Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.net.news.management > #17781 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-01-19 17:05 +0000 |
| Last post | 2023-01-27 13:06 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 73 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.net.news.management
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-19 17:05 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-01-19 18:25 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-19 21:36 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-19 21:53 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-19 22:04 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-19 22:14 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-20 01:31 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-20 01:52 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-20 02:12 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-20 02:40 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-20 19:57 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-21 02:37 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 08:41 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-21 09:22 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 10:30 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> - 2023-01-21 11:00 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 11:15 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-21 14:02 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 14:12 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 14:17 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> - 2023-01-21 14:21 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 16:13 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-21 17:53 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 18:36 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-21 22:23 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 22:50 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-22 02:23 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> - 2023-01-21 21:36 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> - 2023-01-22 15:44 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-21 14:26 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-21 15:47 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 11:36 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-21 15:43 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> - 2023-01-22 15:48 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Algernon Goss-Custard <Ben@nowhere.com> - 2023-01-21 15:30 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-21 15:51 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-21 18:28 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 10:22 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-01-21 10:43 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-21 15:49 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-21 10:43 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-21 14:20 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> - 2023-01-21 14:27 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jeff Layman <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-21 20:01 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-21 22:28 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jeff Layman <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-22 09:22 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> - 2023-01-21 11:01 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 11:17 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-21 18:30 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 21:08 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-22 02:25 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-01-22 08:25 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-23 01:20 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> - 2023-01-23 13:04 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-23 13:17 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> - 2023-01-27 00:34 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> - 2023-01-27 06:37 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-27 08:55 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-23 13:36 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> - 2023-01-27 00:35 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-27 17:09 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> - 2023-01-29 19:25 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-30 00:52 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> - 2023-01-30 01:21 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> - 2023-01-21 17:18 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> - 2023-01-21 11:13 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 12:15 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-01-21 12:47 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 14:11 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 14:18 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> - 2023-01-22 16:00 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> - 2023-01-22 15:59 +0000
Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-27 13:06 +0000
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 14:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsAF939221C335237B93@88.198.57.247> |
| In reply to | #17809 |
On 14:12 21 Jan 2023, Bryan Morris said: > In message <slrntsns3u.3rma.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon > Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes >>On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net> The >>> Todal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen >>>> any. >>> >>> Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said >>> in the quotes. >> >>Excellent, so this is your opportunity to explain what moderation >>policy or policies my post contravened. > > If you don't know you don't deserve to be a moderator As I read this thread, what I see is you making loud complaints but failing to follow up with examples when invited. Are you posting just for a moan or do you intend to make some constructive criticism?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 16:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ID+8IKO18AzjFwub@this.machine> |
