Although it is hugely interesting to read about why and how BB was temporarily
banned from ULM and how his grievance should be made the subject of a public inquiry, I would suggest that those involved should take their discussion to email.
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then you agree.
the accusation is true.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:ndoacgF5917U3@mid.individual.net...
Although it is hugely interesting to read about why and how BB was temporarily
banned from ULM and how his grievance should be made the subject of a public >> inquiry, I would suggest that those involved should take their discussion to >> email.
"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.
On 08/08/2026 10:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:ndoacgF5917U3@mid.individual.net...
Although it is hugely interesting to read about why and how BB was
temporarily
banned from ULM and how his grievance should be made the subject of a public
inquiry, I would suggest that those involved should take their discussion to
email.
"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.
Does that not amount to feeding the trolls, even if delayed?
Do you happen to know where RP found that etiquette statement? According to <https://www.retrotechnology.com/herbs_stuff/offtopic.html>:
"The most common advice about stopping trolling is "do not respond". If you are unsure if someone is a troll, then do some checking on their prior posts.
If you find that the purpose of that person's posts is to argue, to start or to continue arguments; then it is a LOT easier to decide that ANY rebuttal, factual reference, or well-regarded opinion you post in response is a waste of
effort, and you are in fact doing what the troll wants you to do. Any reply you provide is "food" for the real goal of a troll - to engage in argument for
its own sake."
--
Jeff
Although it is hugely interesting to read about why and how BB was temporarily banned from ULM and how his grievance should be made the
subject of a public inquiry, I would suggest that those involved should
take their discussion to email.
Meanwhile, to bring this group back on-topic, I would mention that
several articles that I have accepted through the moderation interface
have for some reason not yet reached the group. I hope they eventually
will. It is not something within the control of the moderators.
On 08/08/2026 10:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:ndoacgF5917U3@mid.individual.net...
Although it is hugely interesting to read about why and how BB was
temporarily banned from ULM and how his grievance should be made the
subject of a public inquiry, I would suggest that those involved
should take their discussion to email.
"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.
Does that not amount to feeding the trolls, even if delayed?
Do you happen to know where RP found that etiquette statement?
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then
you agree the accusation is true.
Does that not amount to feeding the trolls, even if delayed?
In message <1156v6j$1d3rf$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:08:18 on Sat, 8 Aug
2026, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> remarked:
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then >>>you agree the accusation is true.
Does that not amount to feeding the trolls, even if delayed?
It's a finely balanced thing. As a one-off one could ignore the troll.
When they've posted the same thing dozens of times, it does need
rebutting.
On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 08:41:26 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <1156v6j$1d3rf$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:08:18 on Sat, 8 Aug
2026, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> remarked:
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then
you agree the accusation is true.
Does that not amount to feeding the trolls, even if delayed?
It's a finely balanced thing. As a one-off one could ignore the troll.
When they've posted the same thing dozens of times, it does need
rebutting.
We get twice as many posts, and no end in sight.
In message <20260809101435.a2c8dc13fa430f99d651950c@127.0.0.1>, at
10:14:35 on Sun, 9 Aug 2026, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
remarked:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 08:41:26 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <1156v6j$1d3rf$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:08:18 on Sat, 8 Aug
2026, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> remarked:
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then
you agree the accusation is true.
Does that not amount to feeding the trolls, even if delayed?
It's a finely balanced thing. As a one-off one could ignore the troll.
When they've posted the same thing dozens of times, it does need
rebutting.
We get twice as many posts, and no end in sight.
Take that up with the trolls, not me.
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 08:16:38 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <20260809101435.a2c8dc13fa430f99d651950c@127.0.0.1>, at
10:14:35 on Sun, 9 Aug 2026, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
remarked:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 08:41:26 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <1156v6j$1d3rf$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:08:18 on Sat, 8 Aug
2026, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> remarked:
Usenet etiquette decrees that if you eventually fail to rebut, then >> >> >>>you agree the accusation is true.
Does that not amount to feeding the trolls, even if delayed?
It's a finely balanced thing. As a one-off one could ignore the troll.
When they've posted the same thing dozens of times, it does need
rebutting.
We get twice as many posts, and no end in sight.
Take that up with the trolls, not me.
I see. You don't see that you become half of the problem by responding -
and we're into pig-wrestling territory. Ah well, at least I tried.
At least we now know for certain who the trolls are.
My personal opinion, which is probably not shared by many other than yourself, is they should be permanently banned from ulm.
On 10/08/2026 10:56, Roland Perry wrote:
At least we now know for certain who the trolls are.
My personal opinion, which is probably not shared by many other than
yourself, is they should be permanently banned from ulm.
But that would reduce the number of moderators.-a By at least one.
On 10/08/2026 12:57, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/08/2026 10:56, Roland Perry wrote:
At least we now know for certain who the trolls are.
My personal opinion, which is probably not shared by many other than
yourself, is they should be permanently banned from ulm.
But that would reduce the number of moderators. By at least one.
I don't follow that. Is there anything in the charter to say that
someone banned from ULM cannot be a moderator?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 51:14:37 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,016 |