>>>>> They have
at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as
they did
with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the >>>>>> opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues
but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common
in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic. The mainstream >>>> Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
But do Jews and Christians reject "God created the heavens and the
earth"?-a The opening chapters of Genesis?
No they don't - why should they reject it?
Do they accept that science has overtaken Genesis
Care to tell me what science says about what caused the Big Bang and
what preceded it?
and that actually much
of Genesis should be stricken from the record lest it mislead the
people?
"Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the
second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed
without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may
so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to
believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted a paradise
eastward in Eden,' and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of
life,' of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily
teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of 'good and
evil' by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And
when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the cool of the day' and
Adam to hide himself behind a tree I do not think anyone will doubt
that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries
through a semblance of history and not through actual events."
That was not written by some modern-day writer scoffing Genesis, it
was written around 230 AD by Origen, the most important theologian and
biblical scholar of the early Greek church and identified as a Father
of the Christian Church. When he pointed out these things 1800 years
ago, it beats me how anyone can try to make an argument that it took
modern science to prove them wrong.
Once again we see Harran's Law (c) in action where the degree of
confidence with which someone attacks religious belief is directly
proportional to how little they know about those beliefs,
Faith means never having to say you're sorry.
What a profoundly stupid statement.
You may say that, but it is a profoundly true statement. You dishonestly pretend that the writings of someone called Origen in 230 AD are known
to all Christians and therefore they all know that much of the Bible is "figurative" rather than literal.-a You know perfectly well, I'm sure,
that Origen is not taught in classrooms at schools, nor in sermons in churches. Faith means being the White Queen: "Why, sometimes I've
believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast".
You know all this, in your rational mind, but your fervent loyalty to
your religion means that you never say that you are sorry. You go on the attack.
It's what Christ expects of you.
But I think that the ark is much more clearly false than the claim
that some people thousands of years ago lived for a long time, which
is obviously implausible but impossible to actually falsify with the
evidence available to us today.
On 15/08/2026 15:34, The Todal wrote:
On 15/08/2026 10:49, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 10:19:39 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. >>>>>>>> They have
at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as >>>>>>>> they did
with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the >>>>>>> opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues >>>>> but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common >>>>> in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic. The mainstream >>>>> Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
But do Jews and Christians reject "God created the heavens and the
earth"?-a The opening chapters of Genesis?
No they don't - why should they reject it?
Do they accept that science has overtaken Genesis
Care to tell me what science says about what caused the Big Bang and
what preceded it?
and that actually much
of Genesis should be stricken from the record lest it mislead the
people?
"Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the
second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed
without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may
so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to
believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted a paradise
eastward in Eden,' and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of
life,' of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily
teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of 'good and
evil' by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And
when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the cool of the day' and
Adam to hide himself behind a tree I do not think anyone will doubt
that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries
through a semblance of history and not through actual events."
That was not written by some modern-day writer scoffing Genesis, it
was written around 230 AD by Origen, the most important theologian and
biblical scholar of the early Greek church and identified as a Father
of the Christian Church. When he pointed out these things 1800 years
ago, it beats me how anyone can try to make an argument that it took
modern science to prove them wrong.
Once again we see Harran's Law (c) in action where the degree of
confidence with which someone attacks religious belief is directly
proportional to how little they know about those beliefs,
Faith means never having to say you're sorry.
What a profoundly stupid statement.
You may say that, but it is a profoundly true statement. You
dishonestly pretend that the writings of someone called Origen in 230
AD are known to all Christians and therefore they all know that much
of the Bible is "figurative" rather than literal.-a You know perfectly
well, I'm sure, that Origen is not taught in classrooms at schools,
nor in sermons in churches. Faith means being the White Queen: "Why,
sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before
breakfast".
There are some people who choose to believe the Bible literally. Rather
a lot of people, actually.
Your view is that they should not take much of Genesis as literally
true.-a But, what is your point, really? You don't believe a word of it.
You don't believe there is a god. There is nothing you can possibly say
that is of any interest or importance to a true believer.