| In reply to | #17813 |
In message <XnsAF939221C335237B93@88.198.57.247>, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> writes >On 14:12 21 Jan 2023, Bryan Morris said: >> In message <slrntsns3u.3rma.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon >> Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes >>>On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net> The >>>> Todal wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen >>>>> any. >>>> >>>> Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said >>>> in the quotes. >>> >>>Excellent, so this is your opportunity to explain what moderation >>>policy or policies my post contravened. >> >> If you don't know you don't deserve to be a moderator > >As I read this thread, what I see is you making loud complaints but >failing to follow up with examples when invited. I'm not falling into that trap, my name isn't Norman If you don't know what I mean you're part of the problem > > >Are you posting just for a moan or do you intend to make some >constructive criticism? Apart from one recently appointed moderator (who never uses 1 word when 6 will do;) ) generally the remaining moderators use their positions to make snide , off topic, political remarks in a legal newsgroup -- Bryan Morris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 17:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k32n42Fb1sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17821 |
On 21 Jan 2023 at 16:13:41 GMT, "Bryan Morris" <nospam@this.machine> wrote: > In message <XnsAF939221C335237B93@88.198.57.247>, Pamela > <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> writes >> On 14:12 21 Jan 2023, Bryan Morris said: >>> In message <slrntsns3u.3rma.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon >>> Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes >>>> On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net> The >>>>> Todal wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen >>>>>> any. >>>>> >>>>> Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said >>>>> in the quotes. >>>> >>>> Excellent, so this is your opportunity to explain what moderation >>>> policy or policies my post contravened. >>> >>> If you don't know you don't deserve to be a moderator >> >> As I read this thread, what I see is you making loud complaints but >> failing to follow up with examples when invited. > > I'm not falling into that trap, my name isn't Norman > If you don't know what I mean you're part of the problem >> >> >> Are you posting just for a moan or do you intend to make some >> constructive criticism? > > Apart from one recently appointed moderator (who never uses 1 word when > 6 will do;) ) generally the remaining moderators use their positions to > make snide , off topic, political remarks in a legal newsgroup But you don't need to be a moderator to do that in ulm! It is not against the moderation policy. Indeed it was only a couple of years ago that Jeremy Corbyn was being regularly accused in ulm of being a traitor to the UK, a supporter of terrorists and an anti-semite. Much worse than is currently being said about any current Tory. But somehow that didn't worry you; becuse you supported that particular bit of lying propaganda perhaps? I believe your protestss are totally hypocritical and designed to score party-political points. I am unsurprised, but sad, to see that Tories also see it as important to support Keith Starmer. One would almost think he was one of them. -- Roger Hayter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 18:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <O3V91oRaCDzjFwcF@this.machine> |
| In reply to | #17823 |
In message <k32n42Fb1sU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> writes >On 21 Jan 2023 at 16:13:41 GMT, "Bryan Morris" <nospam@this.machine> wrote: > >> In message <XnsAF939221C335237B93@88.198.57.247>, Pamela >> <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> writes >>> On 14:12 21 Jan 2023, Bryan Morris said: >>>> In message <slrntsns3u.3rma.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon >>>> Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes >>>>> On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net> The >>>>>> Todal wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen >>>>>>> any. >>>>>> >>>>>> Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said >>>>>> in the quotes. >>>>> >>>>> Excellent, so this is your opportunity to explain what moderation >>>>> policy or policies my post contravened. >>>> >>>> If you don't know you don't deserve to be a moderator >>> >>> As I read this thread, what I see is you making loud complaints but >>> failing to follow up with examples when invited. >> >> I'm not falling into that trap, my name isn't Norman >> If you don't know what I mean you're part of the problem >>> >>> >>> Are you posting just for a moan or do you intend to make some >>> constructive criticism? >> >> Apart from one recently appointed moderator (who never uses 1 word when >> 6 will do;) ) generally the remaining moderators use their positions to >> make snide , off topic, political remarks in a legal newsgroup > >But you don't need to be a moderator to do that in ulm! It is not against the >moderation policy. > It SHOULD be a policy that moderators of a moderated group confine themselves to dealing with issues related directly to the objectives of the group (in this case legal issues). The moderators should also deal with snide , off topic, political remarks made by other posters. That surely is the role of a moderator > Indeed it was only a couple of years ago that Jeremy Corbyn was being >regularly accused in ulm of being a traitor to the UK, a supporter of >terrorists and an anti-semite. Much worse than is currently being said about >any current Tory. > >But somehow that didn't worry you; becuse you supported that particular bit of >lying propaganda perhaps? 2 years ago from memory I no longer subscribed to that group (and last year, being in hospital for over 2 months, I was off usenet for a long time.) But no, and I won't give my opinion on Corbyn who I once knew, comments about him, unless relevant in a legal newsgroup, should not be posted there. > > >I believe your protestss are totally hypocritical and designed to score >party-political points. I am unsurprised, but sad, to see that Tories also see >it as important to support Keith Starmer. One would almost think he was one of >them. > > Keith? -- Bryan Morris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 22:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k336uiF2n9uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17826 |
