I made the following post to the cycling newsgroup earlier this
morning. The post was rejected shortly afterwards as being "rude, a
flame, and/or personal abuse."
I wonder if someone could be kind enough to expand on the reason for
the rejection and why it was considered to be "rude, a flame, and/or
personal abuse"?
Or if the rejection was an error perhaps I could be told and I will
resubmit the post for authorisation.
Best wishes,
J.M. Schmitt
Text of original message follows:
> Subject: What the AA wants for cyclists
> THE AA WANTS
> All road users to follow the Highway Code
> More cycle routes/lanes where quieter alternative routes do not exist
> More widespread cycle proficiency and truck/cycle awareness training
> More cycle-safety elements in the driving test
> THE AA DOESN T WANT
> The licensing of bicycles
> Compulsory cycle helmet use
On Thursday, 15 November 2012 09:07:09 UTC, James Michael Schmitt wrote:
> Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
> I made the following post to the cycling newsgroup earlier this
> morning. The post was rejected shortly afterwards as being "rude, a
> flame, and/or personal abuse."
Thanks for drawing my attention to the article. URCM seems entirely appropriate
as a place to publish and discuss it. It is an interesting and useful
initiative in reference to a current conference issue and discussion.
It's not rude and is only a flame if one subjectively prejudges the motive for posting it, and unfairly remove the option for others to be aware of and discuss it by assuming some will be antagonised by it. Moderation should be applied
to immoderate responses; it should not deny airing and discussing important
initiatives.
> I made the following post to the cycling newsgroup earlier this
> morning. The post was rejected shortly afterwards as being "rude, a
> flame, and/or personal abuse."
> I wonder if someone could be kind enough to expand on the reason for
> the rejection and why it was considered to be "rude, a flame, and/or
> personal abuse"?
> Or if the rejection was an error perhaps I could be told and I will
> resubmit the post for authorisation.
> Best wishes,
> J.M. Schmitt
> Text of original message follows:
>> Subject: What the AA wants for cyclists
>> THE AA WANTS
>> All road users to follow the Highway Code
>> More cycle routes/lanes where quieter alternative routes do not exist
>> More widespread cycle proficiency and truck/cycle awareness training
>> More cycle-safety elements in the driving test
>> THE AA DOESN'T WANT
>> The licensing of bicycles
>> Compulsory cycle helmet use
> "Ian Jackson" <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:WTo*Guoku@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> > In article <slrnka6puo.dgp.an...@azaal.plus.com>,
> > Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> >>The Highway Code also recommends the last two for pedestrians as well.
> >>Do you always follow those recommendations when a pedestrian? I don't.
> >>I don't when cycling for pretty much the same reasons. I just wear
> >>normal clothing.
> > I think these "recommendations" are totally iniquitous. The effect is
> > that pedestrians and cyclists who choose to wear the clothing they
> > want rather than clothing which makes it convenient for motorists to
> > drive too quickly and carelessly are punished. But no-one suggests
> > that drivers who choose to drive black cars rather than dayglo yellow
> > ones should be held partially liable.
> > I think there is one approach we could use to counter this: perhaps we
> > get a "recommendation" put in the highway code to "consider whether
> > your journey can be made other than by motor vehicle; walking and
> > cycling are much safer" and "when choosing a vehicle, consider the
> > safety of other road users; do not drive a vehicle larger or heavier
> > than necessary".
> > The result would be that someone who drives half a mile to the shops
> > when they could have walked, and crashes into someone, could be held
> > liable for the consequences of their choice to unnecessarily use
> > dangerous heavy machinery.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:07:07 +0000, James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com>
wrote:
>Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
>I made the following post to the cycling newsgroup earlier this
>morning. The post was rejected shortly afterwards as being "rude, a
>flame, and/or personal abuse."
>I wonder if someone could be kind enough to expand on the reason for
>the rejection and why it was considered to be "rude, a flame, and/or
>personal abuse"?
>Or if the rejection was an error perhaps I could be told and I will
>resubmit the post for authorisation.
In article <5ib9a8luc9cl3n87psta3res81ccvit...@4ax.com>,
James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
>Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
Hi Judith.
-- Ian Jackson personal email: <ijack...@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
> In article <5ib9a8luc9cl3n87psta3res81ccvit...@4ax.com>,
> James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
>>Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
> Hi Judith.
> -- > Ian Jackson personal email: > <ijack...@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
You are meant to be answering the question rather than making ill-founded allegations about someone's identity.
