Nuxx:7c9a42ff-d6a9-4a77-baec-49e5870de6a9@j13g2000yqj.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!j13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <7c9a42ff-d6a9-4a77-baec-49e5870de6a9@j13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Double 'meta' reject Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:27:46 -0700 (PDT) References:  <20110318222044.7ca13dd5@bluemoon>     <20110320004650.7d748b87@gododdin.internal.journeyman.cc>  <20110321140919.2185e677@gododdin.internal.journeyman.cc>  <20110322211544.24bf7783@gododdin.internal.journeyman.cc> Lines: 39 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 1300890467 18202 127.0.0.1 (23 Mar 2011 14:27:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:27:47 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j13g2000yqj.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: 3610 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39318

On Mar 22, 9:15=A0pm, Simon Brooke  wrote: > > I'm fed up of people who use Usenet to lie, cheat, traduce, dissemble, > slander, all while hiding behind one level of anonymity or another.

Wow, we really are becoming a proper little drama queen, aren't we? First there's the "utterly horrible corrosive people" accusation (though of course you won't say who those people are), then it's "bizarre and inappropriate" to even engage in "this dreadful travesty which is the walking corpse of once-vibrant Usenet", and now we have a new little gem above.

I used to think you were a hardened middle-aged Scottish (?) guy who'd been round the block, but now I'm wondering whether you've led some kind of incredibly sheltered life: perhaps a mollycoddled upbringing, followed by a public sector career? I can't think why else you'd be so ludicrously melodramatic about this place, which really isn't as bad as you paint it to be, and where the rudest people are usually the ones who make catty (but not particularly bad) comments about others while refusing to read (or at least reply to) their posts. No-one is generally particularly unkind. There are far, far, FAR worse places than this. FFS get a grip.

> I believe that the only way that Usenet can be restored to a civil and > useful medium of communication is to require cryptographic signatures > on all posts.

Great, that's up there with Phil Knee's "All newsgroups should be moderated". Why not have both? Thank god this country isn't being run by control freaks like you. Oh hang on, it is. No wonder we're perpetually in the shit (and that, sadly, is no dramatisation).

> In the meantime, if you don't like my posts, complain to my Usenet > provider and ask them to withdraw my account.

Or you could be a little more considerate?

What on *Earth* is your problem with kat anyway? She seems like the most inoffensive person.