My mother used to stop her surgery to come to the door and argue with Jehovah's Witnesses. She would tell them that their religion was 'wrong' because it didn't allow blood transfusions (probably the only thing she
knew about JW). Of course, they were not impressed.
This is an equally daft discussion you are having. :)
You know all this, in your rational mind, but your fervent loyalty to
your religion means that you never say that you are sorry. You go on
the attack.
And, you are not?
It's what Christ expects of you.
On 15/08/2026 16:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But I think that the ark is much more clearly false than the claim
that some people thousands of years ago lived for a long time, which
is obviously implausible but impossible to actually falsify with the
evidence available to us today.
There are three broad logical choices:
1. Believe it's all literally true, and any contradictions are
attributed to actions by God (who can do anything, so why not?).
2. Decide it's all superstitious nonsense dreamt up by people a long
time ago, who didn't know better.
3. A sort of fudge: It's not meant to be taken literally. There is a
God, but he abides by the ordinary rules of physics.
Trying to pick holes in the story of Noah seems pointless.
On 15/08/2026 17:50, GB wrote:
On 15/08/2026 16:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But I think that the ark is much more clearly false than the claim
that some people thousands of years ago lived for a long time, which
is obviously implausible but impossible to actually falsify with the
evidence available to us today.
There are three broad logical choices:
1. Believe it's all literally true, and any contradictions are
attributed to actions by God (who can do anything, so why not?).
2. Decide it's all superstitious nonsense dreamt up by people a long
time ago, who didn't know better.
3. A sort of fudge: It's not meant to be taken literally. There is a
God, but he abides by the ordinary rules of physics.
Trying to pick holes in the story of Noah seems pointless.
Trying to understand why some people actually do believe it's all
literally true, is a worthwhile exercise.
Are they merely stupid? I doubt that. Do they think that when you make
the effort to believe the impossible you are entering a higher plane of consciousness, a transcendental ecstasy? Or maybe they think that but
cannot put it into words.
On 15 Aug 2026 at 21:04:21 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 15/08/2026 17:50, GB wrote:
On 15/08/2026 16:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But I think that the ark is much more clearly false than the claim
that some people thousands of years ago lived for a long time, which
is obviously implausible but impossible to actually falsify with the
evidence available to us today.
There are three broad logical choices:
1. Believe it's all literally true, and any contradictions are
attributed to actions by God (who can do anything, so why not?).
2. Decide it's all superstitious nonsense dreamt up by people a long
time ago, who didn't know better.
3. A sort of fudge: It's not meant to be taken literally. There is a
God, but he abides by the ordinary rules of physics.
Trying to pick holes in the story of Noah seems pointless.
Trying to understand why some people actually do believe it's all
literally true, is a worthwhile exercise.
Are they merely stupid? I doubt that. Do they think that when you make
the effort to believe the impossible you are entering a higher plane of
consciousness, a transcendental ecstasy? Or maybe they think that but
cannot put it into words.
In more backward parts of the world, such as central and southern US states, it may simply all they have ever been taught without the possibility of anything different, at home or in high school, and they may simply be unaware that the Enlightenment ever happened, let alone the nineteenth century. They probably regard any dim concepts of science or liberty of conscience they see on twitter as the Work of the Devil. And the automobile, federal subsidies and
the US military as magically provided by Jesus.
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have
at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did >>>>> with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the
opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues
but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common
in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic. The mainstream
Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
But do Jews and Christians reject "God created the heavens and the
earth"? The opening chapters of Genesis?
Do they accept that science has overtaken Genesis and that actually much
of Genesis should be stricken from the record lest it mislead the people?
Faith means never having to say you're sorry.
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have
at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did >>>>> with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the
opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues
but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common
in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic.
1 in 6 Americans reject evolution.
https://ncse.ngo/vast-majority-americans-accept-human-evolution-new-survey-finds
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2The mainstream
Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
On 15/08/2026 10:49, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 10:19:39 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have
at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did >>>>>>> with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the >>>>>> opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues
but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common
in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic. The mainstream >>>> Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
But do Jews and Christians reject "God created the heavens and the
earth"? The opening chapters of Genesis?