At 12:20:48 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in <yIi*iE...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>In article <5ib9a8luc9cl3n87psta3res81ccvit...@4ax.com>,
>James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
>>Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
>Hi Judith.
Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
I admit I am struggling to see how that post could possibly be regarded as "rude, a flame, and/or personal abuse" - unless the mere mention of the AA not wanting "Compulsory cycle helmet use" is regarded as dreadfully upsetting for those who might be in favour of compulsory cycle helmet use. I wouldn't have thought that urcm would have had too many of those, but it's good that you appear to be considerate of their feelings.
-- Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <5ib9a8luc9cl3n87psta3res81ccvit...@4ax.com>,
> James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
>> Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
> Hi Judith.
Does this mean that now the RFD has been withdrawn it is back to the old idea that anyone who you decide must be Judith must be banned?
I notice you haven't answered the actual question as to why the post was considered rude, offensive or a flame.
> "Ian Jackson" <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message > news:yIi*iEtku@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> In article <5ib9a8luc9cl3n87psta3res81ccvit...@4ax.com>,
>> James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
>>>Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
>> Hi Judith.
>> -- >> Ian Jackson personal email: >> <ijack...@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
> You are meant to be answering the question rather than making ill-founded > allegations about someone's identity.
And even if it is Judith (I have no idea if it is or isn't), it's meant to be the content you base moderation decisions on and not who you think might be posting the message.
<ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <5ib9a8luc9cl3n87psta3res81ccvit...@4ax.com>,
>James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
>>Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
>Hi Judith.
I categorically did not make that post - nor the one referenced which was
rejected by the moderators.
You have once again shown yourself up to be an utter fool - and to be clearly
quite pathetic.
Why not post any evidence whatsoever that makes you think I made the post.
(PS Giganews and Agent are likely to be one of the two most common combinations
of posting methods that there are; that combination is certainly not proof)
I must say well done to whoever pulled your string: incredible that you fell
for it.
I hope that you don't mind me using a different posting name - just so that you
*will* see the post.
On Nov 15, 12:39 pm, "kat" <littlelio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > In article <5ib9a8luc9cl3n87psta3res81ccvit...@4ax.com>,
> > James Michael Schmitt <dont.spamatall.com> wrote:
> >> Dear Cycling Group Moderators,
> > Hi Judith.
> Does this mean that now the RFD has been withdrawn it is back to the old
> idea that anyone who you decide must be Judith must be banned?
Sigh. It looks like it, doesn't it? I really thought that URCM had
finally turned the corner, but no, they were just cynically pretending
to have learnt while the threat of a CFV was hanging over them. This
shows that Jackson and co are fully aware that what they are doing is
wrong and against what people voted for initially. They wish to run
URCM as a private club and simply ignore valid criticism unless it's
backed up by force.
So, now that we definitely know that URCM's problems are down to
malice rather than stupidity, it looks like more force is needed, and
this time, Jackson and co should not be kindly given the benefit of
the doubt when they pretend that they're toeing the line. It is clear
that they are not interested in getting true majority support for
their running of URCM: they played the voting system in the beginning
when they lied about what URCM was going to be, and they have just
played it again (and don't forget when Brooke also played the system
when he created an RFD just to "block" another RFD that was being
planned at that time).
They would clearly rather be underhand than genuinely change URCM to
fit people's requirements, even though it's just been shown that
they're perfectly capable of running URCM in a fair and popular way
when they feel like it. It's now crystal clear that they *can* run
URCM properly, they just *won't*. In the end, their top priority is,
as ever, to bully and exclude people with opinions they dislike,
however much most people here don't like it. Jackson wants the
privileges of running a uk.* group without any of the
responsibilities. And he seems to think that it's only right that
people should let him do that because he's such an important person.
This little incident perfectly demonstrates the utter stubbornness and
arrogance of Jackson. What a disgustingly obnoxious attitude he has. I
suspect that people like Andy Leighton and Danny Colyer are deeply
embarrassed at this latest turn of events.
> I notice you haven't answered the actual question as to why the post was
> considered rude, offensive or a flame.
Same old. The fact that it's definitely not Judith just makes him look
even worse.
In article <RTRoULX5COpQF...@molly.mockford>,
Molly Mockford <usenets...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a >Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the >post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
we reject their messages regardless of their merit. That's what being
banned means.
-- Ian Jackson personal email: <ijack...@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
On Nov 15, 1:28 pm, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> In article <RTRoULX5COpQF...@molly.mockford>,
> Molly Mockford <usenets...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> >Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
> >Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the
> >post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
> Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
> we reject their messages regardless of their merit.
