In article ,
(Steve Firth) writes:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I've pointed out that you get advantage from the exposure. At the very
least in the form of increased web hits for your site.

So? No one is forced to go to his website.

So it gives a reason to continually wibble about his bloody tedious
business and to spatter his posts with references to that site.

Steve,

David's contributions to this group have been very valuable,
both in terms of his experience in DIY and contributions to the
FAQ's, and in following his change of life in turning his DIY
hobby into his business, which many of us have followed. This
latter aspect is something that we've watched probably around 5
people in the group do over the last 8 years, and it's something
that very many more of us have considered doing, and may yet do
in the future. This is why it's of particular interest to the
group and directly relevant to DIY.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
This isn't YOUR news group.

Nor is it yours, nor anyone elses. Nor indeed does it belong to any
self-appointed clique.

Indeed. But that seems to make you in a minority of one by complaining.
Doesn't that tell you something?

--
*(over a sketch of the titanic) "The boat sank - get over it

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 01:17:50 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

It seems to be the way we want to run our newsgroup...

It's not *your* newsgroup, nor does it belong to anyone else, much less
to a self-appointed clique.

Quite so - in which case the forum, through the actions of its
contributors, finds its own state. Whether it succeeds or fails
depends on the actions of those contributors, and the fact that this
is a thriving, busy, personable and informative forum that meets the
remit of its title proves that its working.

Everyone's entitled to express an opinion, as you have done - and in
return its clear to see that the overwhelming opinion of those who
were moved enough to respond is that TMH's posts fall within
acceptable boundaries for this group, aren't excessively commercial
and add to the wealth of information to be found here. Indeed, there
appears to be no support at all for your position.



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

John Rumm wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:

You complain of Dave mentioning "his bloody tedious business".
Personally I enjoy reading about Dave's business since it offers a
good and entertaining insight into another world. It is also useful
for any competent DIYer looking on and wondering if a similar venture
might not suit them as well should push come to shove.

Hi John

Should anyone be considering doing what I did, I would be more than happy to
give them any help I can.

Wibble, wibble :-)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You ****ed allover TMH,

Umm no.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
This isn't YOUR news group.

Nor is it yours, nor anyone elses. Nor indeed does it belong to any
self-appointed clique.

Indeed. But that seems to make you in a minority of one by complaining.
Doesn't that tell you something?

That 99.9% of the public are sheep? I think I already knew that.

Stephen Howard wrote:

TMH's posts fall within
acceptable boundaries for this group

Again, no, a vociferous group support him, that's not the same thing.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

This is why it's of particular interest to the
group and directly relevant to DIY.

This is why it's of particular interest to some who read this group even
though it's not directly relevant to DIY.

HTH.

Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
This isn't YOUR news group.
Nor is it yours, nor anyone elses. Nor indeed does it belong to any
self-appointed clique.
Indeed. But that seems to make you in a minority of one by complaining.
Doesn't that tell you something?

That 99.9% of the public are sheep? I think I already knew that.
And you are the wombat?

yeah..

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:40:05 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

TMH's posts fall within
acceptable boundaries for this group

Again, no, a vociferous group support him, that's not the same thing.

In which case he's clearly in breach of 'the rules'.
That being so, you should file a report with his news provider
immediately!

Well, go on then...toddle along, quickly now...



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
This isn't YOUR news group.
Nor is it yours, nor anyone elses. Nor indeed does it belong to any
self-appointed clique.
Indeed. But that seems to make you in a minority of one by complaining.
Doesn't that tell you something?

That 99.9% of the public are sheep? I think I already knew that.

"Sheep" would suggest the majority of us felt he was doing something
wrong, but let him carry on anyway without complaining.

However the feedback you have received so far suggests that the majority
do not feel this way.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:40:05 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

TMH's posts fall within
acceptable boundaries for this group

Again, no, a vociferous group support him, that's not the same thing.

Again yes, for *this* group it's perfectly acceptable and correct.

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:40:05 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
This isn't YOUR news group.

Nor is it yours, nor anyone elses. Nor indeed does it belong to any
self-appointed clique.

Indeed. But that seems to make you in a minority of one by complaining.
Doesn't that tell you something?

That 99.9% of the public are sheep? I think I already knew that.

'Ooh look!' said the proud mummy as she was watching her soldier son
marching with his company. 'He's the only one in step!'

