On 27/08/2026 18:47, Alan Lee wrote:
I took them back to the shop, and was told they couldn't give me a refund as >> it was more than a month old
In their position I would be *very* suspicious of your faded to red story.
--
Martin Brown
On 2026-08-28, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Post at the bottom.
There was no "mistake"
There were several.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn1193q86.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-28, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Post at the bottom.
There was no "mistake"
There were several.
There weren't any.
But clearly no other explanation is needed.
Bur my fault entirely I suppose, for ever taking
the Todal at his word.
Yes, you're being an idiot as usual.
As to why ? I don't know how often, if at all Mr Lee has previously
posted to ULM. But I would hardly think it would encourage new
posters, if their first post to the NG is met with such outright,
and totally unfounded scepticism; and they are accused more or
less of concocting "stories".
This is the closest you come to actually having a point,
although stories don't have to be fictitious
and either way it has nothing
to do with the - clearly correct
rejection of your post.
On 29/08/2026 08:56, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in messageI have no idea what you're talking about, and if you believe that I've misled you in some way, you'll have to explain.
news:slrn1193q86.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-28, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Post at the bottom.
There was no "mistake"
There were several.
There weren't any.
But clearly no other explanation is needed.
Bur my fault entirely I suppose, for ever taking
the Todal at his word.
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message news:116q2e4$1obud$1@dont-email.me...
On 27/08/2026 18:47, Alan Lee wrote:
I took them back to the shop, and was told they couldnt give me a refund as >>> it was more than a month old
In their position I would be *very* suspicious of your faded to red story. >>
--
Martin Brown
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:nffj13FtaheU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/08/2026 08:56, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in messageI have no idea what you're talking about, and if you believe that
news:slrn1193q86.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-28, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Post at the bottom.
There was no "mistake"
There were several.
There weren't any.
But clearly no other explanation is needed.
Bur my fault entirely I suppose, for ever taking
the Todal at his word.
I've misled you in some way, you'll have to explain.
That I would get fair treatment on ULM; and among other things, not be subject to Jon Ribbens' vindictive whims.
If Jon Ribbens is simply incapable of understanding the meaning or
intention of a post, then he should simply leave it to another
moderator.
Not simply reject it out of hand, as he's done with my posts on
numerous occasions in the past: simply out of spite and for no other
reason.
Or perhaps you'd care to explain what possible harm would have been
caused to the group, had the following post been passed ?
On 2026-08-29, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:nffj13FtaheU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/08/2026 08:56, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in messageI have no idea what you're talking about, and if you believe that
news:slrn1193q86.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-28, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Post at the bottom.
There was no "mistake"
There were several.
There weren't any.
But clearly no other explanation is needed.
Bur my fault entirely I suppose, for ever taking
the Todal at his word.
I've misled you in some way, you'll have to explain.
That I would get fair treatment on ULM; and among other things, not be
subject to Jon Ribbens' vindictive whims.
If Jon Ribbens is simply incapable of understanding the meaning or
intention of a post, then he should simply leave it to another
moderator.
It wasn't me who rejected your post.
" It is an aim of the moderation to filter out meaningless junk."
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn1195dv0.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-29, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:nffj13FtaheU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/08/2026 08:56, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in messageI have no idea what you're talking about, and if you believe that
news:slrn1193q86.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-28, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Post at the bottom.
There was no "mistake"
There were several.
There weren't any.
But clearly no other explanation is needed.
Bur my fault entirely I suppose, for ever taking
the Todal at his word.
I've misled you in some way, you'll have to explain.
That I would get fair treatment on ULM; and among other things, not be
subject to Jon Ribbens' vindictive whims.
If Jon Ribbens is simply incapable of understanding the meaning or
intention of a post, then he should simply leave it to another
moderator.
It wasn't me who rejected your post.
Regardless. You quite obviously agreed with the reason for the
rejection;
and took another opportumity to have a gloat.
Otherwise, why else would you have posted at all ?
If not to gloat.
While evidently, you too completely missed my point.
But that didn't prevent you from adding the customary insults did it ?
" Yes, you're being an idiot as usual "
to be followed in this post by
" It is an aim of the moderation to filter out meaningless junk."
Out here on UNNM and on Usenet generally you simply don't come up
the mark do you ? Thinking wise. Where it's just a case of one
humiliation after another; hence the ready resort to insult.
On 2026-08-29, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn1195dv0.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-29, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:nffj13FtaheU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/08/2026 08:56, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in messageI have no idea what you're talking about, and if you believe that
news:slrn1193q86.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-28, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Post at the bottom.
There was no "mistake"
There were several.
There weren't any.
But clearly no other explanation is needed.
Bur my fault entirely I suppose, for ever taking
the Todal at his word.
I've misled you in some way, you'll have to explain.
That I would get fair treatment on ULM; and among other things, not be >>>> subject to Jon Ribbens' vindictive whims.
If Jon Ribbens is simply incapable of understanding the meaning or
intention of a post, then he should simply leave it to another
moderator.
It wasn't me who rejected your post.
Regardless. You quite obviously agreed with the reason for the
rejection;
Yes, well done on successfully understanding that when I called the
rejection of your post "clearly correct" this meant I was agreeing
with it. If you keep this up we may get you reading at the level of
an 8-year-old within a few years!
and took another opportumity to have a gloat.
Otherwise, why else would you have posted at all ?
If not to gloat.
Because - and call me foolish if you will - I think that generally
speaking complaints about the moderation should be answered. Sometimes
I might agree with the moderation decision, and sometimes I might not. Sometimes it might be my own decision, and I might defend it. Either way
I will often post to say so, because I think it is helpful to do so.
While evidently, you too completely missed my point.
But that didn't prevent you from adding the customary insults did it ?
" Yes, you're being an idiot as usual "
to be followed in this post by
" It is an aim of the moderation to filter out meaningless junk."
Out here on UNNM and on Usenet generally you simply don't come up
the mark do you ? Thinking wise. Where it's just a case of one
humiliation after another; hence the ready resort to insult.
There was a script we studied at school, I have a feeling it was
"P'Tang Yang Kipperbang" by Jack Rosenthal, in which one schoolboy
opines to another that when insulting someone you shouldn't do so
using accurate truths, because "you're only telling them something
they already know". You should insult them with falsehoods and lies.
At the time I thought it was a stupid opinion, and your posts simply
reaffirm that conclusion. You keep trying to insult me, but you're
attacking the imaginary phantom you've conjured of me that lives in
your own head. It's not hurtful, it's *funny*. If you actually managed
to come up with something even remotely accurate, that might sting
- but you can't, because you're fighting your own delusions.
Post at the bottom.We don't usually identify which moderator actioned a particular post but
There was no "mistake"
I simply re-instated the categorical statement, made by the
OP that "he took them back to the shop".
Which had been snipped
Thereby totally invalidating, the clear implication in the
first reply to his post that he was merely concocting "a story"
It might have been imagined that the two clearly conflicting
statements should be able to speak for themselves,
Or for those at the back of the class. if he took them back
to the shop and showed the assistant the fading, why would
he have any need to tell them a "story".
Penny dropped yet ?
As to why ? I don't know how often, if at all Mr Lee has previously
posted to ULM. But I would hardly think it would encourage new
posters, if their first post to the NG is met with such outright,
and totally unfounded scepticism; and they are accused more or
less of concocting "stories".
On any other group my post would have passed largely unnoticed,
except for those who actually got my point. But not on ULM of
course Where in the course of moderating their four posts that
day, a moderator thought they'd use the opportunity to wield
their big stick.
Not bad going he ? Encouraged back to the NAG and then having my
second post rejected by somebody seemingly incapable of understanding
even the most basic point.
I respectfully suggest that your time on Usenet will be far more enjoyable and
fulfilling if you let go of the resentment you are harbouring and move on.
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:nfgrj3F52tpU1@mid.individual.net...
I respectfully suggest that your time on Usenet will be far more enjoyable and
fulfilling if you let go of the resentment you are harbouring and move on.
Yeah right.
Just as your time on Usenet is far more enjoyable and fulfilling by not posting at all; thus avoiding those regular and rather unpleasant
(for you at least) encounters with Norman Wells.
Although to your credit, at least you didn't ban him.
As it is I'm quite happy where I am, thanks, all the same.
I was banned from ULM for seven days without having been given any
reason or explanation whatsoever.
Which is still the case.
Then having been invited back to ULM by the Todal, and finally
agreeing, *the second post* I post on ULM, is then rejected.
Which just so happens to be among the very first of those
14,648 unread messages in your ULM mailbox.
Just my luck eh ?
While I "respectfully suggest" that you don't treat me like some
kind of idiot; who doesn't know what they're doing
You can save that for your clients; assuming that you actually
have any.
Ciao !
bb
On 29 Aug 2026 at 21:46:45 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfgrj3F52tpU1@mid.individual.net...
Yeah right.
I respectfully suggest that your time on Usenet will be far more enjoyable >>> and
fulfilling if you let go of the resentment you are harbouring and move on. >>
Just as your time on Usenet is far more enjoyable and fulfilling by not
posting at all; thus avoiding those regular and rather unpleasant
(for you at least) encounters with Norman Wells.
Although to your credit, at least you didn't ban him.
As it is I'm quite happy where I am, thanks, all the same.
I was banned from ULM for seven days without having been given any
reason or explanation whatsoever.
Which is still the case.
Then having been invited back to ULM by the Todal, and finally
agreeing, *the second post* I post on ULM, is then rejected.
Which just so happens to be among the very first of those
14,648 unread messages in your ULM mailbox.
Just my luck eh ?
While I "respectfully suggest" that you don't treat me like some
kind of idiot; who doesn't know what they're doing
You can save that for your clients; assuming that you actually
have any.
Ciao !
bb
Assume I'm stupid; can you just explain what was the point of a post with no added text from you?
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:3758542201.3f4db591@uninhabited.net...
On 29 Aug 2026 at 21:46:45 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfgrj3F52tpU1@mid.individual.net...
Yeah right.
I respectfully suggest that your time on Usenet will be far more enjoyable >>>> and
fulfilling if you let go of the resentment you are harbouring and move on. >>>
Just as your time on Usenet is far more enjoyable and fulfilling by not
posting at all; thus avoiding those regular and rather unpleasant
(for you at least) encounters with Norman Wells.
Although to your credit, at least you didn't ban him.
As it is I'm quite happy where I am, thanks, all the same.
I was banned from ULM for seven days without having been given any
reason or explanation whatsoever.
Which is still the case.
Then having been invited back to ULM by the Todal, and finally
agreeing, *the second post* I post on ULM, is then rejected.
Which just so happens to be among the very first of those
14,648 unread messages in your ULM mailbox.
Just my luck eh ?
While I "respectfully suggest" that you don't treat me like some
kind of idiot; who doesn't know what they're doing
You can save that for your clients; assuming that you actually
have any.
Ciao !
bb
Assume I'm stupid; can you just explain what was the point of a post with no >> added text from you?
All of which has been fully explained in my previous replies in this thread.
bb
On 29 Aug 2026 at 22:10:05 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3758542201.3f4db591@uninhabited.net...
On 29 Aug 2026 at 21:46:45 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfgrj3F52tpU1@mid.individual.net...
I respectfully suggest that your time on Usenet will be far more enjoyable
and
fulfilling if you let go of the resentment you are harbouring and move on.
Yeah right.
Just as your time on Usenet is far more enjoyable and fulfilling by not >>>> posting at all; thus avoiding those regular and rather unpleasant
(for you at least) encounters with Norman Wells.
Although to your credit, at least you didn't ban him.
As it is I'm quite happy where I am, thanks, all the same.
I was banned from ULM for seven days without having been given any
reason or explanation whatsoever.
Which is still the case.
Then having been invited back to ULM by the Todal, and finally
agreeing, *the second post* I post on ULM, is then rejected.
Which just so happens to be among the very first of those
14,648 unread messages in your ULM mailbox.
Just my luck eh ?
While I "respectfully suggest" that you don't treat me like some
kind of idiot; who doesn't know what they're doing
You can save that for your clients; assuming that you actually
have any.
Ciao !
bb
Assume I'm stupid; can you just explain what was the point of a post with no
added text from you?
All of which has been fully explained in my previous replies in this thread. >>
bb
Well it took me two goes to realise that you had done that without saying you'd done it. I still think that was much less than obvious.
I currently have (/me goes off to check) 14,648 unread messages in ULM.How does one determine that without actually reading the thread?
I do not think it likely that I will be clearing that list anytime soon.
I moderated the post in isolation without reference to anything said by anyone anywhere else.
It appeared to me that you had made the post in error as it did not
appear to contain any new material and I stand by that decision.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:3853427525.24bce91b@uninhabited.net...
On 29 Aug 2026 at 22:10:05 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3758542201.3f4db591@uninhabited.net...
On 29 Aug 2026 at 21:46:45 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfgrj3F52tpU1@mid.individual.net...
I respectfully suggest that your time on Usenet will be far more enjoyable
and
fulfilling if you let go of the resentment you are harbouring and move on.
Yeah right.
Just as your time on Usenet is far more enjoyable and fulfilling by not >>>>> posting at all; thus avoiding those regular and rather unpleasant
(for you at least) encounters with Norman Wells.
Although to your credit, at least you didn't ban him.
As it is I'm quite happy where I am, thanks, all the same.
I was banned from ULM for seven days without having been given any
reason or explanation whatsoever.
Which is still the case.
Then having been invited back to ULM by the Todal, and finally
agreeing, *the second post* I post on ULM, is then rejected.
Which just so happens to be among the very first of those
14,648 unread messages in your ULM mailbox.
Just my luck eh ?
While I "respectfully suggest" that you don't treat me like some
kind of idiot; who doesn't know what they're doing
You can save that for your clients; assuming that you actually
have any.
Ciao !
bb
Assume I'm stupid; can you just explain what was the point of a post with no
added text from you?