No they don't - why should they reject it?
Do they accept that science has overtaken Genesis
Care to tell me what science says about what caused the Big Bang and
what preceded it?
and that actually much
of Genesis should be stricken from the record lest it mislead the people? >>>
"Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the
second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed
without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may
so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to
believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted a paradise
eastward in Eden,' and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of
life,' of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily
teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of 'good and
evil' by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And
when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the cool of the day' and
Adam to hide himself behind a tree I do not think anyone will doubt
that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries
through a semblance of history and not through actual events."
That was not written by some modern-day writer scoffing Genesis, it
was written around 230 AD by Origen, the most important theologian and
biblical scholar of the early Greek church and identified as a Father
of the Christian Church. When he pointed out these things 1800 years
ago, it beats me how anyone can try to make an argument that it took
modern science to prove them wrong.
Once again we see Harran's Law (c) in action where the degree of
confidence with which someone attacks religious belief is directly
proportional to how little they know about those beliefs,
Faith means never having to say you're sorry.
What a profoundly stupid statement.
You may say that, but it is a profoundly true statement.
You dishonestly
pretend that the writings of someone called Origen
in 230 AD are known
to all Christians and therefore they all know that much of the Bible is >"figurative" rather than literal. You know perfectly well, I'm sure,
that Origen is not taught in classrooms at schools, nor in sermons in >churches. Faith means being the White Queen: "Why, sometimes I've
believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast".
You know all this, in your rational mind, but your fervent loyalty to
your religion means that you never say that you are sorry.
You go on the
attack. It's what Christ expects of you.
On 15/08/2026 15:34, The Todal wrote:
On 15/08/2026 10:49, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 10:19:39 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. >>>>>>>> They have
at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as >>>>>>>> they did
with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the >>>>>>> opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues >>>>> but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common >>>>> in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic. The mainstream >>>>> Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
But do Jews and Christians reject "God created the heavens and the
earth"?-a The opening chapters of Genesis?
No they don't - why should they reject it?
Do they accept that science has overtaken Genesis
Care to tell me what science says about what caused the Big Bang and
what preceded it?
and that actually much
of Genesis should be stricken from the record lest it mislead the
people?
"Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the
second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed
without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may
so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to
believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted a paradise
eastward in Eden,' and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of
life,' of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily
teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of 'good and
evil' by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And
when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the cool of the day' and
Adam to hide himself behind a tree I do not think anyone will doubt
that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries
through a semblance of history and not through actual events."
That was not written by some modern-day writer scoffing Genesis, it
was written around 230 AD by Origen, the most important theologian and
biblical scholar of the early Greek church and identified as a Father
of the Christian Church. When he pointed out these things 1800 years
ago, it beats me how anyone can try to make an argument that it took
modern science to prove them wrong.
Once again we see Harran's Law (c) in action where the degree of
confidence with which someone attacks religious belief is directly
proportional to how little they know about those beliefs,
Faith means never having to say you're sorry.
What a profoundly stupid statement.
You may say that, but it is a profoundly true statement. You dishonestly
pretend that the writings of someone called Origen in 230 AD are known
to all Christians and therefore they all know that much of the Bible is
"figurative" rather than literal.-a You know perfectly well, I'm sure,
that Origen is not taught in classrooms at schools, nor in sermons in
churches. Faith means being the White Queen: "Why, sometimes I've
believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast".
There are some people who choose to believe the Bible literally. Rather
a lot of people, actually.
Your view is that they should not take much of Genesis as literally
true. But, what is your point, really? You don't believe a word of it.
You don't believe there is a god. There is nothing you can possibly say
that is of any interest or importance to a true believer.
My mother used to stop her surgery to come to the door and argue with >Jehovah's Witnesses. She would tell them that their religion was 'wrong' >because it didn't allow blood transfusions (probably the only thing she
knew about JW). Of course, they were not impressed.