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:41:37 +0000, Stephen Howard wrote:

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:40:05 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

TMH's posts fall within
acceptable boundaries for this group

Again, no, a vociferous group support him, that's not the same thing.

In which case he's clearly in breach of 'the rules'.
That being so, you should file a report with his news provider
immediately!

Well, go on then...toddle along, quickly now...

But he can't. Because this NG doesn't have a charter, and a charter is the
*only* point of reference if he wants to complain. Any other datum, no
matter how well meant or intended, is worthless.

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:40:05 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

This is why it's of particular interest to the
group and directly relevant to DIY.

This is why it's of particular interest to some who read this group even
though it's not directly relevant to DIY.

HTH.

This is why it's of particular interest to a significant number of *active*
posters who determine the tone, genre of *this* NG. Anything else is
irrelevant.

HTH.

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

Stephen Howard wrote:

Well, go on then...toddle along, quickly now...

You're very keen to tell people what to do.

John Rumm wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
This isn't YOUR news group.
Nor is it yours, nor anyone elses. Nor indeed does it belong to any
self-appointed clique.
Indeed. But that seems to make you in a minority of one by complaining.
Doesn't that tell you something?

That 99.9% of the public are sheep? I think I already knew that.

"Sheep" would suggest the majority of us felt he was doing something
wrong, but let him carry on anyway without complaining.

Umm no it suggests that sheep behave like sheep by forming a flock.

The Wanderer wrote:

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:40:05 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
This isn't YOUR news group.

Nor is it yours, nor anyone elses. Nor indeed does it belong to any
self-appointed clique.

Indeed. But that seems to make you in a minority of one by complaining.
Doesn't that tell you something?

That 99.9% of the public are sheep? I think I already knew that.

'Ooh look!' said the proud mummy as she was watching her soldier son
marching with his company. 'He's the only one in step!'

And also the only one heading in the right direction as the others ran
into the face of enemy fire. Being one of the herd is not necessarily
sensible.

The Wanderer wrote:

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:40:05 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

TMH's posts fall within
acceptable boundaries for this group

Again, no, a vociferous group support him, that's not the same thing.

Again yes, for *this* group it's perfectly acceptable and correct.

And for *this* group my views are perfectly acceptable and correct.

It's not your trainset, it's not mine, neither of us can take it home at
the end of the day.

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
This isn't YOUR news group.
Nor is it yours, nor anyone elses. Nor indeed does it belong to any
self-appointed clique.
Indeed. But that seems to make you in a minority of one by complaining.
Doesn't that tell you something?
That 99.9% of the public are sheep? I think I already knew that.
"Sheep" would suggest the majority of us felt he was doing something
wrong, but let him carry on anyway without complaining.

Umm no it suggests that sheep behave like sheep by forming a flock.

Well this flock sees nothing wrong with TMHs posts, so long may they
continue.

That I guess leaves you the option of joining in, or flocking off.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , Steve Firth
writes
John Rumm wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
This isn't YOUR news group.
Nor is it yours, nor anyone elses. Nor indeed does it belong to any
self-appointed clique.
Indeed. But that seems to make you in a minority of one by complaining.
Doesn't that tell you something?

That 99.9% of the public are sheep? I think I already knew that.

"Sheep" would suggest the majority of us felt he was doing something
wrong, but let him carry on anyway without complaining.

Umm no it suggests that sheep behave like sheep by forming a flock.

Sheep behave like that because they are in close proximity and innately
suggestible. Thinking humans on Usenet are neither.

Steve, we accept you hold your view and we acknowledge your right to kf
TMH and not contribute to any thread which includes him (if you so wish)
but you also need to accept that (almost?) everyone else contributing
doesn't see things like that. Now you really just need to drop this
before you commit the ultimate sin of Usenet - being Boring.

--
Si

headbutted today so posts may lack coherence :-/

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:45:11 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

Well, go on then...toddle along, quickly now...

You're very keen to tell people what to do.

And you're not? Forgotten already, eh? Very convenient, but tragically
inept.



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:55:26 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

The Wanderer wrote:

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:40:05 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

TMH's posts fall within
acceptable boundaries for this group

Again, no, a vociferous group support him, that's not the same thing.

Again yes, for *this* group it's perfectly acceptable and correct.

And for *this* group my views are perfectly acceptable and correct.

Really? So you would dictate to others as to the acceptability and veracity
of your PoV? That, surely, is a matter of opinion for each reader who
chooses to respond to you. I will choose whether or not *I* find your views
acceptable and correct, not you.