You weren't doing that for the last few weeks until today. I wonder
why? And the poster who you're so sure is Judith is *not* Judith!
<ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <RTRoULX5COpQF...@molly.mockford>,
>Molly Mockford <usenets...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>>Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a >>Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the >>post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
>Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
>we reject their messages regardless of their merit. That's what being
>banned means.
In which case you are categorically a liar and a fool.
Perhaps you can share with other people just how sure you are.
I am sure that you were not sure enough.
I can assure you that I did not post that message - or the rejected one.
You really are one sad bastard.
All we need now is for my other cousin: Jean Marcel Forgeron to appear and be
banned because he is family.
You have undone all the good work which the other moderators did over the last
two or three months.
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <RTRoULX5COpQF...@molly.mockford>,
> Molly Mockford <usenets...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> >Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
> >Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the
> >post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
> Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
> we reject their messages regardless of their merit. That's what being
> banned means.
Shame, I thought that the moderators really had quietly started doing
things differently recently.
At 05:46:03 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012, M Wicks <mwicks1...@gmail.com> wrote in <62a08d7d-0814-40a2-bf0a-99961a777...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 15, 1:28 pm, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>wrote:
>> In article <RTRoULX5COpQF...@molly.mockford>,
>> Molly Mockford <usenets...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>> >Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
>> >Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the
>> >post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
>> Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
>> we reject their messages regardless of their merit.
>You weren't doing that for the last few weeks until today. I wonder
>why? And the poster who you're so sure is Judith is *not* Judith!
As I see it, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not it is Judith. It is a post which passes the PCI test with flying colours, and there is no reason why it should not have been allowed.
If Ian thinks it's a bad thing to lie about one's identity, how can he justify lying about the reason for rejecting a post? "We strongly suspect, although we have no evidence, that this is a banned poster who is posting an unobjectionable post under an assumed name" is very far from "this post is "rude, a flame, and/or personal abuse". The latter says that the rejection has been made on content - which is clearly untrue.
-- Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
> At 05:46:03 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012, M Wicks <mwicks1...@gmail.com> wrote in ><62a08d7d-0814-40a2-bf0a-99961a777...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>:
>>On Nov 15, 1:28 pm, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>>wrote:
>>> In article <RTRoULX5COpQF...@molly.mockford>,
>>> Molly Mockford <usenets...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>>> >Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
>>> >Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the
>>> >post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
>>> Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
>>> we reject their messages regardless of their merit.
>>You weren't doing that for the last few weeks until today. I wonder
>>why? And the poster who you're so sure is Judith is *not* Judith!
> As I see it, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not it is > Judith. It is a post which passes the PCI test with flying colours, and > there is no reason why it should not have been allowed.
> If Ian thinks it's a bad thing to lie about one's identity, how can he > justify lying about the reason for rejecting a post? "We strongly > suspect, although we have no evidence, that this is a banned poster who > is posting an unobjectionable post under an assumed name" is very far > from "this post is "rude, a flame, and/or personal abuse". The latter > says that the rejection has been made on content - which is clearly > untrue.
Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
after being banned is an abuse of the group.
-- Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
At 08:04:46 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote in <slrnka9tju.sms.an...@azaal.plus.com>:
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:56:10 +0000,
> Molly Mockford <nospamnob...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>> If Ian thinks it's a bad thing to lie about one's identity, how can he
>> justify lying about the reason for rejecting a post? "We strongly
>> suspect, although we have no evidence, that this is a banned poster who
>> is posting an unobjectionable post under an assumed name" is very far
>> from "this post is "rude, a flame, and/or personal abuse". The latter
>> says that the rejection has been made on content - which is clearly
>> untrue.
>Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
>however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
>after being banned is an abuse of the group.
The reason selected says *personal* abuse! That means abuse directed against one or more identifiable persons within the group.
If the moderators want to reject posts because they suspect (but cannot prove) that the poster is a banned person posting under another nym, they need to make that an official reason for rejecting posts, not grab for one which could not be less related.
I should have expected it, I guess. The moment the RFD was withdrawn, it's back to "I'll do what I want", regardless of all the hints, tips and advice which have been offered. If Ian wants to destroy urcm, he is going the right way about it.
-- Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:04:46 -0600, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
>however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
>after being banned is an abuse of the group.
Look - shit for brains : I did not make that post - it is clearly Jackson and
the likes of you who are abusing the group and hence uk.news.
