Discussion:
RFD: Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian
(too old to reply)
Judith Smith
2012-12-19 19:40:02 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian



*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.religion.christian

There have been a number of complaints over time about Mark Goodge's
performance as moderator of uk.religion.christian. More recently, his
homophobic remarks in uk.net.news.config endorsing arguing for making
condom use for gays compulsory brought his judgement into doubt on a wider
scale.

But now his plagiarism of a previous RFD and incompetence at reading his
own proposal have led to a situation where he has to ask his mates on the
UK Usenet Committee to dig him out of a hole by bending the rules.

His continuing as a moderator brings the UK hierarchy into disrepute.

This RFD also provides an opportunity to define what exactly moderation on
content means without falling foul of the three month ban on a repeat
cycling RFD in case mark fails to get the rules bent for him.

PROPONENT'S NOTE

This is not a practice run for removing a cycling moderator - however, some
might choose to think that would be useful.

The precedent that a call for a change of moderators need not name
replacements to start with was set by an earlier RFD for urcm. We expect
that one of the other existing moderators will step up if the RFD gets
support.

The statements in the rationale are supported by these references:
<1Bzns.255264$***@fx10.am4>
<NoMQa.74$***@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
<dCdxq.18764$***@newsfe04.ams2>
<***@news.markshouse.net>
<***@news.markshouse.net>


CHARTER:
uk.religion.christian

Moderation policy - after "be made subject to prior approval by the
moderator." insert Moderation of such posts and those of new posters will
be carried out solely according to the content of posts and not the
identity of the author, whatever the fuck that means (to be decided during
discussion before a call for votes is issued).

Moderation submission address - remove "Mark Goodge" and replace it with a
name to be decided during the discussion period.

END CHARTER

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until December 30th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.religion.christian
uk.net.news.moderation

Proponent:
Judith Smith <***@outlook.com>
Robert Billing
2012-12-19 22:31:57 UTC
Permalink
The hyperspace communicator crackled into life and we heard Judith Smith
Post by Judith Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian
Well, that's d***** stupid. Mark, you may not be perfect but you have my
support.
Andy Leighton
2012-12-19 23:37:49 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:31:57 GMT,
Post by Robert Billing
The hyperspace communicator crackled into life and we heard Judith Smith
Post by Judith Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian
Well, that's d***** stupid. Mark, you may not be perfect but you have my
support.
I am not a christian nor am I interested in uk.religion.christian.
I agree that maybe Mark picked the wrong time and was maybe less than
dilligent in synthesizing previous discussions on the topic he raised
as a RFD for URCM. However that does not constitute a reason for this
RFD. I have seen no evidence that urc (christian) will be better off
for Mark stepping down, nor have I seen any evidence (and none is given
in the rationale of this RFD) of him abusing his position. For those
reasons I do not support this RFD.
--
Andy Leighton => ***@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Kendall Down
2012-12-19 22:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Indeed, Mark, can you fill us in on this? It seems clear that it has
nothing to do with uk.r.c, so why this person masquerading as "Judith
Smith" feels that the appropriate response to your posting elsewhere is
to remove you from uk.r.c is beyond me.

In particular, can you give some guidance on how we can respond to this
and discuss it - or does it need to be discussed? Do we have to
subscribe to this UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG and download thousands of posts
just to get to this particular thread?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Nick
2012-12-19 23:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kendall Down
In particular, can you give some guidance on how we can respond to this
and discuss it - or does it need to be discussed? Do we have to
subscribe to this UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG and download thousands of posts
just to get to this particular thread?
It's just a bit of mischief. If you do feel the need to join in I think
something along the lines of "Ho Ho Ho!" is appropriate.
Mark Goodge
2012-12-20 08:09:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:50:49 +0000, Kendall Down put finger to keyboard and
Post by Kendall Down
Indeed, Mark, can you fill us in on this? It seems clear that it has
nothing to do with uk.r.c, so why this person masquerading as "Judith
Smith" feels that the appropriate response to your posting elsewhere is
to remove you from uk.r.c is beyond me.
It appears to be a response by someone that I have irritated in relation to
an entirely different issue. I don't know precisely who is behind this RFD
(although I have a few thoughts), since it was submitted via an anonymising
service, but I am reasonably sure that it isn't the person who normally
posts here (and has occasionally posted to ukrc) as "Judith Smith" - the
choice of that name appears to be merely mischief making.
Post by Kendall Down
In particular, can you give some guidance on how we can respond to this
and discuss it - or does it need to be discussed? Do we have to
subscribe to this UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG and download thousands of posts
just to get to this particular thread?
I would suggest that you just ignore it. If it goes to a vote (which, at
the moment, it cannot, as it lacks some of the necessary elements) then you
will be informed about it and have the chance to vote against it. But I
think it is far more likely to simply fizzle out.

Mark
--
Please take my short survey on the Leveson Report:
http://goodge.eu/ak
Tim Jackson
2012-12-20 08:48:15 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:09:16 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote...

Kendall Down wrote...
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Kendall Down
In particular, can you give some guidance on how we can respond to this
and discuss it - or does it need to be discussed? Do we have to
subscribe to this UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG and download thousands of posts
just to get to this particular thread?
I would suggest that you just ignore it. If it goes to a vote (which, at
the moment, it cannot, as it lacks some of the necessary elements) then you
will be informed about it and have the chance to vote against it. But I
think it is far more likely to simply fizzle out.
Mark, you've quite correctly responded here in uk.net.news.config, but
it is apparent that the prior poster will not see it here. You may want
to take other measures, such as posting it in ukrc as well (perhaps
setting followups back here). Unless you have already done so, of
course (I don't subscribe to ukrc so I wouldn't see it).
--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Anthony R. Gold
2012-12-20 20:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Jackson
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:09:16 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote...
Kendall Down wrote...
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Kendall Down
In particular, can you give some guidance on how we can respond to this
and discuss it - or does it need to be discussed? Do we have to
subscribe to this UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG and download thousands of posts
just to get to this particular thread?
I would suggest that you just ignore it. If it goes to a vote (which, at
the moment, it cannot, as it lacks some of the necessary elements) then you
will be informed about it and have the chance to vote against it. But I
think it is far more likely to simply fizzle out.
Mark, you've quite correctly responded here in uk.net.news.config, but
it is apparent that the prior poster will not see it here.
What was apparent to you? I don't see it.
Tim Jackson
2012-12-20 22:11:49 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:41:30 -0500, Anthony R. Gold wrote...
Post by Anthony R. Gold
Post by Tim Jackson
Mark, you've quite correctly responded here in uk.net.news.config, but
it is apparent that the prior poster will not see it here.
What was apparent to you? I don't see it.
The original post in the thread was cross-posted to four groups, with
followups set here in unnc. The prior poster replied to that OP, asking
for guidance on how to respond, saying "Do we have to subscribe to this
UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG and download thousands of posts just to get to this
particular thread?" Evidently he hadn't actually done so and was
waiting for advice as to whether it was necessary.

Obviously the prior poster had read the OP in one of the other groups,
not unnc. My guess would be ukrc. But wherever he was, both his
response and Mark's reply would have appeared only here in unnc, because
of the followup setting.

