• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

uk.legal.censored?

Post Id:81631

Reject reason given -->
This is off topic for uk.legal.moderated or has insufficient law-related
material - see http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm

2009.11.04 14:10:06

Big Les Wade <Les@ nowhere.com>

Steve Walker <spam-trap@beeb.net> posted
>(Tuesday Evening, 3rd November)
>
>Greetings -
>
>Concerns have been raised by one or two of our brethren that this
>thread is becoming a bit stale and polemical - the main points have
>now been well explored in a good, wide-ranging discussion. There's >no
reason why the passionately-interested die-hards can't continue >to
discuss it, but we're likely to be setting a stricter standard for
>posts to this thread now - if it's not a new & interesting point it
will >probably be rejected.
>
>Thanks to all contributors for a thoughtful & courteous debate, and
>especially to Roland for representing the positive aspects of IWF.

Unfortunately, blocking the thread at this point (as has now indeed
happened) leaves us no chance to correct some of Roland's misleading
statements.

Uncensored continuation of the discussion continues under the same
thread name on uk.legal.

NOTE TO MODERATOR: If you are going to delete this post, can
you please supply me a valid email address so that I can contact you?

--
Les
If creating a police state saves just one child, then it will all have
been
worthwhile.

man-reject-735885ktpes

I wonder if the moderator did provide a valid email address, but that
request does seem a bit odd coming from someone whose own email address,
<les@nowhere.com>, also doesn't work.

Has nobody bothered to read Charles Lindsey's excellent description of
Usenet Best Practice?

http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01.txt

--
< Paul >

Antworten