Nuxx:F3e0a31a-0378-4b9a-ab4e-0369fd186052@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Censorship in uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 07:40:06 -0700 (PDT) References:   <05oc55hove7buoe5ol4ubs2fe7p7auf8k1@4ax.com>  <7bpq34F20n748U1@mid.individual.net>  <7bqq99F243karU1@mid.individual.net> <3edf24f1-5e0c-4041-9080-54d7ee8f5435@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> <7brfgbF24cnsrU1@mid.individual.net>  <7brrrqF24bl14U1@mid.individual.net>   Lines: 25 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.163.209.43 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1247409607 15458 127.0.0.1 (12 Jul 2009 14:40:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:40:07 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.163.209.43; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3031 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:831160

On Jul 12, 10:11=A0am, Keitht  wrote: > Simon Brooke wrote: > >> You *were* trolling? > > > Errr... you do appreciate that that was not posted from Guy's normal > > account, nor through Guy's normal usenet provider, nor with Guy's > > normal fake email address? Of course, this doesn't prove it wasn't Guy > > pretending to be Guy but the probability is that it was some other > > mischiefmaker pretending to be Guy. > > > One great benefit of the proposed moderated group is we can come down > > hard on all this nymshifting and general dishonesty. > > and this sort of behaviour is easy to spot as the style of language > doesn't change. It's been fairly easy to spot who'd beeen faking Guy's > ID. It's been like an eight year old bringing in an ertzats sicknote to > school. FFS - at least stop using bloody crayon to sign your mum's name.

Who do you think it is then? (You're wrong about pretty much everything else so I doubt you'll be right about this....)

Anyway, no-one's been "faking his ID"; as Brooke points out, the email address is different each time. For something to be a forgery the email address has to be an exact copy; otherwise, how different does it have to be before it's no longer a forgery?