Since the prior poster apparently hadn't subscribed to unnc, it seems
unlikely that he would have seen either his own response or Mark's
reply.
--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Anonymous
2012-12-20 20:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Goodge
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:50:49 +0000, Kendall Down put finger to keyboard and
Post by Kendall Down
Indeed, Mark, can you fill us in on this? It seems clear that it has
nothing to do with uk.r.c, so why this person masquerading as "Judith
Smith" feels that the appropriate response to your posting elsewhere is
to remove you from uk.r.c is beyond me.
It appears to be a response by someone that I have irritated in relation to
an entirely different issue. I don't know precisely who is behind this RFD
(although I have a few thoughts), since it was submitted via an anonymising
service, but I am reasonably sure that it isn't the person who normally
posts here (and has occasionally posted to ukrc) as "Judith Smith" - the
choice of that name appears to be merely mischief making.
from any person that has seen mark on more than one group this
appears odd and almost certainly mischeivous and unreal

it could be the start of another phase of a grand troll in which
case our (people with a view accross groups) reactions will be
important

mark, i suggest you tell your folk to keep their heads down or
whack incoming as appropriate.

i can say for free that the person is not a urcm regular that i
know of
Post by Mark Goodge
Post by Kendall Down
In particular, can you give some guidance on how we can respond to this
and discuss it - or does it need to be discussed? Do we have to
subscribe to this UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG and download thousands of posts
just to get to this particular thread?
I would suggest that you just ignore it. If it goes to a vote (which, at
the moment, it cannot, as it lacks some of the necessary elements) then you
will be informed about it and have the chance to vote against it. But I
think it is far more likely to simply fizzle out.
probably best, otherwise see above

mark, as a person a layer above, why the heck did you get involved
with the cyclists?

see what has happened now?
Ian Jackman
2012-12-21 15:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anonymous
mark, as a person a layer above, why the heck did you get involved
with the cyclists?
see what has happened now?
Yes, it does seem as though anyone who opposes the psycholists too
prominently or effectively ends up being persecuted by mysterious
cowards (as well as less anonymous psycholists).

This thread, together with other recent psycholist behaviour, should
convince anyone rational who maybe wasn't sure before that a lot of
the psycholists are seriously nasty, possibly sick individuals who
consider anyone who opposes them too much fair game for potentially
years of retribution (and visible retribution, to deter anyone else
who was thinking of getting in their way).

Apparently even someone who is quite widely respected will not escape
if they dare to *ask people what they think* by starting an RFD about
restricting the URCM moderators' power in some way (even if it's
pretty mild like Goodge's one was). Again the URCM lot try to
circumvent democracy, like they did when creating the group by lying
about how it would be moderated.

It's no coincidence that the current wave of unpleasantness is
accompanied by particularly draconian and bloody-minded URCM
moderation. They're all in it together to one degree or another.
Whether there is actually a (non-URCM-specific) mailing list somewhere
for the psycholists to discuss their victims (which Ian Jackson is no
doubt the non-administrator of), or it's a much looser affair, word
gets around among them all somehow as to the current "strategy".
Mike Bristow
2012-12-19 23:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judith Smith
Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian
I do not support this proposal, and will vote against should it come to
a CFV.
--
Mike Bristow ***@urgle.com
Adam Funk
2012-12-20 16:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Bristow
Post by Judith Smith
Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian
I do not support this proposal, and will vote against should it come to
a CFV.
"me too"
Robert Marshall
2012-12-20 17:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Mike Bristow
Post by Judith Smith
Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian
I do not support this proposal, and will vote against should it come to
a CFV.
"me too"
Me - umpteen

Robert
--
La grenouille songe..dans son château d'eau
Links and things http://rmstar.blogspot.com/
Paul Cummins
2012-12-20 19:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Bristow
I do not support this proposal, and will vote against should it
come to a CFV.
I "fully support" this RFD, which, as Mark and other regulars will know,
means it's essentially dead in the water.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
Adam Funk
2012-12-20 20:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Mike Bristow
I do not support this proposal, and will vote against should it
come to a CFV.
I "fully support" this RFD, which, as Mark and other regulars will know,
means it's essentially dead in the water.
This is what "to damn with faint praise" means, eh?
Anonymous
2012-12-21 12:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Mike Bristow
I do not support this proposal, and will vote against should it
come to a CFV.
I "fully support" this RFD, which, as Mark and other regulars will know,
means it's essentially dead in the water.
This is what "to damn with faint praise" means, eh?
I don't see why you are being PC about it.
Ian Jackson
2012-12-19 23:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judith Smith
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian
This RFD seems to me to be a troll. While I don't support Mark's
actions in relation to urcm, this RFD is not an appropriate response.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <***@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Paul Cummins
2012-12-20 19:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
This RFD seems to me to be a troll. While I don't support
Mark's actions in relation to urcm, this RFD is not an appropriate
response.
You shouldn't have submitted it then.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
Anthony R. Gold
2012-12-20 20:42:28 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Ian Jackson
This RFD seems to me to be a troll. While I don't support
Mark's actions in relation to urcm, this RFD is not an appropriate
response.
You shouldn't have submitted it then.
When was then?
Adam Funk
2012-12-20 20:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony R. Gold
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Ian Jackson
This RFD seems to me to be a troll. While I don't support
Mark's actions in relation to urcm, this RFD is not an appropriate
response.
You shouldn't have submitted it then.
When was then?
Who's on first.
Luke Moore
2012-12-20 21:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Anthony R. Gold
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Ian Jackson
This RFD seems to me to be a troll. While I don't support
Mark's actions in relation to urcm, this RFD is not an appropriate
response.
You shouldn't have submitted it then.
When was then?
Who's on first.
... What's on second, I Don't Know's on third.
Nomen Nescio
2012-12-21 12:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luke Moore
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Anthony R. Gold
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Ian Jackson
This RFD seems to me to be a troll. While I don't support
Mark's actions in relation to urcm, this RFD is not an appropriate
response.
You shouldn't have submitted it then.
When was then?
Who's on first.
... What's on second, I Don't Know's on third.
Baseball / rounders and Sherlock Holmes mash up ya dudes ?
paul
2012-12-20 00:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judith Smith
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian
Mark Goodge has my full support; will vote against this in any CFV in
this matter.
--
paul (C) © 2012 is mine
paul
2012-12-20 01:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judith Smith
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian
Mark Goodge has my full support; will vote against this proposal in any
CFV in this matter.
--
paul (C) © 2012 is mine
John Benn
2012-12-20 09:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judith Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
<snipped>

It's not from Judith Smith - it's a forgery.

What a dirty trick to play, both against Judith and Mark. Now I wonder who
would bear a grudge against those two? Hmmm.
Ian Smith
2012-12-20 18:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Benn
Post by Judith Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
<snipped>
It's not from Judith Smith - it's a forgery.
I don't think you can go so far as to say that - she has a long and
self-confessed record of using numerous different posting addresses,
at least some of which are simply similar-character-shifts from other
established addresses. If someone has used hundreds of similar
addresses already, how do you decide that yet another similar address
is not from her?

The most you can say is that it may or may not be from the same person
as the very, very many other ids that are variations on 'judith smith'
or 'jms'. But then, that's all you can say about most of the stuff
she may have spewed forth.

Admittedly, I don't know what she'd hope to gain from posting this
with this new id, but to be honest I haven't a clue what she hoped to
gain from posting most of the other stuff with most of the other ids
either.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Squashme
2012-12-20 18:24:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Benn
Post by Judith Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
<snipped>
It's not from Judith Smith - it's a forgery.
What a dirty trick to play, both against Judith and Mark.  Now I wonder who
would bear a grudge against those two?  Hmmm.
With regard to Judith only, wouldn't it be easier and quicker to make
a list of those without grudges?
Matthew Vernon
2012-12-20 10:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Judith Smith <***@outlook.com> writes:

<snip>

______
/ \
.' PLEASE `.
| DO NOT | _____
| FEED THE | ,'.....`.
`. TROLLS ,' ,'........ )
\_ _/ |........ ,'
| | `. .... _/
| | ,'.,'-'
| | /../
| | ,'.,'
| | /../
. | | /..'
.\_\| |/_/,
___ | | ___
. `--' .
. .

Matthew
--
`O'-----0 `O'---. `O'---. `O'---.
\___| | \___|0-/ \___|/ \___|
| | /\ | | \ | |\ | |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life
John Benn
2012-12-22 07:53:19 UTC
Permalink
"Matthew Vernon" wrote in message news:***@macbeth.sac.ac.uk...