All of which has been fully explained in my previous replies in this thread.
bb
Well it took me two goes to realise that you had done that without saying
you'd done it. I still think that was much less than obvious.
What exactly is the point in making statements that are "obvious"
Which don't take any effort to understand.?
This is Usenet; not a medium for selling soapflakes to all and sundry
I've made a similar post on here, of a bald quote from a post by JNugent
Are you seriously suggesting that in order to get the point, people
would actually need it explained to them ?
"This post by JNugent illustrates the fact that he is clearly unable
or unwilling to distinguish between anti-semitism and anti-zionism
as can all truly disinterested observers.
Anyway you've now had your troll.
Nighty night !
bb
On 29/08/2026 20:52, Simon Parker wrote:
To Mr Bookcase:
I currently have (/me goes off to check) 14,648 unread messages in ULM.How does one determine that without actually reading the thread?
I do not think it likely that I will be clearing that list anytime soon.
I moderated the post in isolation without reference to anything said by
anyone anywhere else.
It appeared to me that you had made the post in error as it did not
appear to contain any new material and I stand by that decision.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3853427525.24bce91b@uninhabited.net...
On 29 Aug 2026 at 22:10:05 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3758542201.3f4db591@uninhabited.net...
On 29 Aug 2026 at 21:46:45 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfgrj3F52tpU1@mid.individual.net...
I respectfully suggest that your time on Usenet will be far more >>>>>>> enjoyable
and
fulfilling if you let go of the resentment you are harbouring and move >>>>>>> on.
Yeah right.
Just as your time on Usenet is far more enjoyable and fulfilling by not >>>>>> posting at all; thus avoiding those regular and rather unpleasant
(for you at least) encounters with Norman Wells.
Although to your credit, at least you didn't ban him.
As it is I'm quite happy where I am, thanks, all the same.
I was banned from ULM for seven days without having been given any >>>>>> reason or explanation whatsoever.
Which is still the case.
Then having been invited back to ULM by the Todal, and finally
agreeing, *the second post* I post on ULM, is then rejected.
Which just so happens to be among the very first of those
14,648 unread messages in your ULM mailbox.
Just my luck eh ?
While I "respectfully suggest" that you don't treat me like some
kind of idiot; who doesn't know what they're doing
You can save that for your clients; assuming that you actually
have any.
Ciao !
bb
Assume I'm stupid; can you just explain what was the point of a post with >>>>> no
added text from you?
All of which has been fully explained in my previous replies in this
thread.
bb
Well it took me two goes to realise that you had done that without saying >>> you'd done it. I still think that was much less than obvious.
What exactly is the point in making statements that are "obvious"
Which don't take any effort to understand.?
A statement that is obvious to one person may not be obvious to others.
All too often I have seen people claim that something is obvious when in
fact it is false.
The other failure mode is to forget the obvious statement
within minutes of making it and go on to make a catastrophic error that remembering the forgotten obvious statement would have avoided.
On usenet a line that starts '>' is obviously quoted from a referenced article. This obvious fact is embedded into some software and affects the display as well as being well known to readers who may skim over the quoted text and pay attention only to the new text. That obvious fact is of course false due to bugs, careless posting, misleading posting or malicious
posting.
Quoting from more than one article is uncommon so needs to be called out explicitly if it not to be misleading.
In their position I would be *very* suspicious of your faded to red story.
If an article has failed to include what you think is significant context
then adding the context you consider significant quoted as if it had been quoted in the article to which you are responding
In their position I would be *very* suspicious of your faded to red story.
when it had not been included is at least misleading.
I think it crosses the line into being an
abuse of the generally recognised processes for referring to their
articles.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 29/08/2026 20:52, Simon Parker wrote:
To Mr Bookcase:
I currently have (/me goes off to check) 14,648 unread messages in ULM.How does one determine that without actually reading the thread?
I do not think it likely that I will be clearing that list anytime soon. >>>
I moderated the post in isolation without reference to anything said by
anyone anywhere else.
It appeared to me that you had made the post in error as it did not
appear to contain any new material and I stand by that decision.
If all the lines in the article are marked as quoted then it contains no
new material.
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:nfgrj3F52tpU1@mid.individual.net...
I respectfully suggest that your time on Usenet will be far more enjoyable and
fulfilling if you let go of the resentment you are harbouring and move on.
Yeah right.
Just as your time on Usenet is far more enjoyable and fulfilling by not posting at all; thus avoiding those regular and rather unpleasant
(for you at least) encounters with Norman Wells.
Although to your credit, at least you didn't ban him.
As it is I'm quite happy where I am, thanks, all the same.
I was banned from ULM for seven days without having been given any
reason or explanation whatsoever.
Which is still the case.
Then having been invited back to ULM by the Todal, and finally
agreeing, *the second post* I post on ULM, is then rejected.
Which just so happens to be among the very first of those
14,648 unread messages in your ULM mailbox.
Just my luck eh ?
While I "respectfully suggest" that you don't treat me like some
kind of idiot; who doesn't know what they're doing
You can save that for your clients; assuming that you actually
have any.
Ciao !
On 29/08/2026 21:46, billy bookcase wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfgrj3F52tpU1@mid.individual.net...
Yeah right.
I respectfully suggest that your time on Usenet will be far more enjoyable >>> and
fulfilling if you let go of the resentment you are harbouring and move on. >>
My suggestion was sincere and well-intentioned
Just as your time on Usenet is far more enjoyable and fulfilling by not
posting at all; thus avoiding those regular and rather unpleasant
(for you at least) encounters with Norman Wells.
Norman's recent suggestion "that the OP has also suffered considerable inconvenience in having to get the tyre replaced for which a claim could be made that may be greater than the full cost of the one tyre, or even both. That may have some persuasive effect, or be worth pursuing if it doesn't" certainly made me smile as it is absolute patent nonsense, legally speaking.
I shall leave it to the discretion of each reader to determine for themselves whether or not the aforementioned smile was "enjoyable and fulfilling".
Although to your credit, at least you didn't ban him.
As it is I'm quite happy where I am, thanks, all the same.
I recommend looking up the word 'happy' in a dictionary.
I was banned from ULM for seven days without having been given any
reason or explanation whatsoever.
Which is still the case.
I respectfully disagree. You may not agree with the reason and explanation you have been given, but they have been provided.
This would have had a lot more impact if you hadn't just made a claim which conflated the contents of my newsreader and processing the moderation queue from within a browser.
You can save that for your clients; assuming that you actually
have any.
"Stultus est sicut stultus facit." :-)
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:nfj5chFg8idU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/08/2026 21:46, billy bookcase wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfgrj3F52tpU1@mid.individual.net...
I respectfully suggest that your time on Usenet will be far more enjoyable >>>> and whether a claim would ultimately si=ucceedfulfilling if you let go of the resentment you are harbouring and move on.
Yeah right.
My suggestion was sincere and well-intentioned
It was also patronising in the extreme.
Just as your time on Usenet is far more enjoyable and fulfilling by not
posting at all; thus avoiding those regular and rather unpleasant
(for you at least) encounters with Norman Wells.
Norman's recent suggestion "that the OP has also suffered considerable
inconvenience in having to get the tyre replaced for which a claim could be >> made that may be greater than the full cost of the one tyre, or even both. >> That may have some persuasive effect, or be worth pursuing if it doesn't"
certainly made me smile as it is absolute patent nonsense, legally speaking. >>
I shall leave it to the discretion of each reader to determine for themselves
whether or not the aforementioned smile was "enjoyable and fulfilling".
Well yes you're returned; temporarily at least; and seemingly caught Norman off guard.
But if you persist, eventually you will make a statement or a claim upon which
Norman will be able to seize, and challenge; and which you will
thus be obliged to defend ;leading you into a spiral of pointlessness and posting at even greater and greater length. (also see below)
Although to your credit, at least you didn't ban him.
As it is I'm quite happy where I am, thanks, all the same.
Because as a regular poster on ULM Perry, is regularly vilified, scorned,
and generally ridiculed by a group of at least five regulars
who form the core of the technically knowledgeable posters. While Perry
is either being regularly corrected or is mainly posting off topic
self promoting material which is apparently much resented.
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but
he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds;
On 30/08/2026 20:45, billy bookcase wrote:
Because as a regular poster on ULM Perry, is regularly vilified, scorned,
and generally ridiculed by a group of at least five regulars
who form the core of the technically knowledgeable posters. While Perry
is either being regularly corrected or is mainly posting off topic
self promoting material which is apparently much resented.
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but
he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds;
No he wasn't. None of the other moderators agreed with him at all.
I've been posting on Usenet for over 20 years.
I was banned because I got up Perry's nose. No other reason
From the way events transpired, it appeared it was because I'd upset
Roland Perry in being too persistent in my questioning his claim
to have used "pre-paid credit cards". None of which have never been
shown to exist, except in Perry's imagination.
As a result I was wrongly accused by Perry of abuse and harassment.#
And ordered to "cease and desist".
Which as it now turns out was a *wholly bogus" armour propre. being
adopted by a *wholly duplicitous Roland Perry*.
Because at that stage, having no real interest in trains. I had never >subscribed to UK.Railway. However a lead on here or ULM led me to
take a look. And what an eye opener !
Because as a regular poster on ULM Perry, is regularly vilified, scorned,
and generally ridiculed by a group of at least five regulars
who form the core of the technically knowledgeable posters. While Perry
is either being regularly corrected or is mainly posting off topic
self promoting material which is apparently much resented.
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but
he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds; given they were all totally unaware of the >"abuse" he was regularly bringing down on his own head by his behaviour
on uk.railway.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nfjiokFi61fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/08/2026 20:45, billy bookcase wrote:
Because as a regular poster on ULM Perry, is regularly vilified, scorned, >>> and generally ridiculed by a group of at least five regulars
who form the core of the technically knowledgeable posters. While Perry
is either being regularly corrected or is mainly posting off topic
self promoting material which is apparently much resented.
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but
he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds;
No he wasn't. None of the other moderators agreed with him at all.
But if that were the case, then how come none of the other moderators
chose to revoke my ban ?
As presumably they were perfectly able to do.
In message <11721a4$bjl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:45:55 on Sun, 30 Aug
2026, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but
he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds; given they were all totally unaware of the
"abuse" he was regularly bringing down on his own head by his behaviour
on uk.railway.
Gosh. You are digging yourself into an ever bigger hole with your
delusions. Justifies any and every action taken against you.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
I've been posting on Usenet for over 20 years.
I have been posting to usenet for over 30 years. I was running the news server for the organisation I worked for back in the 1990s and subscribed
to news.admin.misc to follow the discussions of what was considered to be acceptable behaviour. Abuse of usenet was seen as unacceptable where abuse
on usenet was not.
On 30/08/2026 22:02, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nfjiokFi61fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/08/2026 20:45, billy bookcase wrote:
Because as a regular poster on ULM Perry, is regularly vilified, scorned, >>>> and generally ridiculed by a group of at least five regulars
who form the core of the technically knowledgeable posters. While Perry >>>> is either being regularly corrected or is mainly posting off topic
self promoting material which is apparently much resented.
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but >>>> he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds;
No he wasn't. None of the other moderators agreed with him at all.
But if that were the case, then how come none of the other moderators
chose to revoke my ban ?
They did eventually, but they grind exceeding slow.
As presumably they were perfectly able to do.
What needed to be done, according to their own rules, was that they should have confirmed any ban, within 72 hours, by 'a majority of all moderators'. Since there are four of them in total, I make it that means at least three.
What Mr Perry says is that he put the matter to a vote, but that the other three moderators 'abstained'.
I think what is clear is that none of them actually responded at all in the time allowed, which he then misrepresented as abstaining. Whatever, not one of them 'confirmed' the ban as required. Indeed, one said when lifting the ban after about a week, that it was all done wrongly.
On 31/08/2026 07:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <11721a4$bjl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:45:55 on Sun, 30 Aug 2026, >> billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but
he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds; given they were all totally unaware of the
"abuse" he was regularly bringing down on his own head by his behaviour
on uk.railway.
Gosh. You are digging yourself into an ever bigger hole with your delusions. >> Justifies any and every action taken against you.
Not according to your own rules, nor your fellow moderators.
What needed to be done, according to their own rules, was that they
should have confirmed any ban, within 72 hours, by 'a majority of all >moderators'. Since there are four of them in total, I make it that
means at least three.
Mark Goodge gave typically compehensive accopunt of the law concerning >lotteries in response to a question, Including a specific reference to >"non-premium" rate numbers.
Perry then typically popped up citing what are premium rate numbers as somehow >being some kind of exception. A claim necessitating correcvtion from both Mark
Googe himself,
and Roger Hayter.
On 31/08/2026 07:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <11721a4$bjl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:45:55 on Sun, 30 Aug >>2026, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but
he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds; given they were all totally unaware of the
"abuse" he was regularly bringing down on his own head by his behaviour
on uk.railway.
Gosh. You are digging yourself into an ever bigger hole with your >>delusions. Justifies any and every action taken against you.
Not according to your own rules, nor your fellow moderators.
Banned for getting up Perry's nose; and for no other reason !
He just can't help himself, can he ?
I can think of only one area where abuse of usenet has always
been frowned on , at least not in the groups that I ever read.
And that is the general anathema against commercial activity
of any kind; even to the extent of limiting sig files
In message <nfkoktFnsisU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:26:20 on Mon, 31 Aug >2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
What needed to be done, according to their own rules, was that they should >>have confirmed any ban, within 72 hours, by 'a majority of all >>moderators'. Since there are four of them in total, I make it that means >>at least three.
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared a >'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry
wrote:
In message <nfkoktFnsisU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:26:20 on Mon, 31
Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
What needed to be done, according to their own rules, was that they >>>should have confirmed any ban, within 72 hours, by 'a majority of all >>>moderators'. Since there are four of them in total, I make it that >>>means at least three.