On 21 Jan 2023 at 18:36:10 GMT, "Bryan Morris" <nospam@this.machine> wrote: > In message <k32n42Fb1sU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter > <roger@hayter.org> writes >> On 21 Jan 2023 at 16:13:41 GMT, "Bryan Morris" <nospam@this.machine> wrote: >> >>> In message <XnsAF939221C335237B93@88.198.57.247>, Pamela >>> <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> writes >>>> On 14:12 21 Jan 2023, Bryan Morris said: >>>>> In message <slrntsns3u.3rma.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon >>>>> Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes >>>>>> On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net> The >>>>>>> Todal wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen >>>>>>>> any. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said >>>>>>> in the quotes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Excellent, so this is your opportunity to explain what moderation >>>>>> policy or policies my post contravened. >>>>> >>>>> If you don't know you don't deserve to be a moderator >>>> >>>> As I read this thread, what I see is you making loud complaints but >>>> failing to follow up with examples when invited. >>> >>> I'm not falling into that trap, my name isn't Norman >>> If you don't know what I mean you're part of the problem >>>> >>>> >>>> Are you posting just for a moan or do you intend to make some >>>> constructive criticism? >>> >>> Apart from one recently appointed moderator (who never uses 1 word when >>> 6 will do;) ) generally the remaining moderators use their positions to >>> make snide , off topic, political remarks in a legal newsgroup >> >> But you don't need to be a moderator to do that in ulm! It is not against the >> moderation policy. > >> > It SHOULD be a policy that moderators of a moderated group confine > themselves to dealing with issues related directly to the objectives of > the group (in this case legal issues). The moderators should also deal > with snide , off topic, political remarks made by other posters. That > surely is the role of a moderator You are welcome to request a discussion of the setting up of such a newsgroup, but that doesn't happen to be the written policy of ULM, which the electorate supported x years ago. > >> Indeed it was only a couple of years ago that Jeremy Corbyn was being >> regularly accused in ulm of being a traitor to the UK, a supporter of >> terrorists and an anti-semite. Much worse than is currently being said about >> any current Tory. >> >> But somehow that didn't worry you; becuse you supported that particular bit of >> lying propaganda perhaps? > > 2 years ago from memory I no longer subscribed to that group (and last > year, being in hospital for over 2 months, I was off usenet for a long > time.) But no, and I won't give my opinion on Corbyn who I once knew, > comments about him, unless relevant in a legal newsgroup, should not be > posted there. I apologise if you were not one of the mob of like-minded people who supported the media campaign against Corbyn. But many who did are now complaining about the Todal and Jon Ribbens saying unkind things about the Tories. (By the way, I really wish I was in a position to claim to have "carelessly" "forgotten" to pay a million pounds of tax.) >> >> >> I believe your protestss are totally hypocritical and designed to score >> party-political points. I am unsurprised, but sad, to see that Tories also see >> it as important to support Keith Starmer. One would almost think he was one of >> them. >> >> > Keith? Who knows? He sounds like a Keith and has more in common with Ramsay Macdonald than Keir Hardie! -- Roger Hayter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 22:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ET4$sLWswGzjFwOh@this.machine> |
| In reply to | #17830 |
In message <k336uiF2n9uU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> writes >On 21 Jan 2023 at 18:36:10 GMT, "Bryan Morris" <nospam@this.machine> wrote: > >> In message <k32n42Fb1sU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter >> <roger@hayter.org> writes >>> On 21 Jan 2023 at 16:13:41 GMT, "Bryan Morris" <nospam@this.machine> wrote: >>> >>>> In message <XnsAF939221C335237B93@88.198.57.247>, Pamela >>>> <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> writes >>>>> On 14:12 21 Jan 2023, Bryan Morris said: >>>>>> In message <slrntsns3u.3rma.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon >>>>>> Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes >>>>>>> On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net> The >>>>>>>> Todal wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen >>>>>>>>> any. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said >>>>>>>> in the quotes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Excellent, so this is your opportunity to explain what moderation >>>>>>> policy or policies my post contravened. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you don't know you don't deserve to be a moderator >>>>> >>>>> As I read this thread, what I see is you making loud complaints but >>>>> failing to follow up with examples when invited. >>>> >>>> I'm not falling into that trap, my name isn't Norman >>>> If you don't know what I mean you're part of the problem >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Are you posting just for a moan or do you intend to make some >>>>> constructive criticism? >>>> >>>> Apart from one recently appointed moderator (who never uses 1 word when >>>> 6 will do;) ) generally the remaining moderators use their positions to >>>> make snide , off topic, political remarks in a legal newsgroup >>> >>> But you don't need to be a moderator to do that in ulm! It is not >>>against the >>> moderation policy. >> >>> >> It SHOULD be a policy that moderators of a moderated group confine >> themselves to dealing with issues related directly to the objectives of >> the group (in this