<snip>
============================================

______
/ \
.' PLEASE `.
| DO NOT | _____
| FEED THE | ,'.....`.
`. PSYCHOLISTS.. )
\_ _/ |........ ,'
| | `. .... _/
| | ,'.,'-'
| | /../
| | ,'.,'
| | /../
. | | /..'
.\_\| |/_/,
___ | | ___
. `--' .
. .
Nomen Nescio
2012-12-23 15:32:46 UTC
Permalink
In article <rfd1-uk.religion.christian-20121219194003$***@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
Judith Smith <***@outlook.com> wrote:

Probably not Judith but anyway
Has anyone worked out what joins the 5 messages mentioned?

Think of it as a crossword puzzle for a rainy Sunday.

They aren't all in my news database and I can't find them all on-
line but somthing must connect them.
Tony
2012-12-23 23:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nomen Nescio
Probably not Judith but anyway
Has anyone worked out what joins the 5 messages mentioned?
Think of it as a crossword puzzle for a rainy Sunday.
They aren't all in my news database and I can't find them all on-
line but somthing must connect them.
One wonders a) who you are and b) why you're so keen for us all to go read
those posts?
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
Dave U. Random
2012-12-24 13:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Nomen Nescio
Probably not Judith but anyway
Has anyone worked out what joins the 5 messages mentioned?
Think of it as a crossword puzzle for a rainy Sunday.
They aren't all in my news database and I can't find them all on-
line but somthing must connect them.
One wonders a) who you are and b) why you're so keen for us all to go read
those posts?
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
Why are you wondering who I am rather than who Judith is?

I'm not the person pretending to be someone else and posting RFDs
Tony
2012-12-24 16:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave U. Random
Why are you wondering who I am rather than who Judith is?
Why do you insist one precludes the other?
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
Dave U. Random
2012-12-24 17:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Dave U. Random
Why are you wondering who I am rather than who Judith is?
Why do you insist one precludes the other?
Molly thinks Judith and I are different people.

Use your head, Tony.
Tim Jackson
2012-12-24 17:23:39 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:06:56 +0100 (CET), Dave U. Random wrote...
Post by Dave U. Random
I'm not the person pretending to be someone else and posting RFDs
We only have the word of an anonymous nym-shifter for that.
--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Anonymous
2012-12-24 14:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Nomen Nescio
Probably not Judith but anyway
Has anyone worked out what joins the 5 messages mentioned?
Think of it as a crossword puzzle for a rainy Sunday.
They aren't all in my news database and I can't find them all on-
line but somthing must connect them.
One wonders a) who you are and b) why you're so keen for us all to go read
those posts?
Did you read the messages before you approved the RFD or not, Tony?

If you didn't do you think you hould have? I think this is the
question being asked.
Tony
2012-12-24 18:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anonymous
Did you read the messages before you approved the RFD or not, Tony?
Who are you and why should I care? You seem free to use my name, or the
name I prefer to go by on Usenet, but you hide your own. You don't even
have a common posting identity. Why should I give you any respect, or even
consider answering your queries?

On what basis should I engage with anonymous nym-shifting idiots in the
management groups?

And if you can't see the difference between consistently posting as Fred
when your name is truly Bill, and posting using anonymising mail relays,
you're dumber than anyone thought.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
Anonymous
2012-12-25 00:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Anonymous
Did you read the messages before you approved the RFD or not, Tony?
Who are you and why should I care?
My name is Tony, is your name really Tony?

Actually my name is not Tony
Post by Tony
You seem free to use my name, or the
name I prefer to go by on Usenet, but you hide your own.
I understand your confusion.
Post by Tony
You don't even
have a common posting identity. Why should I give you any respect, or even
consider answering your queries?
I haven't asked you for respect. All I am expecting of you is what
is expected of Control.

I think you, Tony, have broken that respect recently.
Post by Tony
On what basis should I engage with anonymous nym-shifting idiots in the
management groups?
I do not nym-shift. I am consistently anonymous and have been for
years.
Post by Tony
And if you can't see the difference between consistently posting as Fred
when your name is truly Bill, and posting using anonymising mail relays,
you're dumber than anyone thought.
You need to speak to Molly, Tony
Fritz Wuehler
2012-12-24 17:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Nomen Nescio
Probably not Judith but anyway
Has anyone worked out what joins the 5 messages mentioned?
Think of it as a crossword puzzle for a rainy Sunday.
They aren't all in my news database and I can't find them all on-
line but somthing must connect them.
One wonders a) who you are and b) why you're so keen for us all to go read
those posts?
I haven't read the posts but I found reading the discussion in
uk.religion.christian
provided me with enough detail to work out who the good / bad
person was likely to be
in general terms.

The person is probably one of Mark's home group people, that has
sufficient knowledge
about uk.* to stir things up but not to do it properly and has
issues about their sexual
orientation.

I wish Mark and his co-religionists well over the next few days.
Anonymous
2012-12-23 15:36:49 UTC
Permalink
In article <rfd1-uk.religion.christian-20121219194003$***@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
Judith Smith <***@outlook.com> wrote:

Probably not xJudithn but anyway

xn> The statements in the rationale are supported by these references:
xn> <1Bzns.255264$***@fx10.am4>xn
xn> <NoMQa.74$***@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>xn
xn> <dCdxq.18764$***@newsfe04.ams2>xn
xn> <***@news.markshouse.net>xn
xn> <***@news.markshouse.net>xn

Has anyone worked out what joins the 5 messages mentioned?

Think of it as a crossword puzzle for a rainy Sunday.

They aren't all in my news database and I can't find them all on-
line but somthing must connect them.
Anonymous
2012-12-23 15:47:16 UTC
Permalink
In article <rfd1-uk.religion.christian-20121219194003$***@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
Judith Smith <***@outlook.com> wrote:

Probably not Judith but anyway
Has anyone worked out what joins the 5 messages mentioned?

Think of it as a crossword puzzle for a rainy Sunday.

They aren't all in my news database and I can't find them all on-
line but somthing must connect them.
Anonymous
2012-12-23 21:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nomen Nescio
Probably not Judith but anyway
Has anyone worked out what joins the 5 messages mentioned?
Think of it as a crossword puzzle for a rainy Sunday.
They aren't all in my news database and I can't find them all on-
line but somthing must connect them.
Is there really not a person present that can identify the 5
messages?
Mark Goodge
2012-12-23 21:18:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:03:30 +0800, Anonymous put finger to keyboard and
Post by Anonymous
Post by Nomen Nescio
Probably not Judith but anyway
Has anyone worked out what joins the 5 messages mentioned?
Think of it as a crossword puzzle for a rainy Sunday.
They aren't all in my news database and I can't find them all on-
line but somthing must connect them.
Is there really not a person present that can identify the 5
messages?
They're all on Google if anyone wants to read them. Do your own bloody
homework.

Mark
--
Please take my short survey on the Leveson Report:
http://goodge.eu/ak
Anonymous
2012-12-23 23:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Goodge
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:03:30 +0800, Anonymous put finger to keyboard and
Post by Anonymous
Post by Nomen Nescio
Probably not Judith but anyway
Has anyone worked out what joins the 5 messages mentioned?
Think of it as a crossword puzzle for a rainy Sunday.
They aren't all in my news database and I can't find them all on-
line but somthing must connect them.
Is there really not a person present that can identify the 5
messages?
They're all on Google if anyone wants to read them. Do your own bloody
homework.
What was the moan about?


Tell us, please
Alan Braggins
2013-01-29 18:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judith Smith
This RFD also provides an opportunity to define what exactly moderation on
content means without falling foul of the three month ban on a repeat
cycling RFD in case mark fails to get the rules bent for him.
I don't think this should have been allowed. Mark's second RFD had already
been posted, so this is an attempt to have an overlapping discussion, not
to move the discussion away from the cycling group. Ironically, it should
have been moderated on content rather than worrying about statements about
the poster's identity (or non-identity).