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared
a 'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
In the voting system we use in the UK you actually have to vote for
your vote to be counted.
In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nfkoktFnsisU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:26:20 on Mon, 31 Aug >>>2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
What needed to be done, according to their own rules, was that they should >>>>have confirmed any ban, within 72 hours, by 'a majority of all >>>>moderators'. Since there are four of them in total, I make it that means >>>>at least three.
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared a >>>'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if Billions. >But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
In the voting system we use in the UK you actually have to vote for your >>vote to be counted.
Indeed, so moderators need to vote, to have their vote (in this case >against-a-temporary-suspension) counted.
HURRAH!! We are in fierce agreement. I've put a cross in my diary.
In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nfkoktFnsisU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:26:20 on Mon, 31
Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
What needed to be done, according to their own rules, was that they
should have confirmed any ban, within 72 hours, by 'a majority of
all moderators'.-a Since there are four of them in total, I make it
that means at least three.
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared
a 'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if
Billions. But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
In the voting system we use in the UK you actually have to vote for
your vote to be counted.
Indeed, so moderators need to vote, to have their vote (in this case against-a-temporary-suspension) counted.
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on Mon, >>31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>>That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared a >>>>'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if Billions. >>But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority vote
to leave and one day we may do so.
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on Mon, >>>31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>>>That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared a >>>>>'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if >>>Billions.
But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority vote >>to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know
what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
What needed to be done, according to their own rules, was that they >>>>>should have confirmed any ban, within 72 hours, by 'a majority of >>>>>all moderators'. Since there are four of them in total, I make it >>>>>that means at least three.
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was
declared a 'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if
Billions. But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority"
means.
Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority
vote to leave and one day we may do so.
There were many reasons for leaving, on the economic front if you can >distinguish the effect of Covid, Ukraine, Israel, etc. then you must be
god.
In the voting system we use in the UK you actually have to vote for
your vote to be counted.
Indeed, so moderators need to vote, to have their vote (in this case >>against-a-temporary-suspension) counted.
There ought to be clearer rules on moderators but Usenet is in its
death throes so probably not worth it now.
--HURRAH!! We are in fierce agreement. I've put a cross in my diary.
We agree on a lot of things I think.
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on Mon, >>>31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>>>That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared a >>>>>'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if Billions. >>>But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority vote
to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know
what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
On 31/08/2026 in message
<slrn119aqrv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>>In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on Mon, >>>>31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>>>>That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared a >>>>>>'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if >>>>Billions.
But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority vote >>>to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know
what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are still in thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are still in >thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
In message <xn0pu6c3sa46kj100z@news.individual.net>, at 11:38:16 on Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
What needed to be done, according to their own rules, was that they should
have confirmed any ban, within 72 hours, by 'a majority of all >>>>>>moderators'. Since there are four of them in total, I make it that means
at least three.
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared a >>>>>'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if Billions. >>>But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority vote >>to leave and one day we may do so.
Using infantile language like that means you automatically lose the
debate. But Leaving has cost myself and may friends their businesses (due
to extra paperwork) has introduced massive friction on travel to The >Continent, and even still threatens to make some people lose their homes
(an expat friend is trapped in visa-hell in France, and doesn't even dare >come to the UK to visit her family).
There were many reasons for leaving, on the economic front if you can >>distinguish the effect of Covid, Ukraine, Israel, etc. then you must be >>god.
Professional economists have done that analysis. Why have a dog, and bark >yourself?
In the voting system we use in the UK you actually have to vote for your >>>>vote to be counted.
Indeed, so moderators need to vote, to have their vote (in this case >>>against-a-temporary-suspension) counted.
There ought to be clearer rules on moderators but Usenet is in its death >>throes so probably not worth it now.
The clearest rule is moderators have a duty to ensure the minimum
number of toxic postings, which currently emanate mainly from just
two subscribers.
I wonder if they are being paid by another platform (eg Facebook) to make >Usenet uninhabitable?
In message <xn0pu6cu2a53ibe012@news.individual.net>, at 12:03:53 on Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are still in >>thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
That's because of the Good Friday Agreement. Are you suggesting we should >encourage "The Troubles" to restart?
And anyway, the only EU-related things to do with Ireland work very much
in the favour of those living in the North, and have pretty much zero
impact on people living in the rest of the UK.
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message
<slrn119aqrv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>>>In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on >>>>>Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry >>>>>>wrote:
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared >>>>>>>a
'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if >>>>>Billions.
But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority >>>>vote
to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know
what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are still in >>thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
Yes, this was the inherent contradiction of Brexit - that the goals
that many people wanted from it were unachievable pipe dreams. We are
now a small and isolated country sat right next to a massively larger
and more powerful neighbour which we are reliant upon in many ways.
If you were Prime Minister with a huge majority of MPs such that you
could easily pass any Act of Parliament you wished, what would you
change from the current situation, so that your One True Pure and
Perfect Brexit would be achieved?
On 31/08/2026 in message
<slrn119at9c.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>><slrn119aqrv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>>>>In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on >>>>>>Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry >>>>>>>wrote:
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared >>>>>>>>a
'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if >>>>>>Billions.
But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority >>>>>vote
to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know
what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are still in >>>thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
Yes, this was the inherent contradiction of Brexit - that the goals
that many people wanted from it were unachievable pipe dreams. We are
now a small and isolated country sat right next to a massively larger
and more powerful neighbour which we are reliant upon in many ways.
That has always been the case in our existence, membership of the EU
was the blip, not leaving the EU.
If you were Prime Minister with a huge majority of MPs such that you
could easily pass any Act of Parliament you wished, what would you
change from the current situation, so that your One True Pure and
Perfect Brexit would be achieved?
Life is too short, we need to clean up as we go and ensure we don't
have closer ties beyond trade agreements in the same way we do with
the rest of the world.
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message
<slrn119at9c.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>>><slrn119aqrv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry >>>>>>wrote:
In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on >>>>>>>Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry >>>>>>>>wrote:
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was >>>>>>>>>declared
a
'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if >>>>>>>Billions.
But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority >>>>>>vote
to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know
what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are still in >>>>thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
Yes, this was the inherent contradiction of Brexit - that the goals
that many people wanted from it were unachievable pipe dreams. We are
now a small and isolated country sat right next to a massively larger
and more powerful neighbour which we are reliant upon in many ways.
That has always been the case in our existence, membership of the EU
was the blip, not leaving the EU.
No, because the EU did not always exist. We used to be neighbours
to many countries, now we are neighbours to the EU.
If you were Prime Minister with a huge majority of MPs such that you >>>could easily pass any Act of Parliament you wished, what would you
change from the current situation, so that your One True Pure and
Perfect Brexit would be achieved?
Life is too short, we need to clean up as we go and ensure we don't
have closer ties beyond trade agreements in the same way we do with
the rest of the world.
What on earth does that mean? And why?
Life is too short, we need to clean up as we go and ensure we don't
have closer ties beyond trade agreements in the same way we do with
the rest of the world.
What on earth does that mean? And why?
It's pretty straightforward English surely? Because there is no reason
for us to treat the EU differently to anywhere else.
On 31/08/2026 in message
<slrn119at9c.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>><slrn119aqrv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>>>>In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 >>>>>>on Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry >>>>>>>wrote:
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was >>>>>>>>declared a
'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if >>>>>>Billions.
But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a
majority vote
to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know
what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are still in >>>thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
Yes, this was the inherent contradiction of Brexit - that the goals
that many people wanted from it were unachievable pipe dreams. We are
now a small and isolated country sat right next to a massively larger
and more powerful neighbour which we are reliant upon in many ways.
That has always been the case in our existence
, membership of the EU was the blip, not leaving the EU.
On 31/08/2026 in message
<slrn119avl7.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>><slrn119at9c.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>>>><slrn119aqrv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>>On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry >>>>>>>wrote:
In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on >>>>>>>>Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry >>>>>>>>>wrote:
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was >>>>>>>>>>declared
a
'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if >>>>>>>>Billions.
But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority >>>>>>>vote
to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know
what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are still in >>>>>thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
Yes, this was the inherent contradiction of Brexit - that the goals >>>>that many people wanted from it were unachievable pipe dreams. We are >>>>now a small and isolated country sat right next to a massively larger >>>>and more powerful neighbour which we are reliant upon in many ways.
That has always been the case in our existence, membership of the EU
was the blip, not leaving the EU.
No, because the EU did not always exist. We used to be neighbours
to many countries, now we are neighbours to the EU.
If you were Prime Minister with a huge majority of MPs such that you >>>>could easily pass any Act of Parliament you wished, what would you >>>>change from the current situation, so that your One True Pure and >>>>Perfect Brexit would be achieved?
Life is too short, we need to clean up as we go and ensure we don't
have closer ties beyond trade agreements in the same way we do with
the rest of the world.
What on earth does that mean? And why?
It's pretty straightforward English surely?
Because there is no reason for us to treat the EU differently to
anywhere else.
In message <xn0pu6euba7utbi018@news.individual.net>, at 13:21:06 on Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
Life is too short, we need to clean up as we go and ensure we don't >>>>have closer ties beyond trade agreements in the same way we do with
the rest of the world.
What on earth does that mean? And why?
It's pretty straightforward English surely? Because there is no reason for >>us to treat the EU differently to anywhere else.
Only because it's closer, and a much bigger partner.
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message
<slrn119avl7.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>>><slrn119at9c.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>>>>><slrn119aqrv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>>>On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry >>>>>>>>wrote:
In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on >>>>>>>>>Mon,Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority >>>>>>>>vote
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was >>>>>>>>>>>declared
a
'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if >>>>>>>>>Billions.
But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means. >>>>>>>>
to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know >>>>>>>what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are still in >>>>>>
thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
Yes, this was the inherent contradiction of Brexit - that the goals >>>>>that many people wanted from it were unachievable pipe dreams. We are >>>>>now a small and isolated country sat right next to a massively larger >>>>>and more powerful neighbour which we are reliant upon in many ways.
That has always been the case in our existence, membership of the EU >>>>was the blip, not leaving the EU.
No, because the EU did not always exist. We used to be neighbours
to many countries, now we are neighbours to the EU.
If you were Prime Minister with a huge majority of MPs such that you >>>>>could easily pass any Act of Parliament you wished, what would you >>>>>change from the current situation, so that your One True Pure and >>>>>Perfect Brexit would be achieved?
Life is too short, we need to clean up as we go and ensure we don't >>>>have closer ties beyond trade agreements in the same way we do with
the rest of the world.
What on earth does that mean? And why?
It's pretty straightforward English surely?
Not in the slightest. What does "clean up as we go" mean as a country?
Because there is no reason for us to treat the EU differently to
anywhere else.
Except we already agreed above that there are very important reasons
to do that - they are a massively larger and more powerful neighbour
on our doorstep. We were a major part of one of the superpowers of
the world, with significance and influence. Now we're driftwood lost
in the storm.
, membership of the EU was the blip, not leaving the EU.
Membership of the EU was a joy. Facilitated so much employment, trade, and >travel/residency opportunities.
But Leaving has cost myself and may friends their businesses
(due to extra paperwork) has introduced massive friction on travel to
The Continent, and even still threatens to make some people lose their
homes (an expat friend is trapped in visa-hell in France, and doesn't
even dare come to the UK to visit her family).
In message <nfkoktFnsisU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:26:20 on Mon, 31
Aug 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
What needed to be done, according to their own rules, was that they
should have confirmed any ban, within 72 hours, by 'a majority of all
moderators'. Since there are four of them in total, I make it that
means at least three.
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared a
'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nfkoktFnsisU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:26:20 on Mon, 31 Aug
2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
What needed to be done, according to their own rules, was that they should >>> have confirmed any ban, within 72 hours, by 'a majority of all
moderators'. Since there are four of them in total, I make it that means >>> at least three.
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared a
'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
In the voting system we use in the UK you actually have to vote for your
vote to be counted.
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>
In message <nfkoktFnsisU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:26:20 on Mon, 31 Aug >>>> 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
What needed to be done, according to their own rules, was that they should
have confirmed any ban, within 72 hours, by 'a majority of all
moderators'. Since there are four of them in total, I make it that means >>>>> at least three.
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared a >>>> 'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if Billions. >> But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority vote
to leave and one day we may do so.
There were many reasons for leaving, on the economic front if you can distinguish the effect of Covid, Ukraine, Israel, etc. then you must be god.
In the voting system we use in the UK you actually have to vote for your >>> vote to be counted.
Indeed, so moderators need to vote, to have their vote (in this case
against-a-temporary-suspension) counted.
There ought to be clearer rules on moderators but Usenet is in its death throes so probably not worth it now.
--HURRAH!! We are in fierce agreement. I've put a cross in my diary.
We agree on a lot of things I think.
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message
<slrn119aqrv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>>> In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on Mon, >>>>> 31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>>>>> That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared a >>>>>>> 'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if
Billions.
But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority vote >>>> to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know
what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are still in
thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
Yes, this was the inherent contradiction of Brexit - that the goals
that many people wanted from it were unachievable pipe dreams. We are
now a small and isolated country sat right next to a massively larger
and more powerful neighbour which we are reliant upon in many ways.
If you were Prime Minister with a huge majority of MPs such that you
could easily pass any Act of Parliament you wished, what would you
change from the current situation, so that your One True Pure and
Perfect Brexit would be achieved?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
But Leaving has cost myself and may friends their businesses
(due to extra paperwork) has introduced massive friction on travel to
The Continent, and even still threatens to make some people lose their
homes (an expat friend is trapped in visa-hell in France, and doesn't
even dare come to the UK to visit her family).
Unfortunately, the tail doesnrCOt wag the dog.
The EU made it plain enough that they were going to be nasty, if your
friend didnrCOt see it coming, then tough luck.
It is an aim of the moderation to filter out meaningless junk.