case legal issues). The moderators should also deal >> with snide , off topic, political remarks made by other posters. That >> surely is the role of a moderator > >You are welcome to request a discussion of the setting up of such a newsgroup, >but that doesn't happen to be the written policy of ULM, which the electorate >supported x years ago. > > Thank you for your condescending response that I'm welcome to request a discussion If you don't understand responsibilities of those given authority to act as a moderator you probably don't understand the responsibilities of judges in applying laws in a neutral way > > >> >>> Indeed it was only a couple of years ago that Jeremy Corbyn was being >>> regularly accused in ulm of being a traitor to the UK, a supporter of >>> terrorists and an anti-semite. Much worse than is currently being said about >>> any current Tory. >>> >>> But somehow that didn't worry you; becuse you supported that >>>particular bit of >>> lying propaganda perhaps? >> >> 2 years ago from memory I no longer subscribed to that group (and last >> year, being in hospital for over 2 months, I was off usenet for a long >> time.) But no, and I won't give my opinion on Corbyn who I once knew, >> comments about him, unless relevant in a legal newsgroup, should not be >> posted there. > >I apologise if you were not one of the mob of like-minded people who supported >the media campaign against Corbyn. But many who did are now complaining about >the Todal and Jon Ribbens saying unkind things about the Tories. (By the way, >I really wish I was in a position to claim to have "carelessly" "forgotten" to >pay a million pounds of tax.) > > I refuse to be drawn into a political discussion on this group about what you call the "media campaign against Corbyn" Though from that remark of yours I conclude you support Corbyn's views for which he has lost the Labour whip > >>> >>> >>> I believe your protestss are totally hypocritical and designed to score >>> party-political points. I am unsurprised, but sad, to see that >>>Tories also see >>> it as important to support Keith Starmer. One would almost think he >>>was one of >>> them. >>> >>> >> Keith? > >Who knows? He sounds like a Keith and has more in common with Ramsay Macdonald >than Keir Hardie! > > -- Bryan Morris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-22 02:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k33l17F4l57U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17832 |
On 21/01/2023 22:50, Bryan Morris wrote: > > If you don't understand responsibilities of those given authority to act > as a moderator you probably don't understand the responsibilities of > judges in applying laws in a neutral way Perhaps you should research the responsibilities of the "moderator" role of those who are moderators. Being a moderator does not preclude one from having or posting personal opinions, and having or posting personal opinions in no way prevents a person from fulfilling the position of moderator.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 21:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsAF93DBE56FFD837B93@88.198.57.247> |
| In reply to | #17821 |
On 16:13 21 Jan 2023, Bryan Morris said: > In message <XnsAF939221C335237B93@88.198.57.247>, Pamela > <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> writes >>On 14:12 21 Jan 2023, Bryan Morris said: >>> In message <slrntsns3u.3rma.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon >>> Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes >>>>On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net> The >>>>> Todal wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen >>>>>> any. >>>>> >>>>> Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said >>>>> in the quotes. >>>> >>>>Excellent, so this is your opportunity to explain what moderation >>>>policy or policies my post contravened. >>> >>> If you don't know you don't deserve to be a moderator >> >>As I read this thread, what I see is you making loud complaints but >>failing to follow up with examples when invited. > > I'm not falling into that trap, my name isn't Norman > If you don't know what I mean you're part of the problem The difference between your response and something Norman might write is that he would provide examples. On the other hand, you moan but when asked to explain your concerns you declare it's a trap. You sound paranoid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-22 15:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k353v6Fbj18U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17821 |
On 21/01/2023 16:13, Bryan Morris wrote: > In message <XnsAF939221C335237B93@88.198.57.247>, Pamela > <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> writes >> On 14:12 21 Jan 2023, Bryan Morris said: >>> In message <slrntsns3u.3rma.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon >>> Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes >>>> On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net> The >>>>> Todal wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen >>>>>> any. >>>>> >>>>> Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said >>>>> in the quotes. >>>> >>>> Excellent, so this is your opportunity to explain what moderation >>>> policy or policies my post contravened. >>> >>> If you don't know you don't deserve to be a moderator >> >> As I read this thread, what I see is you making loud complaints but >> failing to follow up with examples when invited. > > I'm not falling into that trap, my name isn't Norman > If you don't know what I mean you're part of the problem >> >> >> Are you posting just for a moan or do you intend to make some >> constructive criticism? > > Apart from one recently appointed moderator (who never uses 1 word when > 6 will do;) ) generally the remaining moderators use their positions to > make snide , off topic, political remarks in a legal newsgroup > > Do try harder. The complaint was: "highly offensive remarks" and "they act with impunity, posting stuff they wouldn't accept from non Guardian readers" Remarks that might offend a Tory MP don't count. What exactly has offended you, personally? Or offended a fellow contributor? Can you explain how the moderators check whether each contributor reads the Guardian? Or was the complaint a petulant whinge without any basis in reality?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 14:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrntsntgc.3rma.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> |