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:55:26 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

The Wanderer wrote:

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:40:05 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
This isn't YOUR news group.

Nor is it yours, nor anyone elses. Nor indeed does it belong to any
self-appointed clique.

Indeed. But that seems to make you in a minority of one by complaining.
Doesn't that tell you something?

That 99.9% of the public are sheep? I think I already knew that.

'Ooh look!' said the proud mummy as she was watching her soldier son
marching with his company. 'He's the only one in step!'

And also the only one heading in the right direction

That is a matter of opinion for anyone who has contributed to this thread.
The rest of your analogy is irrelevant, given the context of the thread.

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

Mary Fisher wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message ...



"... **** or bust."


"Over to you ****wit. "




Both comments unnecessary - you've reduced yourself to your opponent's
level.

Sadly, I agree. His input is most welcome and constructive. The conduct
of contributors to this newsgroup is usually exemplary. I really cannot
see why SF has taken such exception.

DavidM wrote:
"The Medway Handyman"
wrote in message
... First of all
apologies to the group for bringing this up again.
I've changed the header and marked the post OT.

I do need to sort this out.

snip

So far this thread sounds like a landslide vote for TMH,
with which I fully concur. Keep up the posts Dave!


Whole hearted agreement.

Steve Firth wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:40:05 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

TMH's posts fall within
acceptable boundaries for this group

Again, no, a vociferous group support him, that's not the same
thing.

Again yes, for *this* group it's perfectly acceptable and correct.

And for *this* group my views are perfectly acceptable and correct.

It's not your trainset, it's not mine, neither of us can take it home
at the end of the day.

I've found your comforter - look, it's in the pram.

John Rumm wrote:

That I guess leaves you the option of joining in, or flocking off.

Where do you get that idea from? There are many options, and I don't
have to leave my frontal lobes fallow for any of them.

Si $3o&m wrote:

Now you really just need to drop this before you commit the ultimate sin
of Usenet - being Boring.

I'm not the one who started the thread, nor indeed am I the one
continuing it.

You may find that if you can learn the correct orientation of cart and
horse that lie becomes just a little easier. Then later you can graduate
to differentiating between the rectum and the articulatus cubitus.

The Wanderer wrote:

The rest of your analogy is irrelevant

"Suddenly with one bound Wanderer thought he was free."

Shame the real world doesn't work that way.

Stephen Howard wrote:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:45:11 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

Well, go on then...toddle along, quickly now...

You're very keen to tell people what to do.

And you're not? Forgotten already, eh? Very convenient, but tragically
inept.

What am I telling people to do?

The Wanderer wrote:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:55:26 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

The Wanderer wrote:

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:40:05 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

TMH's posts fall within
acceptable boundaries for this group

Again, no, a vociferous group support him, that's not the same thing.

Again yes, for *this* group it's perfectly acceptable and correct.

And for *this* group my views are perfectly acceptable and correct.

Really? So you would dictate to others as to the acceptability and veracity
of your PoV? That, surely, is a matter of opinion for each reader who
chooses to respond to you. I will choose whether or not *I* find your views
acceptable and correct, not you.

You need a course in elementary logic. You may choose to hold whatever
view you like, including whatever view you wish of my point of view.
However it remains your point of view, and your point of view alone. You
have no more weight in your opinion than any other individual.

Usenet is an anarchy with all that implies in terms of individual
rights, responsibilities and the general lack of ownership.

clot wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:40:05 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

TMH's posts fall within
acceptable boundaries for this group

Again, no, a vociferous group support him, that's not the same
thing.

Again yes, for *this* group it's perfectly acceptable and correct.

And for *this* group my views are perfectly acceptable and correct.

It's not your trainset, it's not mine, neither of us can take it home
at the end of the day.

I've found your comforter - look, it's in the pram.

How appropriate your name is. When it comes to childish behaviour, I'm
not the one claiming ownership of the rattle.

In message , Steve Firth
writes
Si $3o&m wrote:

Now you really just need to drop this before you commit the ultimate sin
of Usenet - being Boring.

I'm not the one who started the thread, nor indeed am I the one
continuing it.

However, it's a response to what you started

.... and since then, I've seen a lot of support for dave and absolute
zilch, **** all, for your position

You seem to be a camel turd in the desert, a fart in a spacesuit and as
much support as a prolapsed arsehole

give it a rest


--
geoff

geoff wrote:

In message , Steve Firth
writes
Si $3o&m wrote:

Now you really just need to drop this before you commit the ultimate sin
of Usenet - being Boring.