(Maybe it was sent earlier, in which case a statement about "if you want
your RFD posted in a timely manner, don't use an anonymizing remailer
that causes delays" might have been appropriate....)
Judith
2013-01-29 20:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Braggins
Post by Judith Smith
This RFD also provides an opportunity to define what exactly moderation on
content means without falling foul of the three month ban on a repeat
cycling RFD in case mark fails to get the rules bent for him.
I don't think this should have been allowed. Mark's second RFD had already
been posted, so this is an attempt to have an overlapping discussion, not
to move the discussion away from the cycling group. Ironically, it should
have been moderated on content rather than worrying about statements about
the poster's identity (or non-identity).
(Maybe it was sent earlier, in which case a statement about "if you want
your RFD posted in a timely manner, don't use an anonymizing remailer
that causes delays" might have been appropriate....)
ffs.

I can now see why it takes up to six weeks to moderate a basic post.
Anonymous
2013-01-29 21:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judith
Post by Alan Braggins
Post by Judith Smith
This RFD also provides an opportunity to define what exactly moderation on
content means without falling foul of the three month ban on a repeat
cycling RFD in case mark fails to get the rules bent for him.
I don't think this should have been allowed. Mark's second RFD had already
been posted, so this is an attempt to have an overlapping discussion, not
to move the discussion away from the cycling group. Ironically, it should
have been moderated on content rather than worrying about statements about
the poster's identity (or non-identity).
(Maybe it was sent earlier, in which case a statement about "if you want
your RFD posted in a timely manner, don't use an anonymizing remailer
that causes delays" might have been appropriate....)
ffs.
I can now see why it takes up to six weeks to moderate a basic post.
If you fucked off it would all happen a lot quicker, cunt.
Fritz Wuehler
2013-01-29 21:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Braggins
Post by Judith Smith
This RFD also provides an opportunity to define what exactly moderation on
content means without falling foul of the three month ban on a repeat
cycling RFD in case mark fails to get the rules bent for him.
I don't think this should have been allowed. Mark's second RFD had already
been posted, so this is an attempt to have an overlapping discussion, not
to move the discussion away from the cycling group. Ironically, it should
have been moderated on content rather than worrying about statements about
the poster's identity (or non-identity).
(Maybe it was sent earlier, in which case a statement about "if you want
your RFD posted in a timely manner, don't use an anonymizing remailer
that causes delays" might have been appropriate....)
The comittees position is becoming interesting.
d***@aol.com
2020-04-07 17:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judith Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE: uk.religion.christian
There have been a number of complaints over time about Mark Goodge's
performance as moderator of uk.religion.christian. More recently, his
homophobic remarks in uk.net.news.config endorsing arguing for making
condom use for gays compulsory brought his judgement into doubt on a wider
scale.
But now his plagiarism of a previous RFD and incompetence at reading his
own proposal have led to a situation where he has to ask his mates on the
UK Usenet Committee to dig him out of a hole by bending the rules.
His continuing as a moderator brings the UK hierarchy into disrepute.
This RFD also provides an opportunity to define what exactly moderation on
content means without falling foul of the three month ban on a repeat
cycling RFD in case mark fails to get the rules bent for him.
PROPONENT'S NOTE
This is not a practice run for removing a cycling moderator - however, some
might choose to think that would be useful.
The precedent that a call for a change of moderators need not name
replacements to start with was set by an earlier RFD for urcm. We expect
that one of the other existing moderators will step up if the RFD gets
support.
uk.religion.christian
Moderation policy - after "be made subject to prior approval by the
moderator." insert Moderation of such posts and those of new posters will
be carried out solely according to the content of posts and not the
identity of the author, whatever the fuck that means (to be decided during
discussion before a call for votes is issued).
Moderation submission address - remove "Mark Goodge" and replace it with a
name to be decided during the discussion period.
END CHARTER
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until December 30th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.religion.christian
uk.net.news.moderation
Judith certainly knows her customers. Mark Goodge recently forced me to contact The Electronic Freedom Foundation. He has clearly shown that he's unable to moderate in an unbias manner. He appoints an anti-Semite as co-moderator, and allows a Jew-hating Muslim to ask for the destruction of Israel. Mind you, both have auto-approval status while yours truly was recently banned because my taglines spoke about American-Jewish history. I too want auto-approval status so I can do & say as I please. Goodge believes that because he sits behind his virtual throne out in the bloody boonies of England, he's somehow bound by British law. Google owns all of Usenet. Before that it was Dejanews. Usenet is still part of US Intellectual Law. He will soon find out what separates The USA from any other Nation on earth when it comes to The First Amendment, its US Constitution & Declaration of Independence. We kicked British tookus during the American Revolution, and we shall kick British tookus again! ehee -D, "Five Jewish men influenced the history of Western Civilization: Jesus said love is everything. Moses said the law is everything. Marx said capital is everything. Freud said sex is everything. Einstein said everything is relative." ehe.."One of the great mysteries that has always puzzled me is how Jews, who account for such a tiny fraction of the world's population, have been able to achieve so much and excel in so many different fields - science, music, medicine, literature, arts, business and more. If you listed the most influential people of the last hundred years, three at the top of the list would be Einstein, Freud and Marx; all were Jews. Many more belong on the list, yet Jews comprise at most less than 3 percent of the United States population. They are an amazing people. Imagine the persecution they endured over the centuries: pogroms, temple burnings, Cossack raids, uprootings of families, their dispersal to the winds and the Holocaust. After the Diaspora, they could not own land or worship in much of the world; they were prohibited from voting and were told where to live. Yet their children survived and Jews became by far the most accomplished people per capita that the world has ever produced" - MARLON BRANDO, excerpt from "SONGS MY MOTHER TAUGHT ME
Graham Nye
2020-04-10 21:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Judith Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian
...
Judith certainly knows her customers. Mark Goodge recently forced me
to contact The Electronic Freedom Foundation. He has clearly shown
that he's unable to moderate in an unbias manner. He appoints an
anti-Semite as co-moderator, and allows a Jew-hating Muslim to ask
for the destruction of Israel. Mind you, both have auto-approval
status while yours truly was recently banned because my taglines
spoke about American-Jewish history. I too want auto-approval status
so I can do & say as I please. Goodge believes that because he sits
behind his virtual throne out in the bloody boonies of England, he's
somehow bound by British law.
...
Post by d***@aol.com
Imagine the persecution they endured over the centuries: pogroms,
temple burnings, Cossack raids, uprootings of families, their
dispersal to the winds and the Holocaust. After the Diaspora, they
could not own land or worship in much of the world; they were
prohibited from voting and were told where to live. Yet their
children survived and Jews became by far the most accomplished
people per capita that the world has ever produced"
- MARLON BRANDO, excerpt from "SONGS MY MOTHER TAUGHT ME
[Text shortened and reformatted as my news provider regarded it as a
binary post and refused to post it.]


***@aol.com has recently been banned from uk.religion.christian for
persistent off-topic posts, followed apparently by threats to the moderators.

