Nuxx:135ae4f2-2137-453e-9058-31e5e4695fd8@34g2000pru.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!34g2000pru.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <135ae4f2-2137-453e-9058-31e5e4695fd8@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:53:08 -0700 (PDT) References:  <50xo7XKtY3gNFw7Y@[127.0.0.1]> <8uiafcFcerU1@mid.individual.net>  <8ujuo6Fa89U1@mid.individual.net>  <1472ed49-c758-421b-b044-4b92c420aab1@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <8ukopjFcseU1@mid.individual.net> <70ae6217-b0cd-405e-9c73-5405d99bf269@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <8ul0hsF1vgU1@mid.individual.net> <2lG7PGQ7zAiNFw6W@[127.0.0.1]>   Lines: 42 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 1300827188 10904 127.0.0.1 (22 Mar 2011 20:53:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:53:08 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 34g2000pru.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: 3245 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39240

On Mar 22, 1:37=A0pm, "Wm..."  wrote: > Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:31:31  > uk.net.news.moderation Geoff Berrow  > > > > >On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 02:44:11 +0000, "Wm..." > > wrote: > > >>Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:37:47 <8ul0hsF1v...@mid.individual.net> > >>uk.net.news.moderation kat  > > >>>I am sure that is right. =A0 I just see a lot more less than innocent = people > >>>than the one, that's all. =A0And the relentless spew in here is from m= ore than > >>>one, as well. > > >>That is reaction, please make a decision about whether you think JMS is > >>a good person or not and be done with it. > > >>I, for one, am tired of your amelioration about this. > > >Why does kat or any of us have to make such a decision? =A0I'm certainly > >not going to. > > That is what amelioration is for :) > > >We comment on what we read. > > The fact that you won't crit JMS suggests to me that you might have been > reading selectively [1] > > [1] I know that isn't true, I expect you have, actually, read quite a > lot. =A0The non-condemnation of JMS and similar is what is bothering me, > if you think they are nice people, just say so.

Who are these "and similar"? Why are people like you and Chapman so desperate to get the "neutrals" to condemn those who you don't get on with? Why can't you just fight your own battles and stop asking questions which you have no right to expect answers to?