I'm not the one who started the thread, nor indeed am I the one
continuing it.

However, it's a response to what you started

No it's not it was and remains a personal attack from someone who shoudl
have known better. A personal attack which saw me accused of alcoholism,
and in which the attacker descended to insulting the disabled.

.... and since then, I've seen a lot of support for dave and absolute
zilch, **** all, for your position

And? Twenty ****wits bleating the same thing simply makes them sheep,
not correct.

You seem to be a camel turd in the desert, a fart in a spacesuit and as
much support as a prolapsed arsehole

give it a rest

You could always try not posting, had you thought of that?

Steve Firth wrote:
clot wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:40:05 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

TMH's posts fall within
acceptable boundaries for this group

Again, no, a vociferous group support him, that's not the same
thing.

Again yes, for *this* group it's perfectly acceptable and correct.

And for *this* group my views are perfectly acceptable and correct.

It's not your trainset, it's not mine, neither of us can take it
home at the end of the day.

I've found your comforter - look, it's in the pram.

How appropriate your name is. When it comes to childish behaviour, I'm
not the one claiming ownership of the rattle.

I'm sad that you have to respond in such a fashion. I did have belated
second thoughts about sending the message! However, it does reflect upon
your attitude. Let's bury the axe and let service be resumed, please?

In message , Steve Firth
writes


You need a course in elementary logic. You may choose to hold whatever
view you like, including whatever view you wish of my point of view.
However it remains your point of view, and your point of view alone. You
have no more weight in your opinion than any other individual.

Usenet is an anarchy with all that implies in terms of individual
rights, responsibilities and the general lack of ownership.


Sorry, the days when you sat in front of your XP and typed with one hand
while wanking with the other have long gone

uk.d-i-y is more a community nowadays, it has matured, most people have
a feeling for what is acceptable. You, however, don't seem able to grasp
this elementary fact

--
geoff

In message , Steve Firth
writes
geoff wrote:

In message , Steve Firth
writes
Si $3o&m wrote:

Now you really just need to drop this before you commit the ultimate sin
of Usenet - being Boring.

I'm not the one who started the thread, nor indeed am I the one
continuing it.

However, it's a response to what you started

No it's not it was and remains a personal attack from someone who shoudl
have known better. A personal attack which saw me accused of alcoholism,
and in which the attacker descended to insulting the disabled.

No, ISTR you had a rant about him advertising


.... and since then, I've seen a lot of support for dave and absolute
zilch, **** all, for your position

And? Twenty ****wits bleating the same thing simply makes them sheep,
not correct.

Sorry, no, it shows that you are not in tune with the general
sensibilities of the regular posters here

I think you'll find that most are intelligent individuals. I think it's
more a case of you being the runt


You seem to be a camel turd in the desert, a fart in a spacesuit and as
much support as a prolapsed arsehole

give it a rest

You could always try not posting, had you thought of that?

it's you that seems to have the problem, not me

go forage elsewhere steppenwolf ...



--
geoff

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 23:51:04 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:45:11 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

Well, go on then...toddle along, quickly now...

You're very keen to tell people what to do.

And you're not? Forgotten already, eh? Very convenient, but tragically
inept.

What am I telling people to do?

Oh please, not the 'Wot? Me, guv?' excuse.
I've wasted enough time on you, as have many others. You can do your
own homework.



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 23:51:04 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

The Wanderer wrote:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:55:26 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

The Wanderer wrote:

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:40:05 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

TMH's posts fall within
acceptable boundaries for this group

Again, no, a vociferous group support him, that's not the same thing.

Again yes, for *this* group it's perfectly acceptable and correct.

And for *this* group my views are perfectly acceptable and correct.

Really? So you would dictate to others as to the acceptability and veracity
of your PoV? That, surely, is a matter of opinion for each reader who
chooses to respond to you. I will choose whether or not *I* find your views
acceptable and correct, not you.

You need a course in elementary logic.

No you need to learn how to express yourself properly.

You may choose to hold whatever
view you like, including whatever view you wish of my point of view.
However it remains your point of view, and your point of view alone. You
have no more weight in your opinion than any other individual.

Have I claimed anything else?

Usenet is an anarchy with all that implies in terms of individual
rights, responsibilities and the general lack of ownership.

Ahh, the light seems to have dawned for you at long last.

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net