Although his career in uk.religion.christian has been short there are already
some familiar traits in the above message, including the lack of attention to
detail shown by quoting a 7 year old post and lengthy quotes from US sources
irrelevant to the group:

"The purpose of the group is to discuss Christianity in the UK as well as
the UK from a Christian perspective."

from https://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.religion.christian.html
Post by d***@aol.com
been permanently banned from this group for an initial period of six
months. Any posts he attempts to make will be automatically rejected by
software, with no human involvement.
This follows a series of posts which have had to be rejected for being
seriously in breach of the [charter], to which he has responded by emailing
myself and Ken with threats.
He will be allowed to request consideration after the initial six month
period has expired, on Friday 2nd October 2020. If, at that point, he
[apologises] for his behaviour and makes a commitment to abide by the
charter in future, he will be returned to manual moderation and his
posts once again dealt with on a case by case basis. If he does not
apologise, then the ban will remain in place.
Mark
FU set.
--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk
d***@aol.com
2020-04-15 01:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Nye
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Judith Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian
...
Judith certainly knows her customers. Mark Goodge recently forced me
to contact The Electronic Freedom Foundation. He has clearly shown
that he's unable to moderate in an unbias manner. He appoints an
anti-Semite as co-moderator, and allows a Jew-hating Muslim to ask
for the destruction of Israel. Mind you, both have auto-approval
status while yours truly was recently banned because my taglines
spoke about American-Jewish history. I too want auto-approval status
so I can do & say as I please. Goodge believes that because he sits
behind his virtual throne out in the bloody boonies of England, he's
somehow bound by British law.
...
Post by d***@aol.com
Imagine the persecution they endured over the centuries: pogroms,
temple burnings, Cossack raids, uprootings of families, their
dispersal to the winds and the Holocaust. After the Diaspora, they
could not own land or worship in much of the world; they were
prohibited from voting and were told where to live. Yet their
children survived and Jews became by far the most accomplished
people per capita that the world has ever produced"
- MARLON BRANDO, excerpt from "SONGS MY MOTHER TAUGHT ME
[Text shortened and reformatted as my news provider regarded it as a
binary post and refused to post it.]
persistent off-topic posts, followed apparently by threats to the moderators.
Although his career in uk.religion.christian has been short there are already
some familiar traits in the above message, including the lack of attention to
detail shown by quoting a 7 year old post and lengthy quotes from US sources
"The purpose of the group is to discuss Christianity in the UK as well as
the UK from a Christian perspective."
from https://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.religion.christian.html
Post by d***@aol.com
been permanently banned from this group for an initial period of six
months. Any posts he attempts to make will be automatically rejected by
software, with no human involvement.
This follows a series of posts which have had to be rejected for being
seriously in breach of the [charter], to which he has responded by emailing
myself and Ken with threats.
He will be allowed to request consideration after the initial six month
period has expired, on Friday 2nd October 2020. If, at that point, he
[apologises] for his behaviour and makes a commitment to abide by the
charter in future, he will be returned to manual moderation and his
posts once again dealt with on a case by case basis. If he does not
apologise, then the ban will remain in place.
Mark
FU set.
--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk
Graham, you can now remove thy shnoz from thy moderator's tookus!ehe The so-called threat is telling them that I have contacted The Electronic Frontier Foundation. I do not tolerate bias censorship. I do not tolerate having my First Amendment rights trounced upon. The straw that broke the camel's back came when I responded to Adam Funk's tagline that mentioned American-Jewish singer/humorist Kinky Friedman. They initially claimed that if I removed any taglines that mentioned American-Jewry, my posts would not be rejected. So why is Adam Funk allowed to do so without censure? Once again, I too want auto-approval status so I can have the run of the castle like everyone else, including anti-Semites who are allowed to call Christians and Jews Zionists in every other post, and advocate for the destruction of Israel. -D, "England's made a Jew of me in only eight weeks, which, on reflection, might be the least painful method" - eh PHILIP ROTH.."If I had been nice to him {Prince Charles}, I could have been the first real Jewish princess - Princess Babs" eh - BARBRA STREISAND, umpteenth sweet, Jewish NYer.."What I took back because of my exposure to the Jewish music of the '30s & the '40s in my upbringing with my father, was that kind of theatrical songwriting. It was always a part of my character. The desire to make people laugh" - PETE TOWNSHEND.."The Jew is the emblem of eternity. He who neither slaughter nor torture of thousands of years could destroy, he who neither fire, nor sword, nor Inquisition was able to wipe off the face of the earth. He who was the first to produce the Oracles of God. He who has been for so long the Guardian of Prophecy and has transmitted it to the rest of the world. Such a nation cannot be destroyed. The Jew is as everlasting as Eternity itself" - LEO TOLSTOY.."The extraordinary European Jews who emigrated to New York were enriching the city's intellectual life with an intensity that has probably never been equaled anywhere during a comparable period of time. I was raised largely by these Jews...They were my teachers; they were my employers; they were my friends. They introduced me to a world of books and ideas that I didn't know existed" - MARLON BRANDO, excerpt from "Songs My Mother Taught Me"
Anthony R. Gold
2020-04-16 15:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
I do not tolerate having my First Amendment rights trounced upon.
If you know of some "First Amendment" with any relevance to a UK newsgroup
then please identify it. Also, in English "trounce" is a transitive verb and
with which the adverb "upon" makes no sense other than as the place where
someone or something is trounced.
Jon Ribbens
2020-04-16 15:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony R. Gold
Post by d***@aol.com
I do not tolerate having my First Amendment rights trounced upon.
If you know of some "First Amendment" with any relevance to a UK newsgroup
then please identify it. Also, in English "trounce" is a transitive verb and
with which the adverb "upon" makes no sense other than as the place where
someone or something is trounced.
I refer you to the honourable gentleman's somewhat startling
proclamation that "Google owns all of Usenet". Not that the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would have any
relevance to the situation of course, even if Google did somehow
"own all of Usenet".
Roger Hayter
2020-04-16 20:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Anthony R. Gold
Post by d***@aol.com
I do not tolerate having my First Amendment rights trounced upon.
If you know of some "First Amendment" with any relevance to a UK newsgroup
then please identify it. Also, in English "trounce" is a transitive verb and
with which the adverb "upon" makes no sense other than as the place where
someone or something is trounced.
I refer you to the honourable gentleman's somewhat startling
proclamation that "Google owns all of Usenet". Not that the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would have any
relevance to the situation of course, even if Google did somehow
"own all of Usenet".
If the US govermment owned Google, and Google owned Usenet and the
poster was an American citizen the first amendment might have some
traction.
--
Roger Hayter
d***@aol.com
2020-04-18 18:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Anthony R. Gold
Post by d***@aol.com
I do not tolerate having my First Amendment rights trounced upon.
If you know of some "First Amendment" with any relevance to a UK newsgroup
then please identify it. Also, in English "trounce" is a transitive verb and
with which the adverb "upon" makes no sense other than as the place where
someone or something is trounced.
I refer you to the honourable gentleman's somewhat startling
proclamation that "Google owns all of Usenet". Not that the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would have any
relevance to the situation of course, even if Google did somehow
"own all of Usenet".
If the US govermment owned Google, and Google owned Usenet and the
poster was an American citizen the first amendment might have some
traction.
Roger Hayter
Roger, Bingo! eh Thanks for being able to think outside of the parochial box.
Roger Hayter
2020-04-18 19:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Anthony R. Gold
Post by d***@aol.com
I do not tolerate having my First Amendment rights trounced upon.
If you know of some "First Amendment" with any relevance to a UK
newsgroup then please identify it. Also, in English "trounce" is a
transitive verb and with which the adverb "upon" makes no sense
other than as the place where someone or something is trounced.
I refer you to the honourable gentleman's somewhat startling
proclamation that "Google owns all of Usenet". Not that the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would have any
relevance to the situation of course, even if Google did somehow
"own all of Usenet".
If the US govermment owned Google, and Google owned Usenet and the
poster was an American citizen the first amendment might have some
traction.
Roger Hayter
Roger, Bingo! eh Thanks for being able to think outside of the parochial box.
Your reaction to sarcasm tends to suggest that the third condition might
be true. Shame about the other two.
--
Roger Hayter
d***@aol.com
2020-04-19 06:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Anthony R. Gold
Post by d***@aol.com
I do not tolerate having my First Amendment rights trounced upon.
If you know of some "First Amendment" with any relevance to a UK
newsgroup then please identify it. Also, in English "trounce" is a
transitive verb and with which the adverb "upon" makes no sense
other than as the place where someone or something is trounced.
I refer you to the honourable gentleman's somewhat startling
proclamation that "Google owns all of Usenet". Not that the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would have any
relevance to the situation of course, even if Google did somehow
"own all of Usenet".
If the US govermment owned Google, and Google owned Usenet and the
poster was an American citizen the first amendment might have some
traction.
Roger Hayter
Roger, Bingo! eh Thanks for being able to think outside of the parochial box.
Your reaction to sarcasm tends to suggest that the third condition might
be true. Shame about the other two.
Roger Hayter
In my haste to commend, I forgot to mention that Freedom Of Speech applies to all forms of speech that does not place lives in jeopardy. eg. You cannot run into a theatre and scream "Fire!" when there is no fire. The First Amendment is "the right to express opinions without being punished or subjected to censorship for those opinions. The government cannot prevent someone from expressing an opinion that the government does not agree with..." "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishing of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." IOW, even though the net is regulated by The FCC, The Govt. plays no relevance when it comes to the ownership of Usenet as it applies to The First Amendment. DOH! As long as Usenet rests in US territories, The First Amendment is still applicable. Either way, I still win! ehehe -D, "On November 1, 1683, the British formed Kings (aka Brooklyn) & Queens Counties, naming the regions in honor of England's King Charles II and his wife, Catherine of Braganza" - LITTLE BIG BOOK OF NEW YORK.."Named Heere Street (High Street) by the Dutch, Broadway was one of two main trading routes leading north from the tip of lower Manhattan. During the American Revolution, British and American troops traveled and fought along it" - IBID.."The statue of King George III in Bowling Green was destroyed by riots in 1776, melted down, and turned into musket balls used to fire against the British during the Revolutionary War" - IBID.."As one of the greatest American Universities, Columbia University was founded in 1754 as King's College by royal charter of King George II of England. It is the oldest institution of higher learning in the state of New York and the fifth oldest in the United States" - COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NYC
d***@aol.com
2020-04-19 15:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Anthony R. Gold
Post by d***@aol.com
I do not tolerate having my First Amendment rights trounced upon.
If you know of some "First Amendment" with any relevance to a UK
newsgroup then please identify it. Also, in English "trounce" is a
transitive verb and with which the adverb "upon" makes no sense
other than as the place where someone or something is trounced.
I refer you to the honourable gentleman's somewhat startling
proclamation that "Google owns all of Usenet". Not that the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would have any
relevance to the situation of course, even if Google did somehow
"own all of Usenet".
If the US govermment owned Google, and Google owned Usenet and the
poster was an American citizen the first amendment might have some
traction.
Roger Hayter
Roger, Bingo! eh Thanks for being able to think outside of the parochial box.
Your reaction to sarcasm tends to suggest that the third condition might
be true. Shame about the other two.
Roger Hayter
Another simple fact that you seem to forget: The Internet is an American creation. It was initially used by the Department of Defense during the 60s & 70s. The First Amendment is an inalienable right to every American citizen. It's like Apple Pie & Chevrolet! eh Either way, you made my point for me. eh
Wm
2020-04-22 12:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Anthony R. Gold
I do not tolerate having my First Amendment rights trounced upon..
If you know of some "First Amendment" with any relevance to a UK
newsgroup then please identify it. Also, in English "trounce" is a
transitive verb and with which the adverb "upon" makes no sense
other than as the place where someone or something is trounced.
I refer you to the honourable gentleman's somewhat startling
proclamation that "Google owns all of Usenet". Not that the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would have any
relevance to the situation of course, even if Google did somehow
"own all of Usenet".
If the US govermment owned Google, and Google owned Usenet and the
poster was an American citizen the first amendment might have some
traction.
Roger Hayter
Roger, Bingo! eh Thanks for being able to think outside of the parochial box.
Your reaction to sarcasm tends to suggest that the third condition might
be true. Shame about the other two.
Roger Hayter
Another simple fact that you seem to forget: The Internet is an American creation. It was initially used by the Department of Defense during the 60s & 70s. The First Amendment is an inalienable right to every American citizen.. It's like Apple Pie & Chevrolet! eh Either way, you made my point for me. eh
I think you have forgotten some things about Chevrolet not being a very
good role model, try this