This is an equally daft discussion you are having. :)
You know all this, in your rational mind, but your fervent loyalty to
your religion means that you never say that you are sorry. You go on the
attack.
And, you are not?
It's what Christ expects of you.
On 2026-08-15, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 15/08/2026 13:14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-15, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:That was my point though, the Bible doesn't say *how* god created
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues >>>>> but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common >>>>> in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic. The mainstream >>>>> Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
But do Jews and Christians reject "God created the heavens and the
earth"? The opening chapters of Genesis?
Do they accept that science has overtaken Genesis and that actually much >>>> of Genesis should be stricken from the record lest it mislead the people? >>>
everything, and "let there be light" and "there was an enormous
explosion" could easily be descriptions of the same event. The
creation part of the Bible and modern science don't seem to be
at loggerheads at all.
When it comes to the bit about putting between 2 and 7 of every
non-aquatic living thing in the world onto one boat, however...
What about all the longevity? Noah is said to have lived for 950 years.
The oldest character was Methuselah, 969 years. Is there a learned
scholar somewhere who will justify this as merely figurative, not to be
taken literally? Were the years much shorter than they are now,
perhaps, because in those days we all lived on a different galaxy?
Well again my point was that specifically the creation mythos in
Genesis is not incompatible with science, not that all of the Bible
is capable of being literally true.
But I think that the ark is much more clearly false than the claim
that some people thousands of years ago lived for a long time, which
is obviously implausible but impossible to actually falsify with the
evidence available to us today.
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 12:11:36 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have
at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did >>>>>> with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the
opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues
but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common
in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic.
1 in 6 Americans reject evolution.
Near enough 1 in 2 voted not just once but three times for Donald
Trump to become president so I wouldn't be inclined to read too much
into American judgement.
https://ncse.ngo/vast-majority-americans-accept-human-evolution-new-survey-finds
The mainstream
Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
Yet again you demonstrate your exceptional ability to know what is
going on in the minds of people whom you have never even met. I think
I asked you before but I don't recall you actually answering - was
this a talent you were born with there was something history
cultivated over the years?
On 15/08/2026 16:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But I think that the ark is much more clearly false than the claim
that some people thousands of years ago lived for a long time, which
is obviously implausible but impossible to actually falsify with the
evidence available to us today.
There are three broad logical choices:
1. Believe it's all literally true, and any contradictions are
attributed to actions by God (who can do anything, so why not?).
2. Decide it's all superstitious nonsense dreamt up by people a long
time ago, who didn't know better.
3. A sort of fudge: It's not meant to be taken literally. There is a
God, but he abides by the ordinary rules of physics.
Trying to pick holes in the story of Noah seems pointless.
On 16/08/2026 08:48, Martin Harran wrote:
Yet again you demonstrate your exceptional ability to know what is
going on in the minds of people whom you have never even met. I think
I asked you before but I don't recall you actually answering - was
this a talent you were born with there was something history
cultivated over the years?
Is that a question you have been asking God? Was he born with that talent?
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 15:34:42 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 15/08/2026 10:49, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 10:19:39 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have
at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did
with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the >>>>>>> opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues >>>>> but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common >>>>> in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic. The mainstream >>>>> Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
But do Jews and Christians reject "God created the heavens and the
earth"? The opening chapters of Genesis?
No they don't - why should they reject it?
Do they accept that science has overtaken Genesis
Care to tell me what science says about what caused the Big Bang and
what preceded it?
and that actually much
of Genesis should be stricken from the record lest it mislead the people? >>>>
"Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the
second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed
without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may
so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to
believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted a paradise
eastward in Eden,' and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of
life,' of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily
teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of 'good and
evil' by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And
when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the cool of the day' and
Adam to hide himself behind a tree I do not think anyone will doubt
that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries
through a semblance of history and not through actual events."
