From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


In the Renters' Rights Act thread in ulm, drift had taken the topic into
the area of the reporting of the protests taking place at illegal-migrant hotels throughout the country, and then into the question of the accuracy
or otherwise of the reporting.

My most recent contribution was binned on the grounds of being rCyshot while trying to escaperCOrCasorry, that should read rCyinsufficient new materialrCO. The
most recent exchanges are shown below.

Fair enough, hands up and all that, but to be frank the plug should have
been pulled at least one message earlier, on the same grounds that my
message was rejected. ButrCathatrCOs a moderator decision, crCOest la vie.

=====

[rCa]

Spike wrote: Perhaps you could let us know the source of your
unimpeachable, verifiable, authoritative, gold-standard information?

Jon Ribbens wrote: As you ought to know, no such source exists. That
doesn't mean we should

just give up and go with sources that are clearly bullshit like you keep
doing.

Spike wrote: Oh! So you are saying you donrCOt know what yourCOre talking about, because you

have no sources that meet your requirements, but you know my sources are rCybullshitrCO even though you havenrCOt seem them. ThatrCOs an interesting modus
for navigating through the information available.

Jon Ribbens wrote: As always, whenever you make a claim about what I am saying, you are

utterly wrong.

Spike wrote: So your only response is yet another hackneyed phrase?

=====
--
Spike

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 2025-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

In the Renters' Rights Act thread in ulm, drift had taken the topic into
the area of the reporting of the protests taking place at illegal-migrant hotels throughout the country, and then into the question of the accuracy
or otherwise of the reporting.

My most recent contribution was binned on the grounds of being rCyshot while trying to escaperCOrCasorry, that should read rCyinsufficient new materialrCO. The
most recent exchanges are shown below.

Fair enough, hands up and all that, but to be frank the plug should have
been pulled at least one message earlier, on the same grounds that my
message was rejected. ButrCathatrCOs a moderator decision, crCOest la vie.

It was clearly a correct decision. I would've rejected your message
as "repetition" rather than "notnew", but it makes little difference.

Jon Ribbens wrote: As always, whenever you make a claim about what I
am saying, you are utterly wrong.

Spike wrote: So your only response is yet another hackneyed phrase?

Ironically, the main thing here that's in danger of becoming hackneyed
here is your repetitious and inaccurate use of the word "hackneyed".
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

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

On 2025-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

In the Renters' Rights Act thread in ulm, drift had taken the topic into
the area of the reporting of the protests taking place at illegal-migrant
hotels throughout the country, and then into the question of the accuracy
or otherwise of the reporting.

My most recent contribution was binned on the grounds of being rCyshot while >> trying to escaperCOrCasorry, that should read rCyinsufficient new materialrCO. The
most recent exchanges are shown below.

Fair enough, hands up and all that, but to be frank the plug should have
been pulled at least one message earlier, on the same grounds that my
message was rejected. ButrCathatrCOs a moderator decision, crCOest la vie.

It was clearly a correct decision.

The decision to bin could have been taken earlier, but wasnrCOt.

It could be suggested that it was a case of wanting the last word, using
the reject message as the method - but who knows? Who cares?

I would've rejected your message
as "repetition" rather than "notnew", but it makes little difference.

Jon Ribbens wrote: As always, whenever you make a claim about what I
am saying, you are utterly wrong.

Spike wrote: So your only response is yet another hackneyed phrase?

Ironically, the main thing here that's in danger of becoming hackneyed
here is your repetitious and inaccurate use of the word "hackneyed".

AI has this, which sounds like I was exactly right:

The word hackneyed refers to something that is overused and lacking in originality or freshness. It often describes phrases, ideas, or expressions that have become clich|-d due to excessive repetition. For example, a
hackneyed phrase might be "think outside the box" which has been used so
often that it has lost its impact.
--
Spike

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2