| In reply to | #17809 |
On 2023-01-21, Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote: > In message <slrntsns3u.3rma.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon > Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes >>On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote: >>>>Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen any. >>> >>> Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said in the >>> quotes. >> >>Excellent, so this is your opportunity to explain what moderation >>policy or policies my post contravened. > > If you don't know you don't deserve to be a moderator Well that would go over well in court: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it's obvious the defendant has broken the law. Any of you who don't know which one don't deserve to be on the jury. The prosecution rests."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 15:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tqh1f2$2gofh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17814 |
On 21/01/2023 14:26, Jon Ribbens wrote: > On 2023-01-21, Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote: >> In message <slrntsns3u.3rma.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon >> Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes >>> On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote: >>>>> Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen any. >>>> >>>> Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said in the >>>> quotes. >>> >>> Excellent, so this is your opportunity to explain what moderation >>> policy or policies my post contravened. >> >> If you don't know you don't deserve to be a moderator > > Well that would go over well in court: "Ladies and gentlemen of the > jury, it's obvious the defendant has broken the law. Any of you who > don't know which one don't deserve to be on the jury. The prosecution > rests." I wondered if that might be attributable to Cocklecarrot, obviously well before he became Master of the Rolls, but perhaps taken into account for his appointment? -- Jeff
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 11:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2ObjbjJm48yjFwgn@this.machine> |
| In reply to | #17799 |
In message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net>, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> writes >On 21/01/2023 10:30, Bryan Morris wrote: >> In message <k31p6jFqcsjU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter >><roger@hayter.org> writes >>> On 21 Jan 2023 at 08:41:48 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" >>><jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1Fms1bU3@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in >>>>>> uk.legal.moderated" >>>>> >>>>> What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his >>>>>ability >>>>> to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated? >>>> >>>> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive >>>>remarks >>>> about our properly elected government which indicates their views >>>>are too >>>> extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters. The >>>>group seems >>>> to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats and whine about >>>> Brexit. >>> >>> Making highly offensive remarks about a properly elected government >>>seems to >>> be a pretty normal activity in our democracy, whichever party is in >>>power. >>> >> And highly offensive remarks from uk.legal.moderated moderators >>seems to >> be a pretty normal activity in that group. >> They act with impunity, posting stuff they wouldn't accept from non >>Guardian readers, >> Bryan Morris > > >Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen any. Don't try that on me. You bloody know what I mean -- Bryan Morris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 15:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k32fhvFtmgnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17804 |
On 21 Jan 2023 at 11:36:06 GMT, "Bryan Morris" <nospam@this.machine> wrote: > In message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net>, The Todal > <the_todal@icloud.com> writes >> On 21/01/2023 10:30, Bryan Morris wrote: >>> In message <k31p6jFqcsjU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter >>> <roger@hayter.org> writes >>>> On 21 Jan 2023 at 08:41:48 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" >>>> <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1Fms1bU3@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in >>>>>>> uk.legal.moderated" >>>>>> >>>>>> What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his >>>>>> ability >>>>>> to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated? >>>>> >>>>> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive >>>>> remarks >>>>> about our properly elected government which indicates their views >>>>> are too >>>>> extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters. The >>>>> group seems >>>>> to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats and whine about >>>>> Brexit. >>>> >>>> Making highly offensive remarks about a properly elected government >>>> seems to >>>> be a pretty normal activity in our democracy, whichever party is in >>>> power. >>>> >>> And highly offensive remarks from uk.legal.moderated moderators >>> seems to >>> be a pretty normal activity in that group. >>> They act with impunity, posting stuff they wouldn't accept from non >>> Guardian readers, >>> Bryan Morris >> >> >> Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen any. > > Don't try that on me. You bloody know what I mean Well I don't! Please *read* the moderation policy and explain what contravention you have identified. -- Roger Hayter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-22 15:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k3546mFbj18U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17804 |