On 31 Aug 2026 at 12:01:27 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nfkoktFnsisU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:26:20 on Mon, 31 Aug >>>2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
What needed to be done, according to their own rules, was that they >>>>should
have confirmed any ban, within 72 hours, by 'a majority of all >>>>moderators'. Since there are four of them in total, I make it that >>>>means
at least three.
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared a >>>'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
In the voting system we use in the UK you actually have to vote for your >>vote to be counted.
You are fiercely agreeing with his (inapplicable) point!
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on Mon, >>> 31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>>> That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared a >>>>> 'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if Billions. >>> But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority vote
to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know
what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
In message <nfli1dFrv9kU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:39:41 on Mon, 31
Aug 2026, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
But Leaving has cost myself and may friends their businesses
(due to extra paperwork) has introduced massive friction on travel to
The Continent, and even still threatens to make some people lose their
homes (an expat friend is trapped in visa-hell in France, and doesn't
even dare come to the UK to visit her family).
Unfortunately, the tail doesnrCOt wag the dog.
The EU made it plain enough that they were going to be nasty, if your
friend didnrCOt see it coming, then tough luck.
They've lived there happily for at least 20yrs, but are now mired in red tape. It's ridiculous to expect them to sell-up and come back to the UK, just because some Xenophobes were jealous of seasonal crop-pickers
"stealing our jobs". Which it turned out, after Brexit, Brits didn't
want anyway.
On 31/08/2026 in message
<slrn119b0hv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>><slrn119avl7.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>>>><slrn119at9c.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>>On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>>>>>><slrn119aqrv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>>>>On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry >>>>>>>>>wrote:
In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on >>>>>>>>>>Mon,Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority >>>>>>>>>vote
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked: >>>>>>>>>>>On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry >>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was >>>>>>>>>>>>declaredDisingenuous remainiac crap.
a
'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke. >>>>>>>>>>>
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if >>>>>>>>>>Billions.
But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means. >>>>>>>>>
to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know >>>>>>>>what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are still in >>>>>>>
thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
Yes, this was the inherent contradiction of Brexit - that the goals >>>>>>that many people wanted from it were unachievable pipe dreams. We are >>>>>>now a small and isolated country sat right next to a massively larger >>>>>>and more powerful neighbour which we are reliant upon in many ways.
That has always been the case in our existence, membership of the EU >>>>>was the blip, not leaving the EU.
No, because the EU did not always exist. We used to be neighbours
to many countries, now we are neighbours to the EU.
If you were Prime Minister with a huge majority of MPs such that you >>>>>>could easily pass any Act of Parliament you wished, what would you >>>>>>change from the current situation, so that your One True Pure and >>>>>>Perfect Brexit would be achieved?
Life is too short, we need to clean up as we go and ensure we don't >>>>>have closer ties beyond trade agreements in the same way we do with >>>>>the rest of the world.
What on earth does that mean? And why?
It's pretty straightforward English surely?
Not in the slightest. What does "clean up as we go" mean as a country?
It's what one of our governments decided to do, instead of a wholesale abandonment of EU derived law we would deal with things as they arise.
Do you seriously not understand that?
Because there is no reason for us to treat the EU differently to
anywhere else.
Except we already agreed above that there are very important reasons
to do that - they are a massively larger and more powerful neighbour
on our doorstep. We were a major part of one of the superpowers of
the world, with significance and influence. Now we're driftwood lost
in the storm.
Sorry, where did "we" agree that? I think it's another Ribbens opinion
that you are trying to slip into law :-)
On 31 Aug 2026 at 13:35:56 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are still in
thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
Yes, this was the inherent contradiction of Brexit - that the goals
that many people wanted from it were unachievable pipe dreams. We are
now a small and isolated country sat right next to a massively larger
and more powerful neighbour which we are reliant upon in many ways.
If you were Prime Minister with a huge majority of MPs such that you
could easily pass any Act of Parliament you wished, what would you
change from the current situation, so that your One True Pure and
Perfect Brexit would be achieved?
We could do what Farage suggested re refugees and invade France so we
could tell them what to do?
On 31/08/2026 12:54, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>> In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 on Mon, >>>> 31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>>>> That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared a >>>>>> 'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if Billions. >>>> But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means.
Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a majority vote >>> to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know
what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
You must have known that he would say that we haven't Brexited enough?
What we need is some of those really powerful ocean-going tugs to move
the British Isles a few hundred miles West.
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message
<slrn119b0hv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>>><slrn119avl7.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>>>>><slrn119at9c.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>>>On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
That has always been the case in our existence, membership of the EU >>>>>>was the blip, not leaving the EU.On 31/08/2026 in message >>>>>>>><slrn119aqrv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>>wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 >>>>>>>>>>>onStill disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a >>>>>>>>>>majority
Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked: >>>>>>>>>>>>On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland >>>>>>>>>>>>Perry
wrote:
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>declaredDisingenuous remainiac crap.
a
'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if >>>>>>>>>>>Billions.
But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means. >>>>>>>>>>
vote
to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know >>>>>>>>>what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are still >>>>>>>>in
thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
Yes, this was the inherent contradiction of Brexit - that the goals >>>>>>>that many people wanted from it were unachievable pipe dreams. We are >>>>>>>now a small and isolated country sat right next to a massively larger >>>>>>>and more powerful neighbour which we are reliant upon in many ways. >>>>>>
No, because the EU did not always exist. We used to be neighbours
to many countries, now we are neighbours to the EU.
If you were Prime Minister with a huge majority of MPs such that you >>>>>>>could easily pass any Act of Parliament you wished, what would you >>>>>>>change from the current situation, so that your One True Pure and >>>>>>>Perfect Brexit would be achieved?
Life is too short, we need to clean up as we go and ensure we don't >>>>>>have closer ties beyond trade agreements in the same way we do with >>>>>>the rest of the world.
What on earth does that mean? And why?
It's pretty straightforward English surely?
Not in the slightest. What does "clean up as we go" mean as a country?
It's what one of our governments decided to do, instead of a wholesale >>abandonment of EU derived law we would deal with things as they arise.
Do you seriously not understand that?
I of course know that that is what the government did (because if
you're going to abandon the EU, that's the only way of doing it).
But neither I nor anyone else could possibly have understood that
that was what you meant by "clean up as we go".
Because there is no reason for us to treat the EU differently to >>>>anywhere else.
Except we already agreed above that there are very important reasons
to do that - they are a massively larger and more powerful neighbour
on our doorstep. We were a major part of one of the superpowers of
the world, with significance and influence. Now we're driftwood lost
in the storm.
Sorry, where did "we" agree that? I think it's another Ribbens opinion
that you are trying to slip into law :-)
It's still quoted above, where I said "We are now a small and isolated >country sat right next to a massively larger and more powerful neighbour >which we are reliant upon in many ways" and you replied "That has always
been the case".
On 31/08/2026 in message
<slrn119bi9a.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>><slrn119b0hv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>>>><slrn119avl7.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>>On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>>>>>><slrn119at9c.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>>>>On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
That has always been the case in our existence, membership of the EU >>>>>>>was the blip, not leaving the EU.On 31/08/2026 in message >>>>>>>>><slrn119aqrv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland Perry >>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at 11:01:27 >>>>>>>>>>>>onStill disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a >>>>>>>>>>>majority
Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked: >>>>>>>>>>>>>On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland >>>>>>>>>>>>>Perry
wrote:
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>declaredDisingenuous remainiac crap.
a
'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens if >>>>>>>>>>>>Billions.
But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means. >>>>>>>>>>>
vote
to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know >>>>>>>>>>what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are still >>>>>>>>>in
thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
Yes, this was the inherent contradiction of Brexit - that the goals >>>>>>>>that many people wanted from it were unachievable pipe dreams. We are >>>>>>>>now a small and isolated country sat right next to a massively larger >>>>>>>>and more powerful neighbour which we are reliant upon in many ways. >>>>>>>
No, because the EU did not always exist. We used to be neighbours >>>>>>to many countries, now we are neighbours to the EU.
If you were Prime Minister with a huge majority of MPs such that you >>>>>>>>could easily pass any Act of Parliament you wished, what would you >>>>>>>>change from the current situation, so that your One True Pure and >>>>>>>>Perfect Brexit would be achieved?
Life is too short, we need to clean up as we go and ensure we don't >>>>>>>have closer ties beyond trade agreements in the same way we do with >>>>>>>the rest of the world.
What on earth does that mean? And why?
It's pretty straightforward English surely?
Not in the slightest. What does "clean up as we go" mean as a country?
It's what one of our governments decided to do, instead of a wholesale >>>abandonment of EU derived law we would deal with things as they arise.
Do you seriously not understand that?
I of course know that that is what the government did (because if
you're going to abandon the EU, that's the only way of doing it).
But neither I nor anyone else could possibly have understood that
that was what you meant by "clean up as we go".
You can only speak for yourself of course, nobody else has said they
didn't understand.
Because there is no reason for us to treat the EU differently to >>>>>anywhere else.
Except we already agreed above that there are very important reasons
to do that - they are a massively larger and more powerful neighbour
on our doorstep. We were a major part of one of the superpowers of
the world, with significance and influence. Now we're driftwood lost
in the storm.
Sorry, where did "we" agree that? I think it's another Ribbens opinion >>>that you are trying to slip into law :-)
It's still quoted above, where I said "We are now a small and isolated >>country sat right next to a massively larger and more powerful neighbour >>which we are reliant upon in many ways" and you replied "That has always >>been the case".
Yes, obviously, the UK has been fixed in place geographically for quite
some time.
The EU made it plain enough that they were going to be nasty, if yourAs people might recall, the traitor Heath arranged it so that there was
friend didnrCOt see it coming, then tough luck.
In message <xn0pu6euba7utbi018@news.individual.net>, at 13:21:06 on
Mon, 31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
[...]
What on earth does that mean? And why?
It's pretty straightforward English surely? Because there is no
reason for us to treat the EU differently to anywhere else.
Only because it's closer, and a much bigger partner.
On 31 Aug 2026 14:39:41 GMT
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The EU made it plain enough that they were going to be nasty, if your
friend didnrCOt see it coming, then tough luck.
As people might recall, the traitor Heath arranged it so that there was
no referendum before Britain joined the EEC in 1973, and then the
following Wilson government spent a lot of effort on ensuring that the referendum in 1975 gained a Yes result on the question of staying in.
As a never-joiner I could easily sit here and say "I told you so". And
I did, as did my very worldly-wise parents before me.
In message <xn0pu6cu2a53ibe012@news.individual.net>, at 12:03:53 on Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are still in
thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
That's because of the Good Friday Agreement. Are you suggesting we
should encourage "The Troubles" to restart?
And anyway, the only EU-related things to do with Ireland work very much
in the favour of those living in the North, and have pretty much zero
impact on people living in the rest of the UK.
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message
<slrn119bi9a.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>>><slrn119b0hv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:It's what one of our governments decided to do, instead of a wholesale >>>>abandonment of EU derived law we would deal with things as they arise. >>>>Do you seriously not understand that?
On 31/08/2026 in message >>>>>><slrn119avl7.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>>>On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>>>>>>><slrn119at9c.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>>wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:That has always been the case in our existence, membership of the EU >>>>>>>>was the blip, not leaving the EU.
On 31/08/2026 in message >>>>>>>>>><slrn119aqrv.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>On 31/08/2026 in message <CeQrzpN$BWlqFALq@perry.uk> Roland >>>>>>>>>>>>Perry
wrote:
In message <xn0pu6b71a2v7uk00y@news.individual.net>, at >>>>>>>>>>>>>11:01:27Still disingenuous and used only by remainiacs, there was a >>>>>>>>>>>>majority
on
Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Perry
wrote:
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>declaredDisingenuous remainiac crap.
a
'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Facts. And now we know as a fact that Brexit has cost us tens >>>>>>>>>>>>>if
Billions.
But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what "majority" means. >>>>>>>>>>>>
vote
to leave and one day we may do so.
... sorry, I know this is a bad idea, but I just have to know >>>>>>>>>>>what on earth you mean by "and one day we may do so".
We didn't leave cleanly, there are too many areas where we are >>>>>>>>>>still
in
thrall to the EU, Northern Ireland for instance.
Yes, this was the inherent contradiction of Brexit - that the goals >>>>>>>>>that many people wanted from it were unachievable pipe dreams. We >>>>>>>>>are
now a small and isolated country sat right next to a massively >>>>>>>>>larger
and more powerful neighbour which we are reliant upon in many ways. >>>>>>>>
No, because the EU did not always exist. We used to be neighbours >>>>>>>to many countries, now we are neighbours to the EU.
If you were Prime Minister with a huge majority of MPs such that >>>>>>>>>you
could easily pass any Act of Parliament you wished, what would you >>>>>>>>>change from the current situation, so that your One True Pure and >>>>>>>>>Perfect Brexit would be achieved?
Life is too short, we need to clean up as we go and ensure we don't >>>>>>>>have closer ties beyond trade agreements in the same way we do with >>>>>>>>the rest of the world.
What on earth does that mean? And why?
It's pretty straightforward English surely?
Not in the slightest. What does "clean up as we go" mean as a country? >>>>
I of course know that that is what the government did (because if
you're going to abandon the EU, that's the only way of doing it).
But neither I nor anyone else could possibly have understood that
that was what you meant by "clean up as we go".
You can only speak for yourself of course, nobody else has said they
didn't understand.
Because there is no reason for us to treat the EU differently to >>>>>>anywhere else.
Except we already agreed above that there are very important reasons >>>>>to do that - they are a massively larger and more powerful neighbour >>>>>on our doorstep. We were a major part of one of the superpowers of >>>>>the world, with significance and influence. Now we're driftwood lost >>>>>in the storm.