That was not written by some modern-day writer scoffing Genesis, it
was written around 230 AD by Origen, the most important theologian and
biblical scholar of the early Greek church and identified as a Father
of the Christian Church. When he pointed out these things 1800 years
ago, it beats me how anyone can try to make an argument that it took
modern science to prove them wrong.
Once again we see Harran's Law (c) in action where the degree of
confidence with which someone attacks religious belief is directly
proportional to how little they know about those beliefs,
Faith means never having to say you're sorry.
What a profoundly stupid statement.
You may say that, but it is a profoundly true statement.
Can you identify a single example of a religion that teaches that
people should not say sorry when they get things wrong?
On 16/08/2026 08:40, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 12:11:36 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have
at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did >>>>>>> with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the >>>>>> opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious
point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues
but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common
in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic.
1 in 6 Americans reject evolution.
Near enough 1 in 2 voted not just once but three times for Donald
Trump to become president so I wouldn't be inclined to read too much
into American judgement.
That's exactly where you're going wrong. You evidently have contempt for
the Americans who reject evolution and who vote for Donald Trump (and
some who do both), but you need to recognise that they do so because
they are indoctrinated by Christians.
Not your sort of Christians, perhaps. Your sort are the enlightened few
who understand that much of the Bible is "figurative" because they have >studied theology.
Donald is a Messianic figure, a person who can lead the nation out of
the wilderness to a land of milk and honey, and it is religion that >encourages these fantasies in those who have been neglected by society
and have watched others enriching themselves.
Religion is and remains the opium of the people.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
https://ncse.ngo/vast-majority-americans-accept-human-evolution-new-survey-finds
The mainstream
Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
On 8/16/26 08:48, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 15:34:42 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 15/08/2026 10:49, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 10:19:39 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-14, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:44:57 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Proving god interferes with evolution is easy - ask any ID perp. They have
at least 10^w 6 Reasons to Believe.
But it might be that the RC church has flipped on that one, as they did
with geo-centrism.
Yeah, it was really bad form for the Catholic Church to go with the >>>>>>>> opinion of science whenever the scientists figured out better
explanations.
BTW, where did they flip on evolution?
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious >>>>>>> point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues >>>>>> but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common >>>>>> in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic. The mainstream >>>>>> Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
But do Jews and Christians reject "God created the heavens and the
earth"? The opening chapters of Genesis?
No they don't - why should they reject it?
Do they accept that science has overtaken Genesis
Care to tell me what science says about what caused the Big Bang and
what preceded it?
and that actually much
of Genesis should be stricken from the record lest it mislead the people? >>>>>
"Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the
second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed
without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may
so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to
believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted a paradise
eastward in Eden,' and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of
life,' of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily >>>> teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of 'good and
evil' by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And
when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the cool of the day' and
Adam to hide himself behind a tree I do not think anyone will doubt
that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries >>>> through a semblance of history and not through actual events."
That was not written by some modern-day writer scoffing Genesis, it
was written around 230 AD by Origen, the most important theologian and >>>> biblical scholar of the early Greek church and identified as a Father
of the Christian Church. When he pointed out these things 1800 years
ago, it beats me how anyone can try to make an argument that it took
modern science to prove them wrong.
Once again we see Harran's Law (c) in action where the degree of
confidence with which someone attacks religious belief is directly
proportional to how little they know about those beliefs,
Faith means never having to say you're sorry.
What a profoundly stupid statement.
You may say that, but it is a profoundly true statement.
Can you identify a single example of a religion that teaches that
people should not say sorry when they get things wrong?
Of course, the Catholic Church, specifically the Irish branch.
See the 2009 Murphy Commission report: the case of Fr Tony Walsh rCo
Dublin, or Archbishop Dermot Ryan and Fr Patrick McCabe.
Simply put, the Catholic Church decided that the greater good was to >preserve people's faith in the Church and hence protect their
relationship with God. As opposed to honestly admitting failings of the >Church. The Catholic Church taught by example.
Note it may seem to you that I'm picking on Catholics, but really it
only seems that way to you, because you keep trying to defend the >indefensible.