On 21/01/2023 11:36, Bryan Morris wrote: > In message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net>, The Todal > <the_todal@icloud.com> writes >> On 21/01/2023 10:30, Bryan Morris wrote: >>> In message <k31p6jFqcsjU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter >>> <roger@hayter.org> writes >>>> On 21 Jan 2023 at 08:41:48 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" >>>> <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1Fms1bU3@mid.individual.net> Mike >>>>> Fleming >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in >>>>>>> uk.legal.moderated" >>>>>> >>>>>> What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his >>>>>> ability >>>>>> to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated? >>>>> >>>>> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive >>>>> remarks >>>>> about our properly elected government which indicates their views >>>>> are too >>>>> extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters. The >>>>> group seems >>>>> to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats and whine about >>>>> Brexit. >>>> >>>> Making highly offensive remarks about a properly elected government >>>> seems to >>>> be a pretty normal activity in our democracy, whichever party is in >>>> power. >>>> >>> And highly offensive remarks from uk.legal.moderated moderators >>> seems to >>> be a pretty normal activity in that group. >>> They act with impunity, posting stuff they wouldn't accept from non >>> Guardian readers, >>> Bryan Morris >> >> >> Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen any. > > Don't try that on me. You bloody know what I mean This is like the classic matrimonial tiff. "You know perfectly well what you've done. I refuse to spell it out". (Shit, did I forget our wedding anniversary?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Algernon Goss-Custard <Ben@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 15:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6haxEeKuUAzjFwr8@invalid.com> |
| In reply to | #17799 |
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> posted >On 21/01/2023 10:30, Bryan Morris wrote: >> And highly offensive remarks from uk.legal.moderated moderators >>seems to >> be a pretty normal activity in that group. >> They act with impunity, posting stuff they wouldn't accept from non >>Guardian readers, >> Bryan Morris > >Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen any. In the thread "Engineered constitutional crisis" Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> Date: 17 January 2023 14:35:36 "The row has been confected by the Tories, because they are stupid and evil, " Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> Date: 17 January 2023 14:49:53 "If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure. ... obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, ... any other party [] would certainly not be taking the action the Tory scum say they are," Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> Date: 18 January 2023 18:51:57 "Well, the Tories are obviously evil, and - since you mention it - it wouldn't be unreasonable to describe them as mass murderers, " Incidentally, Jon also falsely denied that he had been the first to bring up Hitler in the thread, and he also accused me of being the only one in the thread who had mentioned comparing anyone to Hitler. I replied (on 19 January 2023 16:53:15) citing proof of his mendacity, but either Jon or one of his moderator arse-lickers suppressed my post, which I reproduce here: Date: 17 January 2023 14:57:10 Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> posted >No. Which is why nearly all of the arguments against the GRR Bill >are transparent lies. A "gender critical" person approvingly quoting >Adolf Hitler in opposition to the bill was also a big clue as to how >things stand. -- Algernon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 15:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrntso2fk.3rma.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> |
| In reply to | #17816 |
On 2023-01-21, Algernon Goss-Custard <Ben@nowhere.com> wrote: > The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> posted >>On 21/01/2023 10:30, Bryan Morris wrote: >>> And highly offensive remarks from uk.legal.moderated moderators >>>seems to >>> be a pretty normal activity in that group. >>> They act with impunity, posting stuff they wouldn't accept from non >>>Guardian readers, >>> Bryan Morris >> >>Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen any. > > In the thread "Engineered constitutional crisis" > Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> > Date: 17 January 2023 14:35:36 > "The row has been confected by the Tories, because they are stupid and > evil, " > > Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> > Date: 17 January 2023 14:49:53 > "If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure. > ... obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, ... any other > party [] would certainly not be taking the action the Tory scum say they > are," > > Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> > Date: 18 January 2023 18:51:57 > "Well, the Tories are obviously evil, and - since you mention it - it > wouldn't be unreasonable to describe them as mass murderers, " Ok, now cite any moderation policy that any of the above posts contravenes. > Incidentally, Jon also falsely denied that he had been the first to > bring up Hitler in the thread, No I didn't. You've added the words "in the thread". You falsely implied that I had something similar to "The Tories Are All Evil Mass Murderers Just Like Adolf Hitler", and apart from the word "evil", your claim, like nearly everything you say, was false. > and he also accused me of being the only one in the thread who had > mentioned comparing anyone to Hitler. I did say that. Because it's true. > I replied (on 19 January 2023 16:53:15) citing proof of his mendacity, but > either Jon or one of his moderator arse-lickers suppressed my post, I rejected it because it was repetitive. > which I reproduce here: > > Date: 17 January 2023 14:57:10 > Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> posted > >No. Which is why nearly all of the arguments against the GRR Bill > >are transparent lies. A "gender critical" person approvingly quoting > >Adolf Hitler in opposition to the bill was also a big clue as to how > >things stand. Ok, now point to any part of that post which compares anyone to Hitler. You've been whingeing about the moderation under this pseudonym for nearly three years now, and you've never yet managed to have an actual point. It's sad really.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 18:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k32p6aFb45U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17816 |