Sorry, where did "we" agree that? I think it's another Ribbens opinion >>>>that you are trying to slip into law :-)
It's still quoted above, where I said "We are now a small and isolated >>>country sat right next to a massively larger and more powerful neighbour >>>which we are reliant upon in many ways" and you replied "That has always >>>been the case".
Yes, obviously, the UK has been fixed in place geographically for quite >>some time.
So I'm glad we also agree that your "no reason for us to treat the
EU differently" and "I think it's another Ribbens opinion" statements
were mistaken ;-)
On 31/08/2026 in message <8994622602.8ad54673@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 31 Aug 2026 at 12:01:27 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message <PcOITaLHgVlqFAay@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>
In message <nfkoktFnsisU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:26:20 on Mon, 31 Aug >>>> 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
What needed to be done, according to their own rules, was that they
should
have confirmed any ban, within 72 hours, by 'a majority of all
moderators'. Since there are four of them in total, I make it that
means
at least three.
That's not how majorities vote. Remember Brexit where it was declared a >>>> 'win' for "leave", but only 37% of the electorate spoke.
Disingenuous remainiac crap.
In the voting system we use in the UK you actually have to vote for your >>> vote to be counted.
You are fiercely agreeing with his (inapplicable) point!
I was talking about Brexit, at my age following arguments about moderation could take up a very large portion of the rest of my life :-)
On 31/08/2026 in message
<slrn119bmnp.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2026 in message >>><slrn119bi9a.6tje.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>It's still quoted above, where I said "We are now a small and isolated >>>>country sat right next to a massively larger and more powerful neighbour >>>>which we are reliant upon in many ways" and you replied "That has always >>>>been the case".
Yes, obviously, the UK has been fixed in place geographically for quite >>>some time.
So I'm glad we also agree that your "no reason for us to treat the
EU differently" and "I think it's another Ribbens opinion" statements
were mistaken ;-)
If it pleases the court I wish to amend my response to an earlier
statement. The statement was:
"We are now a small and isolated country sat right next to a massively larger and more powerful neighbour which we are reliant upon in many ways."
My revised response is:
1) Our size has not change substantially for some millennia so I put
it to the court that we are no smaller now than we were previously.
2) We are indeed located next to the European mainland, again this has not changed for some millennia although in the distant past we were actually physically attached by dry land to said neighbour but the English Channel has subsequently intervened.
3) I do not believe that we are reliant upon said neighbour.
4) I assert that point 3 is an opinion of our honourable friend, Jon Ribbens, and not necessarily a statement of fact.
I swear this upon the 5 bars of Lindt LINDOR White Chocolate Bar - 100 G - The Perfect Treat - Chocolate With A Smooth Melting Filling that were delivered to m this afternoon and,frankly, should be made illegal.
I apologise to the court for my original somewhat sloppy response.
On 31 Aug 2026 14:39:41 GMT
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The EU made it plain enough that they were going to be nasty, if your
friend didnrCOt see it coming, then tough luck.
As people might recall, the traitor Heath arranged it so that there was
no referendum before Britain joined the EEC in 1973, and then the
following Wilson government spent a lot of effort on ensuring that the referendum in 1975 gained a Yes result on the question of staying in.
As a never-joiner I could easily sit here and say "I told you so". And
I did, as did my very worldly-wise parents before me.
On 31/08/2026 17:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nfli1dFrv9kU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:39:41 on Mon, 31
Aug 2026, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
But Leaving has cost myself and may friends their businesses
(due to extra paperwork) has introduced massive friction on travel to
The Continent, and even still threatens to make some people lose their >>>> homes (an expat friend is trapped in visa-hell in France, and doesn't
even dare come to the UK to visit her family).
Unfortunately, the tail doesnrCOt wag the dog.
The EU made it plain enough that they were going to be nasty, if your
friend didnrCOt see it coming, then tough luck.
They've lived there happily for at least 20yrs, but are now mired in red
tape. It's ridiculous to expect them to sell-up and come back to the UK,
just because some Xenophobes were jealous of seasonal crop-pickers
"stealing our jobs". Which it turned out, after Brexit, Brits didn't
want anyway.
Brexiters were convinced the EU was spending loads of our money and achieving nothing. It was just an extra load of bureaucracy for us to
pay for.
In message <nfli1dFrv9kU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:39:41 on Mon, 31
Aug 2026, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
But Leaving has cost myself and may friends their businesses
(due to extra paperwork) has introduced massive friction on travel to
The Continent, and even still threatens to make some people lose their
homes (an expat friend is trapped in visa-hell in France, and doesn't
even dare come to the UK to visit her family).
Unfortunately, the tail doesnrCOt wag the dog.
The EU made it plain enough that they were going to be nasty, if your
friend didnrCOt see it coming, then tough luck.
They've lived there happily for at least 20yrs, but are now mired in red tape.
It's ridiculous to expect them to sell-up and come back to the UK,
just because some Xenophobes were jealous of seasonal crop-pickers
"stealing our jobs". Which it turned out, after Brexit, Brits didn't
want anyway.
I see IcelandrCOs recent referendum regarding rejoining the EU resulted
in rejection of the proposal.
On 2026-08-31, Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:Nothing will ever be able to prove British accession to the EEC "right".
On 31 Aug 2026 14:39:41 GMT
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The EU made it plain enough that they were going to be nasty, if
your friend didnrCOt see it coming, then tough luck.
As people might recall, the traitor Heath arranged it so that there
was no referendum before Britain joined the EEC in 1973, and then
the following Wilson government spent a lot of effort on ensuring
that the referendum in 1975 gained a Yes result on the question of
staying in.
As a never-joiner I could easily sit here and say "I told you so".
And I did, as did my very worldly-wise parents before me.
People usually say "I told you so" when they're proven right,
not when they're proven wrong.
On 2026-08-31, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:The rejection was of the intention to negotiate a proposal to join, so
I see IcelandrCOs recent referendum regarding rejoining the EU
resulted in rejection of the proposal.
Iceland can't "rejoin" the EU as it was never in the EU.
And it was and still is in EFTA, the EEA, and Schengen.I have learned something about the Schengen agreement as a result of
On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 23:01:15 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
I see IcelandrCOs recent referendum regarding rejoining the EU
resulted in rejection of the proposal.
Iceland can't "rejoin" the EU as it was never in the EU.
The rejection was of the intention to negotiate a proposal to join, so
it was a rejection of the very first step in the process.
And it was and still is in EFTA, the EEA, and Schengen.
I have learned something about the Schengen agreement as a result of
your post. It pre-dates the creation of the EU and was agreed between 5 >countries originally. Presumably before the EU's dead hand descended on
the member states and insisted that EEC/EU law had primacy.
If not then it's surprising that Brussels permitted it to happen given
the predilection for overwhelming legislation from the Commission.
In the voting system we use in the UK you actually have to vote for your >>>>vote to be counted.
You are fiercely agreeing with his (inapplicable) point!
I was talking about Brexit, at my age following arguments about moderation >>could take up a very large portion of the rest of my life :-)
I know; but on this occasion Mr Perry was using the voting system in the >Brexit referendum as an example of something he agreed with, so your >objection was confused to say the least.
On 2026-08-31, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
I see IcelandrCOs recent referendum regarding rejoining the EU resulted
in rejection of the proposal.
Iceland can't "rejoin" the EU as it was never in the EU.
And it was and still is in EFTA, the EEA, and Schengen.
What does "clean up as we go" mean as a country?
It's what one of our governments decided to do, instead of a wholesale >abandonment of EU derived law we would deal with things as they arise.
On 31/08/2026 in message <C3b7J$RREYlqFAJV@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
, membership of the EU was the blip, not leaving the EU.
Membership of the EU was a joy. Facilitated so much employment, trade,
and travel/residency opportunities.
Good to know how YOU felt about it :-)
You must have known that he would say that we haven't Brexited enough?
Of course - I was wondering in what conceivable way we haven't Brexited >enough, especially given we in fact Brexited far harder than any of the >Quitlings claimed we would in the result of them winning the referendum.
On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 14:28:13 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <xn0pu6euba7utbi018@news.individual.net>, at 13:21:06 on
Mon, 31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
[...]
What on earth does that mean? And why?
It's pretty straightforward English surely? Because there is no
reason for us to treat the EU differently to anywhere else.
Only because it's closer, and a much bigger partner.
Partner? Only an abusive one.
On 31/08/2026 in message <63U15YStFYlqFAuz@perry.uk> Roland Perry
wrote:
In message <xn0pu6euba7utbi018@news.individual.net>, at 13:21:06 on
Mon, 31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
Life is too short, we need to clean up as we go and ensure we don't >>>>>have closer ties beyond trade agreements in the same way we do with >>>>>the rest of the world.
What on earth does that mean? And why?
It's pretty straightforward English surely? Because there is no
reason for us to treat the EU differently to anywhere else.
Only because it's closer, and a much bigger partner.
Come on, I had a couple of pairs of trousers from China delivered on
Friday, what does it matter how far away it is?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <nfli1dFrv9kU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:39:41 on Mon, 31
Aug 2026, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
But Leaving has cost myself and may friends their businesses
(due to extra paperwork) has introduced massive friction on travel to
The Continent, and even still threatens to make some people lose their >>>> homes (an expat friend is trapped in visa-hell in France, and doesn't
even dare come to the UK to visit her family).
Unfortunately, the tail doesnrCOt wag the dog.
The EU made it plain enough that they were going to be nasty, if your
friend didnrCOt see it coming, then tough luck.
They've lived there happily for at least 20yrs, but are now mired in red
tape.
France, and the EU, are mired in red tape. Surely they were aware of this?
It's ridiculous to expect them to sell-up and come back to the UK,
just because some Xenophobes were jealous of seasonal crop-pickers
"stealing our jobs". Which it turned out, after Brexit, Brits didn't
want anyway.
That sounds like the rantings of a typical remainiac.
Good luck getting acceptable wine and cheese from China.
In message <xn0pu6fpza94pob01c@news.individual.net>, at 13:56:48 on Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
What does "clean up as we go" mean as a country?
It's what one of our governments decided to do, instead of a wholesale >>abandonment of EU derived law we would deal with things as they arise.
It was estimated that repealing all EU derived law (and replacing it with >something watered down, but still effective - would you really want there
to be no consumer protection or privacy law at all) might take ten years. >And that was without the machinery of Government dealing with anything
else at the same time.
In message <xn0pu6fqxa9635k01d@news.individual.net>, at 13:57:52 on Mon,
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
On 31/08/2026 in message <C3b7J$RREYlqFAJV@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
, membership of the EU was the blip, not leaving the EU.
Membership of the EU was a joy. Facilitated so much employment, trade, and >>>travel/residency opportunities.
Good to know how YOU felt about it :-)
48% of the rest of the population agreed with me.
Many of the other 52% did as well, but voted "Leave" for all sorts of >incidental crazy one-issue reasons.
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
, membership of the EU was the blip, not leaving the EU.
Membership of the EU was a joy. Facilitated so much employment,
trade, and travel/residency opportunities.
Good to know how YOU felt about it :-)
48% of the rest of the population agreed with me.
Many of the other 52% did as well, but voted "Leave" for all sorts of incidental crazy one-issue reasons.
On 01/09/2026 09:21 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
, membership of the EU was the blip, not leaving the EU.
Membership of the EU was a joy. Facilitated so much employment,
trade, and travel/residency opportunities.
Good to know how YOU felt about it :-)
48% of the rest of the population agreed with me.
Many of the other 52% did as well, but voted "Leave" for all sorts of
incidental crazy one-issue reasons.
How do you know (IF you know) that many of the 48% who voted "Remain"
did not do so for all sorts of incidental crazy one-issue reasons?
In message <nfmdhoF1pqtU1@mid.individual.net>, at 22:29:12 on Mon, 31
Aug 2026, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <nfli1dFrv9kU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:39:41 on Mon, 31
Aug 2026, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
But Leaving has cost myself and may friends their businesses
(due to extra paperwork) has introduced massive friction on travel to >>>>> The Continent, and even still threatens to make some people lose their >>>>> homes (an expat friend is trapped in visa-hell in France, and doesn't >>>>> even dare come to the UK to visit her family).
Unfortunately, the tail doesnrCOt wag the dog.
The EU made it plain enough that they were going to be nasty, if your
friend didnrCOt see it coming, then tough luck.
They've lived there happily for at least 20yrs, but are now mired in red >>> tape.
France, and the EU, are mired in red tape. Surely they were aware of this?
And now the UK has left the EU, these and many other people, are mired
in vastly more red tape than when we were members.
It's ridiculous to expect them to sell-up and come back to the UK,
just because some Xenophobes were jealous of seasonal crop-pickers
"stealing our jobs". Which it turned out, after Brexit, Brits didn't
want anyway.
That sounds like the rantings of a typical remainiac.
I live in seasonal crop-picking country. It's not a rant, its what's happening under my nose.
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:nfj5chFg8idU1@mid.individual.net...You are seeing something that isn't there.
On 29/08/2026 21:46, billy bookcase wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfgrj3F52tpU1@mid.individual.net...
Yeah right.
I respectfully suggest that your time on Usenet will be far more enjoyable >>>> and
fulfilling if you let go of the resentment you are harbouring and move on. >>>
My suggestion was sincere and well-intentioned
It was also patronising in the extreme.
Just as your time on Usenet is far more enjoyable and fulfilling by not
posting at all; thus avoiding those regular and rather unpleasant
(for you at least) encounters with Norman Wells.
Norman's recent suggestion "that the OP has also suffered considerable
inconvenience in having to get the tyre replaced for which a claim could be >> made that may be greater than the full cost of the one tyre, or even both. >> That may have some persuasive effect, or be worth pursuing if it doesn't"
certainly made me smile as it is absolute patent nonsense, legally speaking. >>
I shall leave it to the discretion of each reader to determine for themselves
whether or not the aforementioned smile was "enjoyable and fulfilling".
Well yes you're returned; temporarily at least; and seemingly caught Norman off guard.