On 16/08/2026 08:48, Martin Harran wrote:
Can you identify a single example of a religion that teaches that
people should not say sorry when they get things wrong?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Yet again you demonstrate your exceptional ability to know what is
going on in the minds of people whom you have never even met. I think
I asked you before but I don't recall you actually answering - was
this a talent you were born with there was something history
cultivated over the years?
Is that a question you have been asking God? Was he born with that talent?
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
On 16/08/2026 08:40, Martin Harran wrote:
Near enough 1 in 2 voted not just once but three times for Donald
Trump to become president so I wouldn't be inclined to read too much
into American judgement.
That's exactly where you're going wrong. You evidently have contempt for
the Americans who reject evolution and who vote for Donald Trump (and
some who do both), but you need to recognise that they do so because
they are indoctrinated by Christians.
Not your sort of Christians, perhaps. Your sort are the enlightened few
who understand that much of the Bible is "figurative" because they have studied theology.
Donald is a Messianic figure, a person who can lead the nation out of
the wilderness to a land of milk and honey,
and it is religion that
encourages these fantasies in those who have been neglected by society
and have watched others enriching themselves.
Religion is and remains the opium of the people.
https://ncse.ngo/vast-majority-americans-accept-human-evolution-new-survey-finds
The mainstream
Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 15:03:55 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-15, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 15/08/2026 13:14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-15, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 14/08/2026 13:16, Martin Harran wrote:That was my point though, the Bible doesn't say *how* god created
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:21:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I always find it odd when religious types try to argue against
evolution, because "the universe was created in a big explosion
whose cause we can never know, and then life resulted from a
series of random mutations which a powerful being could have
interfered with to an immense degree without being detectable"
is an absolutely perfect scientific explanation from a religious >>>>>>> point of view.
You say that as if the religious types you are referring to are
commonplace. Funny, I know a lot of religious people of various hues >>>>>> but I've never met one who rejects evolution. I know it's more common >>>>>> in the USA but certainly not this side of the Atlantic. The mainstream >>>>>> Christian Churches - Catholic, CoE, Methodist, Presbyterian - all
accept evolution and I'd guess they represent well, over 90% of
Christians in the UK and, indeed, worldwide.
But do Jews and Christians reject "God created the heavens and the
earth"? The opening chapters of Genesis?
Do they accept that science has overtaken Genesis and that actually much >>>>> of Genesis should be stricken from the record lest it mislead the people? >>>>
everything, and "let there be light" and "there was an enormous
explosion" could easily be descriptions of the same event. The
creation part of the Bible and modern science don't seem to be
at loggerheads at all.
When it comes to the bit about putting between 2 and 7 of every
non-aquatic living thing in the world onto one boat, however...
What about all the longevity? Noah is said to have lived for 950 years.
The oldest character was Methuselah, 969 years. Is there a learned
scholar somewhere who will justify this as merely figurative, not to be
taken literally? Were the years much shorter than they are now,
perhaps, because in those days we all lived on a different galaxy?
Well again my point was that specifically the creation mythos in
Genesis is not incompatible with science, not that all of the Bible
is capable of being literally true.
This is actually an interesting one because science and the Bible were
at loggerheads on this up until the early 20th century. Followers of
the Bible had always claimed the universe had a distinct beginning but scientists for many centuries were convinced that it had always
existed. Then they figured out the Big Bang and realised that the
Bible was right about that part. In one of those funny little twists
that fate loves to throw our way, it was first figured out by a
Catholic priest, Georges Lema|<tre. Also, the term 'Big Bang' was first coined by leading British astronomer Fred Hoyle who vehemently opposed
the theory and used the expression in a somewhat derogatory manner in
a 1949 BBC interview. The term caught the public imagination and
became the accepted descriptor including among those who supported the theory.
But I think that the ark is much more clearly false than the claim
that some people thousands of years ago lived for a long time, which
is obviously implausible but impossible to actually falsify with the
evidence available to us today.
