Nuxx:1286d8ba-a9a4-41b5-8cf5-d4503afea0cb@3g2000yqk.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!3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <1286d8ba-a9a4-41b5-8cf5-d4503afea0cb@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Totally OT: Racing pigeons Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:24:00 -0700 (PDT) References:  <799ekdF1pc336U2@mid.individual.net> <41b33f3e-35f9-431e-9319-e6148d7938f7@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <79h798F1qv8olU2@mid.individual.net>  Lines: 49 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.150.242 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1244942640 19871 127.0.0.1 (14 Jun 2009 01:24:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 01:24:00 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.150.242; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3467 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:709709

On Jun 13, 10:30=A0am, Marc  wrote: > Mark McNeill wrote: > > Response to al Mossah: > > >>> Nab him - jab him - tab him - grab him, > >>> Stop that pigeon now! > > >>> Or something. =A0 > >> This is the sort of thread which keeps me on URC; we've gone from a > >> lost pigeon via the image of a pigeon being stuffed into a box with a > >> cat to quantum physics to some really practical advice via something I > >> don't understand but may be something to do with the Oxford Canal or > >> Fairport Convention. =A0And until Judith had to pile in, not a hint of > >> an insult. > > >> WIll URCM be like this (without the J-bit? =A0Might just subscribe. > > > [Sorry for the partial post, operator error] > > > Quite. =A0This is a good place for me to ask what I've been wondering > > recently: why do the people who want OT posts, or OT threads, to be > > moderated out of existence want to do it? =A0This is a serious question=, > > because I can't see any strong motive for it myself; and I think it > > should be examined before u.r.c.m. comes into existence. Is it because > > the Usenet Powers That Be require the newsgroup to be at least nominall= y > > on topic, or is it that some users genuinely object to OT threads [in > > which case, why should those people's views prevail over the people who > > quite like OT material]? > > I think to " post off topic" is an irregular compound verb > > I always "post on topic" 'cos I'm a cyclist so anything I post in on topi= c. > > His is a "post on topic" because I agree with it and =A0doesn't contain > cycling info > > Hers is a "post off topic " because I don't agree with it and =A0doesn't > contain cycling info > > They ( Trolls by X measure) "post off topic" even if it does contain > cycling info.

Well, at least you're honest about what the "off-topic" accusation don't like it because I can't think of any counterarguments but I still don't want what they've said to be true."
 * really* means: "They've posted something that I disagree with, and I