But if you persist, eventually you will make a statement or a claim upon which
Norman will be able to seize, and challenge; and which you will
thus be obliged to defend ;leading you into a spiral of pointlessness and posting at even greater and greater length. (also see below)
Although to your credit, at least you didn't ban him.
As it is I'm quite happy where I am, thanks, all the same.
I recommend looking up the word 'happy' in a dictionary.
While I humbly suggest that you can look up "patronising"
I can only really repeat the point I made to Mr Rees; but possiblySo a relative newcomer then?
in more specific terms.
I've been posting on Usenet for over 20 years.
ON ULM. like others no doubt, I've taken a detailed interest in
various miscarriages of Justice;Auriol Gray, Post Office, Letby,
or more generally in cases like Prince Andrew and latterly Jason
Arday.
In the pursuance of which I was already making *very long
and detailed posts; which I was already posting on here as
they were clearly too much of a burden for the moderators
on ULM to wade through.
But I already knew * it probably didn't make a blind bit of
difference in any case.
And do you know why Simon ?
I suggest you sit down at this point, as it may come as a bit of a shock.
*Around 95% of them will never read past the third line*
Whatever work of genius you think you're churning out.
TlDR !
And this applies just as much in general terms
Why should I bother seeking the approval from four people, two
or more of whom are suffering from obvious personality disorders,
and just in order to post stuff, that hardly anyone is going to
bother to read in any case ?
Cast off you delusions Simon ! As only in that way, lies true
happiness
I was banned from ULM for seven days without having been given any
reason or explanation whatsoever.
Which is still the case.
I respectfully disagree. You may not agree with the reason and explanation >> you have been given, but they have been provided.
I was never given a reason or given any official notification
whatsoever.
If you know better, then please produce your evidence.
From the way events transpired, it appeared it was because I'd upsetThey existed. I can give you a brief overview of their history, if you
Roland Perry in being too persistent in my questioning his claim
to have used "pre-paid credit cards". None of which have never been
shown to exist, except in Perry's imagination.
As a result I was wrongly accused by Perry of abuse and harassment.#
And ordered to "cease and desist".
Which as it now turns out was a *wholly bogus" armour propre. being
adopted by a *wholly duplicitous Roland Perry*.
Because at that stage, having no real interest in trains. I had never subscribed to UK.Railway. However a lead on here or ULM led me to
take a look. And what an eye opener !
Because as a regular poster on ULM Perry, is regularly vilified, scorned,
and generally ridiculed by a group of at least five regulars
who form the core of the technically knowledgeable posters. While Perry
is either being regularly corrected or is mainly posting off topic
self promoting material which is apparently much resented.
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but
he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds; given they were all totally unaware of the "abuse" he was regularly bringing down on his own head by his behaviour
on uk.railway.
But then....
While having no interest in railways per se, living in London I do
use the tube. So 20 or more years back I would on occasion consult uk.transport.london for updates on any travel issues And guess who
was already making a thorough nuisance of himself on there; even then ? "Don't believe any of that. That's just Roland being Roland ".
This would have had a lot more impact if you hadn't just made a claim which >> conflated the contents of my newsreader and processing the moderation queue >> from within a browser.
I really cannot convey to you, just how little I care about spiffling technical details about usenet, car models, spelling mistakes or even
the actual model numbers of the three cameras I own.
Such trivial details are for little people to concern themselves with
and argue over; while I try to concern myself with rather bigger
issues.
You can save that for your clients; assuming that you actually
have any.
"Stultus est sicut stultus facit." :-)
Well you've got that patronising attitude off to a tee, at least.
What with that,and the Primark suit, I'd imagine you're wellYour ad homs are becoming increasingly more desperate and pitiful.
on your way.
On 30/08/2026 20:45, billy bookcase wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfj5chFg8idU1@mid.individual.net...
Just as your time on Usenet is far more enjoyable and fulfilling by not >>>> posting at all; thus avoiding those regular and rather unpleasant
(for you at least) encounters with Norman Wells.
Norman's recent suggestion "that the OP has also suffered considerable
inconvenience in having to get the tyre replaced for which a claim
could be
made that may be greater than the full cost of the one tyre, or even
both.
That may have some persuasive effect, or be worth pursuing if it
doesn't"
certainly made me smile as it is absolute patent nonsense, legally
speaking.
I shall leave it to the discretion of each reader to determine for
themselves
whether or not the aforementioned smile was "enjoyable and fulfilling".
Well yes you're returned; temporarily at least; and seemingly caught
Norman
off guard.
Not exactly.-a The thing is, we were not discussing whether a claim would ultimately succeed but threats that may cause the council to concede
because the cost of countering escalating claims would not be worthwhile.
I recommend getting your crystal ball recharged. It seems to be malfunctioning.But if you persist, eventually you will make a statement or a claim
upon which
Norman will be able to seize, and challenge; and which you will
thus be obliged to defend ;leading you into a spiral of pointlessness and
posting at even greater and greater length. (also see below)
Indeed he will.
Although to your credit, at least you didn't ban him.
As it is I'm quite happy where I am, thanks, all the same.
Because as a regular poster on ULM Perry, is regularly vilified, scorned,
and generally ridiculed by a group of at least five regulars
who form the core of the technically knowledgeable posters. While Perry
is either being regularly corrected or is mainly posting off topic
self promoting material which is apparently much resented.
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but
he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds;
No he wasn't.-a None of the other moderators agreed with him at all
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nfjiokFi61fU1@mid.individual.net...You have reached the inevitable conclusion that Norman's claim is not
On 30/08/2026 20:45, billy bookcase wrote:
Because as a regular poster on ULM Perry, is regularly vilified, scorned, >>> and generally ridiculed by a group of at least five regulars
who form the core of the technically knowledgeable posters. While Perry
is either being regularly corrected or is mainly posting off topic
self promoting material which is apparently much resented.
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but
he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds;
No he wasn't. None of the other moderators agreed with him at all.
But if that were the case, then how come none of the other moderators
chose to revoke my ban ?i
As presumably they were perfectly able to do.
One might even imagine we're straying into the area of funny handshakesI have no hesitation in stating for the record that I am not, nor have I
here.
The Todal and Simon Parker quite possibly; given its preponderance in
legal circles; although obviously not in the same lodge
With Perry somehow having been made a Grand Master;
And Ribbens serving the drinks
On 30/08/2026 22:02, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nfjiokFi61fU1@mid.individual.net...
No he wasn't.-a None of the other moderators agreed with him at all.
But if that were the case, then how come none of the other moderators
chose to revoke my ban ?
They did eventually, but they grind exceeding slow.
As presumably they were perfectly able to do.
What needed to be done, according to their own rules, was that they
should have confirmed any ban, within 72 hours, by 'a majority of all moderators'.-a Since there are four of them in total, I make it that
means at least three.
What Mr Perry says is that he put the matter to a vote, but that the
other three moderators 'abstained'.
I think what is clear is that none of them actually responded at all in
the time allowed, which he then misrepresented as abstaining.-a Whatever, not one of them 'confirmed' the ban as required.-a Indeed, one said when lifting the ban after about a week, that it was all done wrongly.
I have no hesitation in stating for the record that I am not, nor have I ever been, a Freemason nor do I have, or have I ever at any time held, a desire to join the organisation.
In message <20260831212457.26d85394@deangelis.fenrir.org.uk>, at
21:24:57 on Mon, 31 Aug 2026, Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk>
remarked:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 14:28:13 +0100[...]
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <xn0pu6euba7utbi018@news.individual.net>, at 13:21:06 on
Mon, 31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
[...]
[...]
Only because it's closer, and a much bigger partner.
Partner? Only an abusive one.
It's only become what you characterise as 'abusive' because we filed
for divorce. Before then we lived together very amicably.
In message <20260831212457.26d85394@deangelis.fenrir.org.uk>, at
21:24:57 on Mon, 31 Aug 2026, Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk>
remarked:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 14:28:13 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <xn0pu6euba7utbi018@news.individual.net>, at 13:21:06 on
Mon, 31 Aug 2026, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
[...]
What on earth does that mean? And why?
It's pretty straightforward English surely? Because there is no
reason for us to treat the EU differently to anywhere else.
Only because it's closer, and a much bigger partner.
Partner? Only an abusive one.
It's only become what you characterise as 'abusive' because we filed for divorce. Before then we lived together very amicably.
On 30/08/2026 20:45, billy bookcase wrote:
Well yes you're returned; temporarily at least; and seemingly caught
Norman off guard.
Norman is wrong considerably more often than he is right-a You may not accept that.-a He certainly doesn't.-a But neither of those make the original statement any less true.
And this isn't a moment of being caught "off guard" by a carefully
crafted scenario or a deliberately-engineered trick question. Completely unprompted, he made a statement that is, legally speaking, nonsensical
in the extreme.
But if you persist, eventually you will make a statement or a claim
upon which
Norman will be able to seize, and challenge; and which you will
thus be obliged to defend ;leading you into a spiral of pointlessness and
posting at even greater and greater length. (also see below)
A stopped clock is right twice a day.-a Despite that, it is it is of no benefit to consult such a clock should one want to know the correct
time.-a Similarly, Norman may occasionally stumble to a correct
conclusion but he is wrong so often that it impossible for the untrained
to know if his current musings are legally sound or patent nonsense
given that he speaks with great confidence despite being so wrong so frequently.-a His advice to 'pursue a claim for considerable
inconvenience' being just the latest example in a long line of such claims
On 30/08/2026 20:45, billy bookcase wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in messageYou are seeing something that isn't there.
news:nfj5chFg8idU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/08/2026 21:46, billy bookcase wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfgrj3F52tpU1@mid.individual.net...
I respectfully suggest that your time on Usenet will be far more enjoyable
and
fulfilling if you let go of the resentment you are harbouring and move on.
Yeah right.
My suggestion was sincere and well-intentioned
It was also patronising in the extreme.
It is clear that you are still hurting from your temporary suspension from ULM
and are lashing out as a result. This thread is a perfect example of that.
I repeat my sincere and well-intentioned suggestion that you let got of your resentment and move on.
Just as your time on Usenet is far more enjoyable and fulfilling by not >>>> posting at all; thus avoiding those regular and rather unpleasant
(for you at least) encounters with Norman Wells.
Norman's recent suggestion "that the OP has also suffered considerable
inconvenience in having to get the tyre replaced for which a claim could be >>> made that may be greater than the full cost of the one tyre, or even both. >>> That may have some persuasive effect, or be worth pursuing if it doesn't" >>> certainly made me smile as it is absolute patent nonsense, legally speaking.
I shall leave it to the discretion of each reader to determine for
themselves
whether or not the aforementioned smile was "enjoyable and fulfilling".
Well yes you're returned; temporarily at least; and seemingly caught Norman >> off guard.
Norman is wrong considerably more often than he is right You may not accept that. He certainly doesn't. But neither of those make the original statement
any less true.
And this isn't a moment of being caught "off guard" by a carefully crafted scenario or a deliberately-engineered trick question. Completely unprompted, he made a statement that is, legally speaking, nonsensical in the extreme.
But if you persist, eventually you will make a statement or a claim upon
which
Norman will be able to seize, and challenge; and which you will
thus be obliged to defend ;leading you into a spiral of pointlessness and
posting at even greater and greater length. (also see below)
A stopped clock is right twice a day. Despite that, it is it is of no benefit
to consult such a clock should one want to know the correct time. Similarly,
Norman may occasionally stumble to a correct conclusion but he is wrong so often that it impossible for the untrained to know if his current musings are
legally sound or patent nonsense given that he speaks with great confidence despite being so wrong so frequently. His advice to 'pursue a claim for considerable inconvenience' being just the latest example in a long line of such claims
Although to your credit, at least you didn't ban him.
As it is I'm quite happy where I am, thanks, all the same.
I recommend looking up the word 'happy' in a dictionary.
While I humbly suggest that you can look up "patronising"
happy: feeling, showing, or experiencing pleasure, joy, or satisfaction.
You may be feeling pleasure, joy, or satisfaction but your posts do not show that to be the case.
I can only really repeat the point I made to Mr Rees; but possiblySo a relative newcomer then?
in more specific terms.
I've been posting on Usenet for over 20 years.
ON ULM. like others no doubt, I've taken a detailed interest in
various miscarriages of Justice;Auriol Gray, Post Office, Letby,
or more generally in cases like Prince Andrew and latterly Jason
Arday.
In the pursuance of which I was already making *very long
and detailed posts; which I was already posting on here as
they were clearly too much of a burden for the moderators
on ULM to wade through.
But I already knew * it probably didn't make a blind bit of
difference in any case.
And do you know why Simon ?
I suggest you sit down at this point, as it may come as a bit of a shock.
*Around 95% of them will never read past the third line*
Do you have a cite for that claim, please?
Whatever work of genius you think you're churning out.
TlDR !
And this applies just as much in general terms
Why should I bother seeking the approval from four people, two
or more of whom are suffering from obvious personality disorders,
and just in order to post stuff, that hardly anyone is going to
bother to read in any case ?
Cast off you delusions Simon ! As only in that way, lies true
happiness
Self-delusion being, perhaps, the greatest delusion. One may, for example, choose to believe that they are happy, because they want that to be true, despite it being clear to virtually everyone else that the resentment they are
harbouring is spreading like a rotten bitterness throughout everything they say and do.
I was banned from ULM for seven days without having been given any
reason or explanation whatsoever.
Which is still the case.
I respectfully disagree. You may not agree with the reason and explanation
you have been given, but they have been provided.
I was never given a reason or given any official notification
whatsoever.
We do not make public announcements of suspensions or bans. To which e-mail address available to the moderators at the time of your suspension were you expecting the notification to be sent? Or perhaps you were expecting a full page ad in The Times? If so, I can assure you that the moderation budget does
not run to such expenditure. In fact, whilst likely cheaper than a full-page
ad in The Times, it is unlikely that The Gazette would publish a notice on behalf of the ULM Moderators as they are unlikely to recognise us as an official body.
