Nuxx:MPG.268972ee6a6a1bfb989790@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feeder.news-service.com!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling,uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: The info that the URCM mods didn't want you to see (for Simon Brooke) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:01:12 +0100 References: <884gkdF60tU1@mid.individual.net>    Lines: 33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100621-0, 21/06/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 908f0f4f.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=g2e\b]?j^BYYJb4ScBVh>Xnok4Z\_4KE=9lfiYEn, Frank.Leake@gmail.com says... > > On 20/06/10 18:20, Guy Cuthbertson wrote: > > In article , > > guy.chapman@spamcop.net says... > >> > >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:29:35 +0100, Matt B > >>  wrote: > >> > >> [snippety] > >> > >> Nobody cares. Really, nobody. > > > > Don't you like people showing that pages on your webshite are based on > > nothing but your blatant anti-motorist prejudices? > > Oooh, you poor dear, did mummy not let you post to those nasty cycling > peoples news group?

Very good. It's boring enough when Nob does it, and you copying him just makes it even more banal, but don't let me stop you.

(BTW I wasn't entirely serious when I said I was very hurt by your insults...it takes a thicker skin that that to "survive" in URC/UNNM. But if you want to believe otherwise then I suppose that's another person writing predictable, generic, disposable, useless replies to my posts, along with Motherf**ker Hubbard and the like...I suspect that once again it's a psycholist attempt to distract from the many truths that they find inconvenient.  What do you think of the rejection of MattB's latest inconvenient truth?  Are you happy for URCM to be "moderated" in that way?  Would you still be if you disagreed with the opinions that the "moderators" are so keen to "promote"?)