Can you identify any mainstream Christian denomination [1] which
teaches the story of the ark as a historical record to be read
literally?
On 16/08/2026 09:16 AM, The Todal wrote:
Donald is a Messianic figure, a person who can lead the nation out of
the wilderness to a land of milk and honey,
Why is Sunny Jim Callaghan coming to mind?
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 15:03:55 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens [wrote]:
I've no idea what they teach, but I know some Americans have spend many millions of dollars on replicating the Ark according to the biblical description.But I think that the ark is much more clearly false than the claim
that some people thousands of years ago lived for a long time, which
is obviously implausible but impossible to actually falsify with the
evidence available to us today.
Can you identify any mainstream Christian denomination [1] which
teaches the story of the ark as a historical record to be read
literally?
Looked it up:
https://arkencounter.com/
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 15:03:55 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
But I think that the ark is much more clearly false than the claim
that some people thousands of years ago lived for a long time, which
is obviously implausible but impossible to actually falsify with the >>evidence available to us today.
Can you identify any mainstream Christian denomination [1] which
teaches the story of the ark as a historical record to be read
literally?
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/08/2026 09:16 AM, The Todal wrote:
[]
Donald is a Messianic figure, a person who can lead the nation out of
the wilderness to a land of milk and honey,
Why is Sunny Jim Callaghan coming to mind?
I wasn't Jim wot fixed it, it was Dennis Howell.
[]
On 16/08/2026 10:42 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 15:03:55 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens [wrote]:
I've no idea what they teach, but I know some Americans have spend manyBut I think that the ark is much more clearly false than the claim
that some people thousands of years ago lived for a long time, which
is obviously implausible but impossible to actually falsify with the
evidence available to us today.
Can you identify any mainstream Christian denomination [1] which
teaches the story of the ark as a historical record to be read
literally?
millions of dollars on replicating the Ark according to the biblical
description.
Looked it up:
https://arkencounter.com/
Did they do it with their own money, on a site cleared for that planning
use?
If so, what's to dislike?
On 16/08/2026 02:47 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/08/2026 09:16 AM, The Todal wrote:
[]
Donald is a Messianic figure, a person who can lead the nation out of
the wilderness to a land of milk and honey,
Why is Sunny Jim Callaghan coming to mind?
I wasn't Jim wot fixed it, it was Dennis Howell.
[]
:-)
Yes, I remember Denis the Rain God - and of course, he was bound to be successful unless rain had been somehow forever abolished.
I was thinking more, though, of Callaghan's reported conversation about seeing himself as Moses, leading his people (whoever they were) to the Promised Land (as told by his son-in-law, Peter Jay, the Ambassador to
the USA, IIRC).
On 16 Aug 2026 at 15:22:14 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/08/2026 02:47 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/08/2026 09:16 AM, The Todal wrote:
[]
Donald is a Messianic figure, a person who can lead the nation out of >>>>> the wilderness to a land of milk and honey,
Why is Sunny Jim Callaghan coming to mind?
I wasn't Jim wot fixed it, it was Dennis Howell.
[]
:-)
Yes, I remember Denis the Rain God - and of course, he was bound to be
successful unless rain had been somehow forever abolished.
I was thinking more, though, of Callaghan's reported conversation about
seeing himself as Moses, leading his people (whoever they were) to the
Promised Land (as told by his son-in-law, Peter Jay, the Ambassador to
the USA, IIRC).
I suspect that story tells us more about Peter Jay than it does about Callaghan.
I was thinking more, though, of Callaghan's reported conversation about seeing
himself as Moses, leading his people (whoever they were) to the Promised Land
(as told by his son-in-law, Peter Jay, the Ambassador to the USA, IIRC).
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:nedvcmFikpiU1@mid.individual.net...
I was thinking more, though, of Callaghan's reported conversation about seeing
himself as Moses, leading his people (whoever they were) to the Promised Land
(as told by his son-in-law, Peter Jay, the Ambassador to the USA, IIRC).
Plagues, what plagues ?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 49:05:23 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,768 |