Given the foregoing, what, precisely, were you expecting?
If you know better, then please produce your evidence.
Messages have been posted here in UNNM in response to queries you yourself raised, messages to which you have subsequently responded.
you now claiming that those posts were never made, that you didn't reply to them, or something else?
Bearing in mind that Norman has recently made reference to the circumstances surrounding your suspension it would be strange in the extreme for you to claim not to be aware of the same facts as Norman.
As I said in the post to which you are responding, you may not agree with the
reasons provided and you may not accept them, but that does not mean that they
have not been given.
I consider it unreasonable to request proof of messages we both know you've already seen so I am happy to provide the proof requested provided you first agree to compensate for the time wasted digging out Message-IDs for the relevant message(s).
Of course, should I be unable to provide such Message-IDs, then I can similarly make no such charges.
Time to put your money where your mouth is. Shall we say u150 per hour with a
minimum charge of one hour, with additional time on a pro-rata basis charged in 15 minute increments?
As a result I was wrongly accused by Perry of abuse and harassment.#
And ordered to "cease and desist".
Which as it now turns out was a *wholly bogus" armour propre. being
adopted by a *wholly duplicitous Roland Perry*.
Because at that stage, having no real interest in trains. I had never
subscribed to UK.Railway. However a lead on here or ULM led me to
take a look. And what an eye opener !
Because as a regular poster on ULM Perry, is regularly vilified, scorned,
and generally ridiculed by a group of at least five regulars
who form the core of the technically knowledgeable posters. While Perry
is either being regularly corrected or is mainly posting off topic
self promoting material which is apparently much resented.
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but
he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds; given they were all totally unaware of the
"abuse" he was regularly bringing down on his own head by his behaviour
on uk.railway.
But then....
While having no interest in railways per se, living in London I do
use the tube. So 20 or more years back I would on occasion consult
uk.transport.london for updates on any travel issues And guess who
was already making a thorough nuisance of himself on there; even then ?
"Don't believe any of that. That's just Roland being Roland ".
But, despite all that, you're still happy aren't you? There's not even the slightest tinge of bitterness, resentment or anything like that in any of the
above is there?
This would have had a lot more impact if you hadn't just made a claim which >>> conflated the contents of my newsreader and processing the moderation queue >>> from within a browser.
I really cannot convey to you, just how little I care about spiffling
technical details about usenet, car models, spelling mistakes or even
the actual model numbers of the three cameras I own.
Your claim was related to the probability of me moderating (and rejecting) your post despite having a significant number of unread messages in ULM.
The fact that the systems used for those two tasks are completely independent
of each other is not a "spiffling technical detail" (or "trivial details" as used below); rather it goes to the very heart of your claim.
Such trivial details are for little people to concern themselves with
and argue over; while I try to concern myself with rather bigger
issues.
'Bigger issues' such as?
You can save that for your clients; assuming that you actually
have any.
"Stultus est sicut stultus facit." :-)
Well you've got that patronising attitude off to a tee, at least.
Personal insults do not only stifle civil discussions but they can be damaging
to the reputation of the poster that feels it necessary, having lost the argument, to have little choice but to resort to them.
Your ad homs are becoming increasingly more desperate and pitiful.
What with that,and the Primark suit, I'd imagine you're well
on your way.
Perhaps a self-imposed break from Usenet will clear your mind and have you back to your old self in a relatively short time.
Regards
S.P.
On 30/08/2026 20:45, billy bookcase wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in messageYou are seeing something that isn't there.
news:nfj5chFg8idU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/08/2026 21:46, billy bookcase wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfgrj3F52tpU1@mid.individual.net...
I respectfully suggest that your time on Usenet will be far more enjoyable
and
fulfilling if you let go of the resentment you are harbouring and move on.
Yeah right.
My suggestion was sincere and well-intentioned
It was also patronising in the extreme.
It is clear that you are still hurting from your temporary suspension from ULM
and are lashing out as a result. This thread is a perfect example of that.
I repeat my sincere and well-intentioned suggestion that you let got of your resentment and move on.
Just as your time on Usenet is far more enjoyable and fulfilling by not >>>> posting at all; thus avoiding those regular and rather unpleasant
(for you at least) encounters with Norman Wells.
Norman's recent suggestion "that the OP has also suffered considerable
inconvenience in having to get the tyre replaced for which a claim could be >>> made that may be greater than the full cost of the one tyre, or even both. >>> That may have some persuasive effect, or be worth pursuing if it doesn't" >>> certainly made me smile as it is absolute patent nonsense, legally speaking.
I shall leave it to the discretion of each reader to determine for
themselves
whether or not the aforementioned smile was "enjoyable and fulfilling".
Well yes you're returned; temporarily at least; and seemingly caught Norman >> off guard.
Norman is wrong considerably more often than he is right You may not accept that. He certainly doesn't. But neither of those make the original statement
any less true.
And this isn't a moment of being caught "off guard" by a carefully crafted scenario or a deliberately-engineered trick question. Completely unprompted, he made a statement that is, legally speaking, nonsensical in the extreme.
But if you persist, eventually you will make a statement or a claim upon
which
Norman will be able to seize, and challenge; and which you will
thus be obliged to defend ;leading you into a spiral of pointlessness and
posting at even greater and greater length. (also see below)
A stopped clock is right twice a day. Despite that, it is it is of no benefit
to consult such a clock should one want to know the correct time. Similarly, Norman may occasionally stumble to a correct conclusion but he is wrong so often that it impossible for the untrained to know if his current musings are legally sound or patent nonsense given that he speaks with great confidence despite being so wrong so frequently. His advice to 'pursue a claim for considerable inconvenience' being just the latest example in a long line of such claims
Although to your credit, at least you didn't ban him.
As it is I'm quite happy where I am, thanks, all the same.
I recommend looking up the word 'happy' in a dictionary.
While I humbly suggest that you can look up "patronising"
happy: feeling, showing, or experiencing pleasure, joy, or satisfaction.
You may be feeling pleasure, joy, or satisfaction but your posts do not show that to be the case.
I can only really repeat the point I made to Mr Rees; but possiblySo a relative newcomer then?
in more specific terms.
I've been posting on Usenet for over 20 years.
ON ULM. like others no doubt, I've taken a detailed interest in
various miscarriages of Justice;Auriol Gray, Post Office, Letby,
or more generally in cases like Prince Andrew and latterly Jason
Arday.
In the pursuance of which I was already making *very long
and detailed posts; which I was already posting on here as
they were clearly too much of a burden for the moderators
on ULM to wade through.
But I already knew * it probably didn't make a blind bit of
difference in any case.
And do you know why Simon ?
I suggest you sit down at this point, as it may come as a bit of a shock.
*Around 95% of them will never read past the third line*
Do you have a cite for that claim, please?
Whatever work of genius you think you're churning out.
TlDR !
And this applies just as much in general terms
Why should I bother seeking the approval from four people, two
or more of whom are suffering from obvious personality disorders,
and just in order to post stuff, that hardly anyone is going to
bother to read in any case ?
Cast off you delusions Simon ! As only in that way, lies true
happiness
Self-delusion being, perhaps, the greatest delusion. One may, for example, choose to believe that they are happy, because they want that to be true, despite it being clear to virtually everyone else that the resentment they are
harbouring is spreading like a rotten bitterness throughout everything they say and do.
I was banned from ULM for seven days without having been given any
reason or explanation whatsoever.
Which is still the case.
I respectfully disagree. You may not agree with the reason and explanation
you have been given, but they have been provided.
I was never given a reason or given any official notification
whatsoever.
We do not make public announcements of suspensions or bans. To which e-mail address available to the moderators at the time of your suspension were you expecting the notification to be sent? Or perhaps you were expecting a full page ad in The Times? If so, I can assure you that the moderation budget does
not run to such expenditure. In fact, whilst likely cheaper than a full-page ad in The Times, it is unlikely that The Gazette would publish a notice on behalf of the ULM Moderators as they are unlikely to recognise us as an official body.
Given the foregoing, what, precisely, were you expecting?
If you know better, then please produce your evidence.
Messages have been posted here in UNNM in response to queries you yourself raised, messages to which you have subsequently responded.
you now claiming that those posts were never made, that you didn't reply to them, or something else?
Bearing in mind that Norman has recently made reference to the circumstances surrounding your suspension it would be strange in the extreme for you to claim not to be aware of the same facts as Norman.
As I said in the post to which you are responding, you may not agree with the reasons provided and you may not accept them, but that does not mean that they
have not been given.
I consider it unreasonable to request proof of messages we both know you've already seen so I am happy to provide the proof requested provided you first agree to compensate for the time wasted digging out Message-IDs for the relevant message(s).
Of course, should I be unable to provide such Message-IDs, then I can similarly make no such charges.
Time to put your money where your mouth is. Shall we say u150 per hour with a
minimum charge of one hour, with additional time on a pro-rata basis charged in 15 minute increments?
As a result I was wrongly accused by Perry of abuse and harassment.#
And ordered to "cease and desist".
Which as it now turns out was a *wholly bogus" armour propre. being
adopted by a *wholly duplicitous Roland Perry*.
Because at that stage, having no real interest in trains. I had never
subscribed to UK.Railway. However a lead on here or ULM led me to
take a look. And what an eye opener !
Because as a regular poster on ULM Perry, is regularly vilified, scorned,
and generally ridiculed by a group of at least five regulars
who form the core of the technically knowledgeable posters. While Perry
is either being regularly corrected or is mainly posting off topic
self promoting material which is apparently much resented.
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but
he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds; given they were all totally unaware of the
"abuse" he was regularly bringing down on his own head by his behaviour
on uk.railway.
But then....
While having no interest in railways per se, living in London I do
use the tube. So 20 or more years back I would on occasion consult
uk.transport.london for updates on any travel issues And guess who
was already making a thorough nuisance of himself on there; even then ?
"Don't believe any of that. That's just Roland being Roland ".
But, despite all that, you're still happy aren't you? There's not even the slightest tinge of bitterness, resentment or anything like that in any of the above is there?
This would have had a lot more impact if you hadn't just made a claim which >>> conflated the contents of my newsreader and processing the moderation queue >>> from within a browser.
I really cannot convey to you, just how little I care about spiffling
technical details about usenet, car models, spelling mistakes or even
the actual model numbers of the three cameras I own.
Your claim was related to the probability of me moderating (and rejecting) your post despite having a significant number of unread messages in ULM.
The fact that the systems used for those two tasks are completely independent of each other is not a "spiffling technical detail" (or "trivial details" as used below); rather it goes to the very heart of your claim.
Such trivial details are for little people to concern themselves with
and argue over; while I try to concern myself with rather bigger
issues.
'Bigger issues' such as?
You can save that for your clients; assuming that you actually
have any.
"Stultus est sicut stultus facit." :-)
Well you've got that patronising attitude off to a tee, at least.
Personal insults do not only stifle civil discussions but they can be damaging
to the reputation of the poster that feels it necessary, having lost the argument, to have little choice but to resort to them.
Your ad homs are becoming increasingly more desperate and pitiful.
What with that,and the Primark suit, I'd imagine you're well
on your way.
Perhaps a self-imposed break from Usenet will clear your mind and have you back to your old self in a relatively short time.
Regards
S.P.
On 30/08/2026 21:39, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/08/2026 20:45, billy bookcase wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfj5chFg8idU1@mid.individual.net...
[...]
Well yes you're returned; temporarily at least; and seemingly caughtJust as your time on Usenet is far more enjoyable and fulfilling by >>>>> not
posting at all; thus avoiding those regular and rather unpleasant
(for you at least) encounters with Norman Wells.
Norman's recent suggestion "that the OP has also suffered considerable >>>> inconvenience in having to get the tyre replaced for which a claim
could be
made that may be greater than the full cost of the one tyre, or even
both.
That may have some persuasive effect, or be worth pursuing if it
doesn't"
certainly made me smile as it is absolute patent nonsense, legally
speaking.
I shall leave it to the discretion of each reader to determine for
themselves
whether or not the aforementioned smile was "enjoyable and fulfilling". >>>
Norman
off guard.
Not exactly.-a The thing is, we were not discussing whether a claim
would ultimately succeed but threats that may cause the council to
concede because the cost of countering escalating claims would not be
worthwhile.
Your words are still quoted in full above.
But for the sake of clarity, I repeat them again:
You said, "that the OP has also suffered considerable inconvenience in having to get the tyre replaced for which a claim could be made that may
be greater than the full cost of the one tyre, or even both.-a That may
have some persuasive effect, or be worth pursuing if it doesn't"
You have made two major claims here.
Firstly, that the OP should threaten to issue for the 'considerable inconvenience' they have 'suffered'.
And, secondly, that if that does not have sufficient 'persuasive effect' then it would be 'worth pursuing' as 'a claim could be made that may be greater than the full cost of one tyre, or even both.'
You first claim could be considered a negotiating tactic.
However, as
the OP is negotiating with professionals that are fully aware of what
can and cannot be the subject of litigation, I suggest it would be unsuccessful in the extreme as it will likely only serve to confirm to
the insurers that they are negotiating with somebody who does not know
what they're talking about.
As for your second claim, which was to pursue the matter of suffering considerable inconvenience to a value that may well be greater than the
full cost of the original claim for the replacement tyre, then I ask you
to detail what the effect of having that element, and therefore the
largest portion of the claim, struck out, as is all but guaranteed to happen, is likely to have on the matter of liability for costs, bearing
in mind that a application to strike out will likely take place before allocation to the small claims track.
Your answer please?
But if you persist, eventually you will make a statement or a claim
upon which
Norman will be able to seize, and challenge; and which you will
thus be obliged to defend ;leading you into a spiral of pointlessness
and
posting at even greater and greater length. (also see below)
Indeed he will.