===

===

P.S. work safe unless you are a weird right wing USA person
--
Wm
Paul Cummins
2020-04-22 15:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
The Internet is an American creation.
So was the Aeroplane and the Nuclear Bomb.
Post by d***@aol.com
The First Amendment is an inalienable right to every American
citizen.
But only applies against the American Government, which the internet most
certainly is not. Nor is Mark Goodge.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

There are two kinds of people in the world,
Those who can draw conclusions from incomplete data...
Anthony R. Gold
2020-04-22 17:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by d***@aol.com
The Internet is an American creation.
So was the Aeroplane and the Nuclear Bomb.
Post by d***@aol.com
The First Amendment is an inalienable right to every American
citizen.
But only applies against the American Government
Not only - in Gitlow v. New York (1925) the Supreme Court applied protection
of free speech to the states through the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Post by Paul Cummins
which the internet most certainly is not. Nor is Mark Goodge.
Graham Nye
2020-04-16 20:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Graham, you can now remove thy ...
We're not on first name terms (you don't give yours) so 'your' is appropriate, not 'thy'.
... I have contacted The Electronic Frontier Foundation.
And how did they reply, assuming they stopped laughing long enough to do so?
I do not tolerate having my First Amendment rights trounced upon.
Anthony R. Gold has already covered anything I might write on this.
--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk
Richard Kettlewell
2020-04-17 07:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Nye
Graham, you can now remove thy ...
We're not on first name terms (you don't give yours) so 'your' is appropriate, not 'thy'.
Depends which implication of “thou” he was after. Regardless of that,
though: “you can now remove your”, or “thou canst now remove thy”, but
not some mismash of the two.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Wm
2020-04-22 12:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Kettlewell
Post by Graham Nye
Graham, you can now remove thy ...
We're not on first name terms (you don't give yours) so 'your' is appropriate, not 'thy'.
Depends which implication of “thou” he was after. Regardless of that,
though: “you can now remove your”, or “thou canst now remove thy”, but
not some mismash of the two.
shouldn't there be an apostrophe in "canst" ? or does it not get one
because that is how it was originally wroted or translated-ed ?
--
Wm
Richard Kettlewell
2020-04-22 17:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm
Post by Richard Kettlewell
Post by Graham Nye
Graham, you can now remove thy ...
We're not on first name terms (you don't give yours) so 'your' is
appropriate, not 'thy'.
Depends which implication of “thou” he was after. Regardless of that,
though: “you can now remove your”, or “thou canst now remove thy”, but
not some mismash of the two.
shouldn't there be an apostrophe in "canst" ? or does it not get one
because that is how it was originally wroted or translated-ed ?
Apostrophes are used to indicate contraction (e.g. isn’t) or possession
(e.g. Bob’s). “canst” is neither of these.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Wm
2020-04-22 20:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Kettlewell
Post by Wm
Post by Richard Kettlewell
Post by Graham Nye
Graham, you can now remove thy ...
We're not on first name terms (you don't give yours) so 'your' is
appropriate, not 'thy'.
Depends which implication of “thou” he was after. Regardless of that,
though: “you can now remove your”, or “thou canst now remove thy”, but
not some mismash of the two.
shouldn't there be an apostrophe in "canst" ? or does it not get one
because that is how it was originally wroted or translated-ed ?
Apostrophes are used to indicate contraction (e.g. isn’t) or possession
(e.g. Bob’s). “canst” is neither of these.
hmmn, cannot something

