Nuxx:0a6c4859-1af3-461d-a3df-81dc294ab17f@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <0a6c4859-1af3-461d-a3df-81dc294ab17f@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:24:26 -0700 (PDT) References:    <2d3b54f1-030c-4649-9a9d-d95d22cf2f73@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>     <8fdeb01e-9b3f-4d63-9357-7250f5f5dc90@n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>   Lines: 22 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1300573467 31157 127.0.0.1 (19 Mar 2011 22:24:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:24:27 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=WrLs9woAAAD151hWKA9yknAtxFHW4kE4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2532 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39079

On Mar 19, 8:08=A0pm, Tony  wrote: > In uk.net.news.moderation, "Wm..."  > wrote: > > >Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:41:36 > ><8fdeb01e-9b3f-4d63-9357-7250f5f5d...@n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> > >uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar  > > >>Some URCM "moderators" and their supporters like to dismiss certain > >>people as "trolls" because it gets them out of having to address the > >>often valid opposing arguments that they present. =A0I wouldn't want to > >>see ostensibly "neutral" people like you supporting them in doing that. > > >Much as I hate to say it Tony I agree with Nuxx on this. > > Couldn't give a shit Wm. =A0I think I've said twice now that I think your > opinion is worthless.

FWIW I do too. :-)

Sorry if I got you wrong, it's perfectly possible that I read something into your words that wasn't there.