I recommend getting your crystal ball recharged.-a It seems to be malfunctioning.
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but
he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds;
No he wasn't.-a None of the other moderators agreed with him at all
I've just checked the members of the moderators' WhatsApp group and note that you are not listed.-a Therefore, you do not know what discussions
took place prior to the suspension being implemented.-a You have been
told that no other moderators voted but that does not mean that they did
not proffer an opinion or discuss the matter prior to the vote taking
place.
For my part, I deliberately and wilfully abstained from both the
discussion and the vote as I had not been following the thread in
question and was therefore unable to present a meaningful opinion one
way or the other and considered it wrong to cast a vote in those circumstances.
Neither the Charter nor the Moderation Policy state that all moderatorsYou've just said you didn't vote. Nor did anyone else apart from Mr
must vote, merely that a vote must be taken which it was.
On 31/08/2026 08:26, Norman Wells wrote:I see you have nothing substantive to add.
On 30/08/2026 22:02, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:nfjiokFi61fU1@mid.individual.net...
No he wasn't.-a None of the other moderators agreed with him at all.
But if that were the case, then how come none of the other moderators
chose to revoke my ban ?
They did eventually, but they grind exceeding slow.
As presumably they were perfectly able to do.
What needed to be done, according to their own rules, was that they
should have confirmed any ban, within 72 hours, by 'a majority of all
moderators'.-a Since there are four of them in total, I make it that
means at least three.
What Mr Perry says is that he put the matter to a vote, but that the
other three moderators 'abstained'.
I think what is clear is that none of them actually responded at all
in the time allowed, which he then misrepresented as abstaining.
Whatever, not one of them 'confirmed' the ban as required.-a Indeed,
one said when lifting the ban after about a week, that it was all done
wrongly.
Mistake, heaped upon erroneous deduction, heaped upon faulty reasoning. (Repeat interchangeably as it is 'turtles all the way down'.)
On 30/08/2026 22:02, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in messageYou have reached the inevitable conclusion that Norman's claim is not
news:nfjiokFi61fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/08/2026 20:45, billy bookcase wrote:
Because as a regular poster on ULM Perry, is regularly vilified,
scorned,
and generally ridiculed by a group of at least five regulars
who form the core of the technically knowledgeable posters. While Perry >>>> is either being regularly corrected or is mainly posting off topic
self promoting material which is apparently much resented.
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but >>>> he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds;
No he wasn't.-a None of the other moderators agreed with him at all.
But if that were the case, then how come none of the other moderators
chose to revoke my ban ?i
what actually transpired.
I wish you well in convincing Norman of that.-a But at least one of you
is closer to the truth.
As presumably they were perfectly able to do.
A one week suspension was proposed and that is what was served, or as
close to it as was possible using a system that requires manual
adjustment of the block list.
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:nfo56nFa4h6U1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/08/2026 20:45, billy bookcase wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in messageYou are seeing something that isn't there.
news:nfj5chFg8idU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/08/2026 21:46, billy bookcase wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfgrj3F52tpU1@mid.individual.net...
I respectfully suggest that your time on Usenet will be far more enjoyable
and
fulfilling if you let go of the resentment you are harbouring and move on.
Yeah right.
My suggestion was sincere and well-intentioned
It was also patronising in the extreme.
It is clear that you are still hurting from your temporary suspension from ULM
and are lashing out as a result. This thread is a perfect example of that. >>
I repeat my sincere and well-intentioned suggestion that you let got of your
resentment and move on.
Yiou really are very good at all this stuff, aren't you ?
I can just imagine you practicising all this in front of the mirror
before they come into your office and you hand them their bill.
Oozing with so much sincerity that you need to have the carpets
cleaned every month
Well yes you're returned; temporarily at least; and seemingly caught Norman >>> off guard.Just as your time on Usenet is far more enjoyable and fulfilling by not >>>>> posting at all; thus avoiding those regular and rather unpleasant
(for you at least) encounters with Norman Wells.
Norman's recent suggestion "that the OP has also suffered considerable >>>> inconvenience in having to get the tyre replaced for which a claim could be
made that may be greater than the full cost of the one tyre, or even both. >>>> That may have some persuasive effect, or be worth pursuing if it doesn't" >>>> certainly made me smile as it is absolute patent nonsense, legally speaking.
I shall leave it to the discretion of each reader to determine for
themselves
whether or not the aforementioned smile was "enjoyable and fulfilling". >>>
Norman is wrong considerably more often than he is right You may not accept
that. He certainly doesn't. But neither of those make the original statement
any less true.
And this isn't a moment of being caught "off guard" by a carefully crafted >> scenario or a deliberately-engineered trick question. Completely unprompted,
he made a statement that is, legally speaking, nonsensical in the extreme. >>
But if you persist, eventually you will make a statement or a claim upon >>> which
Norman will be able to seize, and challenge; and which you will
thus be obliged to defend ;leading you into a spiral of pointlessness and >>> posting at even greater and greater length. (also see below)
A stopped clock is right twice a day. Despite that, it is it is of no benefit
to consult such a clock should one want to know the correct time. Similarly,
Norman may occasionally stumble to a correct conclusion but he is wrong so >> often that it impossible for the untrained to know if his current musings are
legally sound or patent nonsense given that he speaks with great confidence >> despite being so wrong so frequently. His advice to 'pursue a claim for
considerable inconvenience' being just the latest example in a long line of >> such claims
Ah right !
So can it be assumned you've returned in earnest determined to right
every wrong ?
Look, cards on the table here.
II have no rea;l way of knowing whether that Keyboad Testing Contract
has been renewed or you really are as hopelessly naive as you are
making out.
But I can assure you that wahy might be called "Trollbait Declarations"
are hardly anything new.
"X is ruining this NewsGroup and I am setermined to drive him away
no matter how long it may take"
Although to your credit, at least you didn't ban him.
As it is I'm quite happy where I am, thanks, all the same.
I recommend looking up the word 'happy' in a dictionary.
While I humbly suggest that you can look up "patronising"
happy: feeling, showing, or experiencing pleasure, joy, or satisfaction.
You may be feeling pleasure, joy, or satisfaction but your posts do not show
that to be the case.
According to you.
I can only really repeat the point I made to Mr Rees; but possiblySo a relative newcomer then?
in more specific terms.
I've been posting on Usenet for over 20 years.
ON ULM. like others no doubt, I've taken a detailed interest in
various miscarriages of Justice;Auriol Gray, Post Office, Letby,
or more generally in cases like Prince Andrew and latterly Jason
Arday.
In the pursuance of which I was already making *very long
and detailed posts; which I was already posting on here as
they were clearly too much of a burden for the moderators
on ULM to wade through.
But I already knew * it probably didn't make a blind bit of
difference in any case.
And do you know why Simon ?
I suggest you sit down at this point, as it may come as a bit of a shock. >>>
*Around 95% of them will never read past the third line*
Do you have a cite for that claim, please?
No.
Although obviously you don't beleive it or you wouldn't be posting at such length.
Whatever work of genius you think you're churning out.
TlDR !
And this applies just as much in general terms
Why should I bother seeking the approval from four people, two
or more of whom are suffering from obvious personality disorders,
and just in order to post stuff, that hardly anyone is going to
bother to read in any case ?
Cast off you delusions Simon ! As only in that way, lies true
happiness
Self-delusion being, perhaps, the greatest delusion. One may, for example, >> choose to believe that they are happy, because they want that to be true, >> despite it being clear to virtually everyone else that the resentment they are
harbouring is spreading like a rotten bitterness throughout everything they >> say and do.
And you're only here to help !
ROTFK&S*LMAO !
I was banned from ULM for seven days without having been given any
reason or explanation whatsoever.
Which is still the case.
I respectfully disagree. You may not agree with the reason and explanation
you have been given, but they have been provided.
I was never given a reason or given any official notification
whatsoever.
We do not make public announcements of suspensions or bans. To which e-mail
address available to the moderators at the time of your suspension were you >> expecting the notification to be sent? Or perhaps you were expecting a full
page ad in The Times? If so, I can assure you that the moderation budget does
not run to such expenditure. In fact, whilst likely cheaper than a full-page
ad in The Times, it is unlikely that The Gazette would publish a notice on >> behalf of the ULM Moderators as they are unlikely to recognise us as an
official body.
Given the foregoing, what, precisely, were you expecting?
Open justice'; justice which is not only done, but which is seen to be done.
Just as the identity of jurors is never made public neither need the
identity of moderators,
But unless the nature of the trangression is made known along with the penalty imposed this can hardly act as any guide to others as to the
standard of behavor which is expected opf contributors, can it.
Reasons for rejection are posted on recent activity page.
Why not the reason foe sevenb day suspension ?.
The absence of any such explanation can only lead to the suspicion
that the actualk reason would be regaded as completey indefensible
if revealed in public
And this on a newsgroup supposedly devoted to "legal" questions.
If you know better, then please produce your evidence.
Messages have been posted here in UNNM in response to queries you yourself >> raised, messages to which you have subsequently responded.
That the only reason I was banned was because I got up Roland Perry's
nose by my persistant but perfectly legitimate questins.
You have been subject to far more persistent questioning from myself
but have taken them all on the chin, Like a man.
Rather than running off *like a wimp* and danning me at the first opportunuity .
Mabe it all comes down to *character* in tne end.
Are
you now claiming that those posts were never made, that you didn't reply to >> them, or something else?
Bearing in mind that Norman has recently made reference to the circumstances
surrounding your suspension it would be strange in the extreme for you to >> claim not to be aware of the same facts as Norman.
As I said in the post to which you are responding, you may not agree with the
reasons provided and you may not accept them, but that does not mean that they
have not been given.
I consider it unreasonable to request proof of messages we both know you've >> already seen so I am happy to provide the proof requested provided you first
agree to compensate for the time wasted digging out Message-IDs for the
relevant message(s).
Of course, should I be unable to provide such Message-IDs, then I can
similarly make no such charges.
Time to put your money where your mouth is. Shall we say N+u150 per hour with a
minimum charge of one hour, with additional time on a pro-rata basis charged
in 15 minute increments?
You do know of course that all such commercial activity and touting
for business, is trictly forbidden on UseNet.?
And that the very fact of your having done so should immediately disqualify from your holding a position as a moderator on any Newsgroup
in the UK. heirarchy ?
Possibly you should now consult yourself on this matter; charging yourself whatver fee you feel.
So that's Kangaroo Courts and now brazen Spamming
< pre paid credit cards dealt with elsewhere .
As a result I was wrongly accused by Perry of abuse and harassment.#
And ordered to "cease and desist".
Which as it now turns out was a *wholly bogus" armour propre. being
adopted by a *wholly duplicitous Roland Perry*.
Because at that stage, having no real interest in trains. I had never
subscribed to UK.Railway. However a lead on here or ULM led me to
take a look. And what an eye opener !
Because as a regular poster on ULM Perry, is regularly vilified, scorned, >>> and generally ridiculed by a group of at least five regulars
who form the core of the technically knowledgeable posters. While Perry
is either being regularly corrected or is mainly posting off topic
self promoting material which is apparently much resented.
So the idea that I was harassing Perry on ULM is absolute garbage; but
he was apparently able to convince his fellow mods that my ban was
justified on those grounds; given they were all totally unaware of the
"abuse" he was regularly bringing down on his own head by his behaviour
on uk.railway.
But then....
While having no interest in railways per se, living in London I do
use the tube. So 20 or more years back I would on occasion consult
uk.transport.london for updates on any travel issues And guess who
was already making a thorough nuisance of himself on there; even then ?
"Don't believe any of that. That's just Roland being Roland ".
But, despite all that, you're still happy aren't you? There's not even the >> slightest tinge of bitterness, resentment or anything like that in any of the
above is there?
Why should I be bitter or resentful about the fact that I so got up
Perry' s nose and all quite legitimately that he has no other resort
to ban me ?
That all clearly worked out so well for him, didn't.
All quickly forgotten about and water under the bridge/
While I normally diusdaibn from repeating myeld I'll make
an exception in this case as its another
ROTFK&S&LMA0!
This would have had a lot more impact if you hadn't just made a claim which
conflated the contents of my newsreader and processing the moderation queue
from within a browser.
I really cannot convey to you, just how little I care about spiffling
technical details about usenet, car models, spelling mistakes or even
the actual model numbers of the three cameras I own.
Your claim was related to the probability of me moderating (and rejecting) >> your post despite having a significant number of unread messages in ULM.
The fact that the systems used for those two tasks are completely independent
of each other is not a "spiffling technical detail" (or "trivial details" as
used below); rather it goes to the very heart of your claim.
Yawn
Such trivial details are for little people to concern themselves with
and argue over; while I try to concern myself with rather bigger
issues.
'Bigger issues' such as?
You can save that for your clients; assuming that you actually
have any.
"Stultus est sicut stultus facit." :-)
Well you've got that patronising attitude off to a tee, at least.
Personal insults do not only stifle civil discussions but they can be damaging
to the reputation of the poster that feels it necessary, having lost the
argument, to have little choice but to resort to them.
Your ad homs are becoming increasingly more desperate and pitiful.
What with that,and the Primark suit, I'd imagine you're well
on your way.
Perhaps a self-imposed break from Usenet will clear your mind and have you >> back to your old self in a relatively short time.
You're the one for the self-imposed breaks, as has already ben pointed
out to you.
So how well did that one worlk out ?
bb
Regards
S.P.
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
Time to put your money where your mouth is. Shall we say ?150 per
hour with a minimum charge of one hour, with additional time on a
pro-rata basis charged in 15 minute increments?
If there were a general prohibition on commercial activity then
the charter for this group would not need to say that advertising
is forbidden. I do not see Mr Parker's remarks as advertising in
any normal sense.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 36:40:15 |
| Calls: | 1,196 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,354 |
| D/L today: |
16 files (19,622K bytes) |
| Messages: | 294,950 |