ho hum

weird religious people can be merkin and UKian
--
Wm
Richard Kettlewell
2020-04-22 22:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm
Post by Richard Kettlewell
Post by Wm
Post by Richard Kettlewell
Post by Graham Nye
Graham, you can now remove thy ...
We're not on first name terms (you don't give yours) so 'your' is
appropriate, not 'thy'.
Depends which implication of “thou” he was after. Regardless of that,
though: “you can now remove your”, or “thou canst now remove thy”, but
not some mismash of the two.
shouldn't there be an apostrophe in "canst" ? or does it not get one
because that is how it was originally wroted or translated-ed ?
Apostrophes are used to indicate contraction (e.g. isn’t) or possession
(e.g. Bob’s). “canst” is neither of these.
hmmn, cannot something
It’s not a contraction of “cannot”, if that’s what you’re getting at.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Anthony R. Gold
2020-04-22 22:24:12 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 23:00:58 +0100, Richard Kettlewell
Post by Richard Kettlewell
Post by Wm
Post by Richard Kettlewell
Post by Wm
Post by Richard Kettlewell
Post by Graham Nye
Graham, you can now remove thy ...
We're not on first name terms (you don't give yours) so 'your' is
appropriate, not 'thy'.
Depends which implication of “thou” he was after. Regardless of that,
though: “you can now remove your”, or “thou canst now remove thy”, but
not some mismash of the two.
shouldn't there be an apostrophe in "canst" ? or does it not get one
because that is how it was originally wroted or translated-ed ?
Apostrophes are used to indicate contraction (e.g. isn’t) or possession
(e.g. Bob’s). “canst” is neither of these.
hmmn, cannot something
It’s not a contraction of “cannot”, if that’s what you’re getting at.
Indeed: "Thou canst not say I did it; never shake thy gory locks at me."
Macbeth Act III, scene 4
Wm
2020-04-23 07:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony R. Gold
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 23:00:58 +0100, Richard Kettlewell
Post by Richard Kettlewell
Post by Wm
Post by Richard Kettlewell
Post by Wm
Post by Richard Kettlewell
Post by Graham Nye
Graham, you can now remove thy ...
We're not on first name terms (you don't give yours) so 'your' is
appropriate, not 'thy'.
Depends which implication of “thou” he was after. Regardless of that,
though: “you can now remove your”, or “thou canst now remove thy”, but
not some mismash of the two.
shouldn't there be an apostrophe in "canst" ? or does it not get one
because that is how it was originally wroted or translated-ed ?
Apostrophes are used to indicate contraction (e.g. isn’t) or possession
(e.g. Bob’s). “canst” is neither of these.
hmmn, cannot something
It’s not a contraction of “cannot”, if that’s what you’re getting at.
Indeed: "Thou canst not say I did it; never shake thy gory locks at me."
Macbeth Act III, scene 4
I'm not sure ***@aol.com is getting the literature that occured
previous to what Donald Trump said bit.
--
Wm
d***@aol.com
2020-04-18 18:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Nye
Graham, you can now remove thy ...>
We're not on first name terms (you don't give yours) so 'your' is appropriate, not 'thy'.
As the David Mamet (sweet Jew) of cyberspace, you do not choose my choice of words. eh When you receive the same praise from an online user, you may then get back to me: "What a fabulous, fun, smart post. I haven't been reading these ngs for very long but sometimes I come across the comments and writings of people who have these wonderfully quick and lively minds, full of fun, and the ability to see sideways and around things and sometimes, just old-fashioned brilliant. It's so great to read and laugh and enjoy that spark!" - CORDELIA LEAR, 2006...
Post by Graham Nye
... I have contacted The Electronic Frontier Foundation. >
And how did they reply, assuming they stopped laughing long enough to do so?>>
As follows: Chao: "While you may have copied us to an ongoing conversation to show what the situation is, I need to ask to take a moment to provide the information more concisely. Once I have this information, I will be able to form a clearer idea of the situation, and assess whether there is anything we can do to assist you here." He certainly did not agree with the belief that because Goodge is sitting behind his PC in England, he is immune from The EFF. The reason why Goodge made my ban public is precisely for that reason. He's pishing in his pants! eh He'll soon be moderating from Siberia! eh -D, "People have asked why would I, a Jewish actor, play the part of a monstrous Jewish villain? But although Dickens describes Fagin as a merry old Jew, there's no sign of him being a Jew in his language and actions" - RON MOODY, sweet Yiddish-British.."New York New York it's a hell of a town, The Bronx is up and I'm Brooklyn down" - BEASTIE BOYS, umpteenth sweet, Jewish NYers - first successful all white rap-rock group
Graham Nye
2020-04-18 19:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Graham Nye
... I have contacted The Electronic Frontier Foundation. >
And how did they reply, assuming they stopped laughing long enough to do so?
As follows: Chao: "While you may have copied us to an ongoing
conversation to show what the situation is, I need to ask to take a
moment to provide the information more concisely. Once I have this
information, I will be able to form a clearer idea of the situation,
and assess whether there is anything we can do to assist you here."
Somewhat of a holding reply, then. It doesn't sound as though they
immediately dispatched the 7th Cavalry to ride to your rescue.
Post by d***@aol.com
He certainly did not agree with the belief that because Goodge is
sitting behind his PC in England, he is immune from The EFF. The
reason why Goodge made my ban public is precisely for that reason.
I've been reading uk.religion.christian for 24 years. The moderators
have always documented bans in the group. It's not because you are
special.
--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk
Mike Fleming
2020-04-19 01:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Nye
Post by d***@aol.com
He certainly did not agree with the belief that because Goodge is
sitting behind his PC in England, he is immune from The EFF. The
reason why Goodge made my ban public is precisely for that reason.
I've been reading uk.religion.christian for 24 years. The moderators
have always documented bans in the group. It's not because you are
special.
Oh, I think he's definitely special.
--
Mike Fleming
d***@aol.com
2020-04-19 06:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Nye
Post by d***@aol.com
He certainly did not agree with the belief that because Goodge is
sitting behind his PC in England, he is immune from The EFF. The
reason why Goodge made my ban public is precisely for that reason.
I've been reading uk.religion.christian for 24 years. The moderators
have always documented bans in the group. It's not because you are
special.>
Oh, I think he's definitely special.>>
As I always say, I am nothing without a keen audience. eh
unknown
2020-04-19 08:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
As I always say, I am nothing
--
fold, spindle, mutilate
Wm
2020-04-22 12:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Graham Nye
Graham, you can now remove thy ...>
We're not on first name terms (you don't give yours) so 'your' is appropriate, not 'thy'.
As the David Mamet (sweet Jew) of cyberspace, you do not choose my choice of words. eh When you receive the same praise from an online user, you may then get back to me: "What a fabulous, fun, smart post. I haven't been reading these ngs for very long but sometimes I come across the comments and writings of people who have these wonderfully quick and lively minds, full of fun, and the ability to see sideways and around things and sometimes, just old-fashioned brilliant. It's so great to read and laugh and enjoy that spark!" - CORDELIA LEAR, 2006...
Ummmm, I'm guessing Cordelia Lear isn't an actual name and refers to a
persona in a play. If you don't know that ...
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Graham Nye
... I have contacted The Electronic Frontier Foundation. >
And how did they reply, assuming they stopped laughing long enough to do so?>>
As follows: Chao: "While you may have copied us to an ongoing conversation to show what the situation is, I need to ask to take a moment to provide the information more concisely. Once I have this information, I will be able to form a clearer idea of the situation, and assess whether there is anything we can do to assist you here."
You were being told to fuck off and stop wasting their time in a nice way.
--
Wm
Wm
2020-04-23 08:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Judith Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE: uk.religion.christian
There have been a number of complaints over time about Mark Goodge's
performance as moderator of uk.religion.christian. More recently, his
homophobic remarks in uk.net.news.config endorsing arguing for making
condom use for gays compulsory brought his judgement into doubt on a wider
scale.
But now his plagiarism of a previous RFD and incompetence at reading his
own proposal have led to a situation where he has to ask his mates on the
UK Usenet Committee to dig him out of a hole by bending the rules.
His continuing as a moderator brings the UK hierarchy into disrepute.
This RFD also provides an opportunity to define what exactly moderation on
content means without falling foul of the three month ban on a repeat
cycling RFD in case mark fails to get the rules bent for him.
PROPONENT'S NOTE
This is not a practice run for removing a cycling moderator - however, some
might choose to think that would be useful.
The precedent that a call for a change of moderators need not name
replacements to start with was set by an earlier RFD for urcm. We expect
that one of the other existing moderators will step up if the RFD gets
support.
uk.religion.christian
Moderation policy - after "be made subject to prior approval by the
moderator." insert Moderation of such posts and those of new posters will
be carried out solely according to the content of posts and not the
identity of the author, whatever the fuck that means (to be decided during
discussion before a call for votes is issued).
Moderation submission address - remove "Mark Goodge" and replace it with a
name to be decided during the discussion period.
END CHARTER
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until December 30th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.religion.christian
uk.net.news.moderation
Judith certainly knows her customers.
[munch]