On 21/01/2023 15:30, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote: > The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> posted >> On 21/01/2023 10:30, Bryan Morris wrote: >>> And highly offensive remarks from uk.legal.moderated moderators >>> seems to >>> be a pretty normal activity in that group. >>> They act with impunity, posting stuff they wouldn't accept from non >>> Guardian readers, >>> Bryan Morris >> >> Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen any. > > In the thread "Engineered constitutional crisis" > Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> > Date: 17 January 2023 14:35:36 > "The row has been confected by the Tories, because they are stupid and > evil, " > > Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> > Date: 17 January 2023 14:49:53 > "If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure. > ... obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, ... any other > party [] would certainly not be taking the action the Tory scum say they > are," > > Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> > Date: 18 January 2023 18:51:57 > "Well, the Tories are obviously evil, and - since you mention it - it > wouldn't be unreasonable to describe them as mass murderers, " > > > Incidentally, Jon also falsely denied that he had been the first to > bring up Hitler in the thread, and he also accused me of being the only > one in the thread who had mentioned comparing anyone to Hitler. I > replied (on 19 January 2023 16:53:15) citing proof of his mendacity, but > either Jon or one of his moderator arse-lickers suppressed my post, > which I reproduce here: > > Date: 17 January 2023 14:57:10 > Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> posted > >No. Which is why nearly all of the arguments against the GRR Bill > >are transparent lies. A "gender critical" person approvingly quoting > >Adolf Hitler in opposition to the bill was also a big clue as to how > >things stand. Those seem entirely reasonable and accurate statements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 10:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <aafoe+H3z7yjFw0C@this.machine> |
| In reply to | #17793 |
In message <xn0nx3won44fdvs005@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> writes >On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1Fms1bU3@mid.individual.net> Mike >Fleming wrote: > >>>As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in >>> uk.legal.moderated" >> >>What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his >>ability to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated? > >That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive >remarks about our properly elected government which indicates their >views are too extreme for them to have impartial views on other >matters. The group seems to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's >throats and whine about Brexit. > Exactly. They abuse their position as moderators making remarks they would not accept from "common" posters -- Bryan Morris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 10:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1q4wlcy.779j9bzxs53fN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #17793 |
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1Fms1bU3@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming
> wrote:
>
> >>As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
> >> uk.legal.moderated"
> >
> >What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his ability
> >to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?
>
> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive remarks
> about our properly elected government which indicates their views are too
> extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters. The group seems
> to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats and whine about
> Brexit.
>
Alas, there is politically incontinent argument in all too many
newsgroups. One might hope that at least a moderated group
could be free of such evangelistic agendas. I suppose that for
some people, dogma is inseparable from balanced discussions
in pursuit of truth (whose truth?...)
It's indicative of bankrupt thought.
--
^Ï^. Sn!pe – My pet rock Gordon just is.
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
~ Slava Ukraini ~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 15:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k32fseFto42U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17797 |
On 21 Jan 2023 at 10:43:40 GMT, "Sn!pe" <Sn!pe> wrote: > Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1Fms1bU3@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming >> wrote: >> >>>> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in >>>> uk.legal.moderated" >>> >>> What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his ability >>> to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated? >> >> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive remarks >> about our properly elected government which indicates their views are too >> extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters. The group seems >> to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats and whine about >> Brexit. >> > > Alas, there is politically incontinent argument in all too many > newsgroups. One might hope that at least a moderated group > could be free of such evangelistic agendas. I suppose that for > some people, dogma is inseparable from balanced discussions > in pursuit of truth (whose truth?...) > > It's indicative of bankrupt thought. > What precisely is "bankrupt" thought? And is the belief that there is one truth which can only be reached by English-speaking intellectuals calmly discussing the matter in a politically neutral way itself a a bankrupt thought? Please discuss in a balanced way. -- Roger Hayter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.net.news.management
csiph-web