Nuxx:Ba406d76-ebc2-43c0-a9a9-26d8ab328101@d2g2000yqn.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!d2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Address needed before posting Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:20:19 -0800 (PST) References:  <8rie5sFjnqU1@mid.individual.net> <7vtd28xhje.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>  <8rkmk3Fq26U1@mid.individual.net> <8rkqlpFm4tU1@mid.individual.net> <8tfal6l5j88icku9gklv5mcg3kc9a6b1jj@4ax.com> <667d9d95-1ea8-4509-891d-effd1da3cfd2@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 46 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 1297441219 11046 127.0.0.1 (11 Feb 2011 16:20:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:20:19 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: d2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5.8; U; en) Presto/2.7.62 Version/11.01,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3413 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:37371

On Feb 11, 2:53=A0pm, "Wm..."  wrote: > Fri, 11 Feb 2011 06:38:31 > <667d9d95-1ea8-4509-891d-effd1da3c...@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> > uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar  > > > > > > >On Feb 11, 2:01 pm, Geoff Berrow  wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:08:08 -0000, "The Todal"  > >> wrote: > > >> >As one of the moderators of ULM, I would assume automatically that if= we > >> >were rash enough to ban someone they would immediately try to evade t= he ban > >> >by posting under another name, which is one of many reasons why a ban= is a > >> >daft option. > > >> Daft? It's hilarious. You couldn't make it up. The ban was imposed > >> because, allegedly, moderation of JMS was taking too much time. And > >> yet they have time to waste like this. > > >I was banned a few months ago because apparently they *suspected*, > >with no evidence, that I had posted a series of forgeries, most of > >which weren't even to URCM. =A0In other words they couldn't even find > >anything wrong with anything I'd posted as "Nuxx Bar" to URCM (which > >must have frustrated them). > > >I haven't made a song and dance about it because I don't really care. > >But it does further demonstrate the mindset we're dealing with here. > > Sweetheart, why were you posting to a moderated cycling group?

I wasn't aware that I had to answer that question before posting. Would you like my address as well?

For the record, I'm interested in transport issues, and (at times) how they relate to cycling. Also the UK cycling groups on usenet are useful places to gauge the opinion of those who are generally in favour of anti-car measures. But no answer I can provide will satisfy you, I'm quite sure. In any case, does it matter why I'm posting as long as the content of my posts is passable?