Does anyone know how this pair of fuckwits (Judith and darrint68)
managed to meet ?
--
Wm
Owen Rees
2020-04-23 14:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Judith Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE: uk.religion.christian
There have been a number of complaints over time about Mark Goodge's
performance as moderator of uk.religion.christian. More recently, his
homophobic remarks in uk.net.news.config endorsing arguing for making
condom use for gays compulsory brought his judgement into doubt on a wider
scale.
But now his plagiarism of a previous RFD and incompetence at reading his
own proposal have led to a situation where he has to ask his mates on the
UK Usenet Committee to dig him out of a hole by bending the rules.
His continuing as a moderator brings the UK hierarchy into disrepute.
This RFD also provides an opportunity to define what exactly moderation on
content means without falling foul of the three month ban on a repeat
cycling RFD in case mark fails to get the rules bent for him.
PROPONENT'S NOTE
This is not a practice run for removing a cycling moderator - however, some
might choose to think that would be useful.
The precedent that a call for a change of moderators need not name
replacements to start with was set by an earlier RFD for urcm. We expect
that one of the other existing moderators will step up if the RFD gets
support.
uk.religion.christian
Moderation policy - after "be made subject to prior approval by the
moderator." insert Moderation of such posts and those of new posters will
be carried out solely according to the content of posts and not the
identity of the author, whatever the fuck that means (to be decided during
discussion before a call for votes is issued).
Moderation submission address - remove "Mark Goodge" and replace it with a
name to be decided during the discussion period.
END CHARTER
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until December 30th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.religion.christian
uk.net.news.moderation
Judith certainly knows her customers.
[munch]
Does anyone know how this pair of fuckwits (Judith and darrint68)
managed to meet ?
See the message posted to unna by Control shortly after the RFD. However
much I usually disagree with Judith Smith, that kind of disguise seems
out of character.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

The Committee notes that the just-published RFD, message id below,

<rfd1-uk.religion.christian-20121219194003$***@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>

has been submitted under the name Judith Smith
<***@outlook.com>.
In particular, we note that the email address contains a lower-case L
between the zero and two, not a digit one, and is different from the
addresses used for any previous RFD. The Committee also notes that the
RFD
was submitted to Control via an anonymising service designed to conceal
the
true origin of the email.
Roger Hayter
2020-04-23 15:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Owen Rees <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip
Post by Owen Rees
See the message posted to unna by Control shortly after the RFD. However
much I usually disagree with Judith Smith, that kind of disguise seems
out of character.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
The Committee notes that the just-published RFD, message id below,
has been submitted under the name Judith Smith
In particular, we note that the email address contains a lower-case L
between the zero and two, not a digit one, and is different from the
addresses used for any previous RFD. The Committee also notes that the
RFD
was submitted to Control via an anonymising service designed to conceal
the
true origin of the email.
Thanks for reminding us. I had forgotten that!
--
Roger Hayter
Wm
2020-04-23 17:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Hayter
snip
Post by Owen Rees
See the message posted to unna by Control shortly after the RFD. However
much I usually disagree with Judith Smith, that kind of disguise seems
out of character.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
The Committee notes that the just-published RFD, message id below,
has been submitted under the name Judith Smith
In particular, we note that the email address contains a lower-case L
between the zero and two, not a digit one, and is different from the
addresses used for any previous RFD. The Committee also notes that the
RFD
was submitted to Control via an anonymising service designed to conceal
the
true origin of the email.
Thanks for reminding us. I had forgotten that!
I suppose the weird thing is someone thinking that masquerading as
Judith would provide cachet.
--
Wm
Graham Nye
2020-04-23 17:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Owen Rees
The Committee notes that the just-published RFD, message id below,
has been submitted under the name Judith Smith
In particular, we note that the email address contains a lower-case L
between the zero and two, not a digit one, and is different from the
addresses used for any previous RFD. The Committee also notes that the
RFD
was submitted to Control via an anonymising service designed to conceal
the
true origin of the email.
Thanks for reminding us. I had forgotten that!
I suppose the weird thing is someone thinking that masquerading as
Judith would provide cachet.
It may have been posted by someone wishing to (further) discredit the
individual(s) posting as "Judith Smith".
--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk
Wm
2020-04-23 18:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Nye
Post by Wm
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Owen Rees
The Committee notes that the just-published RFD, message id below,
has been submitted under the name Judith Smith
In particular, we note that the email address contains a lower-case L
between the zero and two, not a digit one, and is different from the
addresses used for any previous RFD. The Committee also notes that the
RFD
was submitted to Control via an anonymising service designed to conceal
the
true origin of the email.
Thanks for reminding us. I had forgotten that!
I suppose the weird thing is someone thinking that masquerading as
Judith would provide cachet.
It may have been posted by someone wishing to (further) discredit the
individual(s) posting as "Judith Smith".
I think that is enough conspiracy theorism for now, I mean, how many
people want to be Judith when she doesn't even want to be herself?
--
Wm
d***@aol.com
2020-04-25 03:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Judith Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
Remove Mark Goodge as moderator of uk.religion.christian
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE: uk.religion.christian
There have been a number of complaints over time about Mark Goodge's
performance as moderator of uk.religion.christian. More recently, his
homophobic remarks in uk.net.news.config endorsing arguing for making
condom use for gays compulsory brought his judgement into doubt on a wider
scale.
But now his plagiarism of a previous RFD and incompetence at reading his
own proposal have led to a situation where he has to ask his mates on the
UK Usenet Committee to dig him out of a hole by bending the rules.
His continuing as a moderator brings the UK hierarchy into disrepute.
This RFD also provides an opportunity to define what exactly moderation on
content means without falling foul of the three month ban on a repeat
cycling RFD in case mark fails to get the rules bent for him.
PROPONENT'S NOTE
This is not a practice run for removing a cycling moderator - however, some
might choose to think that would be useful.
The precedent that a call for a change of moderators need not name
replacements to start with was set by an earlier RFD for urcm. We expect
that one of the other existing moderators will step up if the RFD gets
support.
uk.religion.christian
Moderation policy - after "be made subject to prior approval by the
moderator." insert Moderation of such posts and those of new posters will
be carried out solely according to the content of posts and not the
identity of the author, whatever the fuck that means (to be decided during
discussion before a call for votes is issued).
Moderation submission address - remove "Mark Goodge" and replace it with a
name to be decided during the discussion period.
END CHARTER
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until December 30th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.religion.christian
uk.net.news.moderation
Judith certainly knows her customers.
[munch]
Does anyone know how this pair of fuckwits (Judith and darrint68)
managed to meet ?> Wm
If I give you my autograph, will you promise to go away?ehe
Wm
2020-05-06 18:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Wm
Does anyone know how this pair of fuckwits (Judith and darrint68)
managed to meet ?> Wm
If I give you my autograph, will you promise to go away?ehe
no

Loading...