If you believe that you have any evidence, then just post it here.
(PS Using Forte Agent is not proof - otherwise the other 800ish posts made this
year would have been banned)
In article <Qwp*-T...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <RTRoULX5COpQF...@molly.mockford>,
> Molly Mockford <usenets...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>>Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a >>Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the >>post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
> Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
> we reject their messages regardless of their merit. That's what being
> banned means.
Why was the rejection message not "We think you're a banned poster", then?
In article <slrnka9tju.sms.an...@azaal.plus.com>,
Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
>however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
>after being banned is an abuse of the group.
The software automatically selects the "abuse" rejection reason for
banned posters. This is a known defect but since it only affects
banned posters who have already been told they are banned it's hardly
high up on my list of things to fix.
-- Ian Jackson personal email: <ijack...@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
Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:56:10 +0000,
> Molly Mockford <nospamnob...@mollymockford.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> At 05:46:03 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012, M Wicks <mwicks1...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> <62a08d7d-0814-40a2-bf0a-99961a777...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>:
>>> On Nov 15, 1:28 pm, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In article <RTRoULX5COpQF...@molly.mockford>,
>>>> Molly Mockford <usenets...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very
>>>>> probably a Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was
>>>>> the reason the post was rejected, rather than anything to do with
>>>>> its content.
>>>> Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
>>>> we reject their messages regardless of their merit.
>>> You weren't doing that for the last few weeks until today. I wonder
>>> why? And the poster who you're so sure is Judith is *not* Judith!
>> As I see it, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not it is
>> Judith. It is a post which passes the PCI test with flying colours,
>> and there is no reason why it should not have been allowed.
>> If Ian thinks it's a bad thing to lie about one's identity, how can
>> he justify lying about the reason for rejecting a post? "We strongly
>> suspect, although we have no evidence, that this is a banned poster
>> who is posting an unobjectionable post under an assumed name" is
>> very far from "this post is "rude, a flame, and/or personal abuse".
>> The latter says that the rejection has been made on content - which
>> is clearly untrue.
> Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
> however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
> after being banned is an abuse of the group.
James Michael Schmitt has been posting for several weeks without being banned for "being Judith".
If James Michael has been banned in his own right, then the reason for rejection was simply "from a banned poster". So the rejection is a lie.
If the reason ( given you assume James Michael is Judith Mary ) is abuse of the group, then it isn't personal.
On Nov 15, 1:55 pm, real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M.
Procida) wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > In article <RTRoULX5COpQF...@molly.mockford>,
> > Molly Mockford <usenets...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> > >Are you implying that it matters in any way that this is very probably a
> > >Judith sock? That gives the impression that this was the reason the
> > >post was rejected, rather than anything to do with its content.
> > Judith is a banned poster. When we are sure that someone is Judith,
> > we reject their messages regardless of their merit. That's what being
> > banned means.
> Shame, I thought that the moderators really had quietly started doing
> things differently recently.
So did I. But now you can see that, unquestionably, Jackson is
perfectly capable of moderating reasonably but chooses not to (unless
he is forced). So now you know that he is not "trying" or acting in
good faith, your approach to the task of remedying URCM will hopefully
become somewhat more hardline. You cannot assume good faith because
there obviously is none, except possibly when it comes to the
powerless moderators, who I can't believe were all happy with the
"Let's pretend to behave ourselves until the RFD is withdrawn"
approach.
I am annoyed with myself for starting to believe that Jackson was
trying to do the right thing when it is now obvious that we have all
been hoodwinked and treated with malicious, arrogant contempt. I
thought that before the last few weeks and clearly I was right all
along. Jackson thinks he should just be left to run URCM however he
wants, and only pretends to care what people think when he feels that
his leadership is under threat. The stupid thing is that he could have
the newsgroup he so passionately wants, where only psycholists are
allowed to say what they think, if only he ran it as a private
newsgroup. But no, Ian Jackson is too important, both as a cycling
campaigner and a Usenet poster, to deign to do such a thing, so
instead he wants to have his cake and eat it by running a private
newsgroup in the uk.* hierarchy. His newsgroup has to be *the*
moderated newsgroup for UK cyclists, otherwise it's not worth his
precious time.
And he really seems to have convinced himself that anyone who tries to
stand in his way is being unreasonable. Anyone who really cared about
Usenet or the War Against Trolls would just leave him to run URCM his
way. The evangelical fervour with which he continues to do whatever it
takes to have his psycholists-only uk.* newsgroup, no matter how
dishonest, is astonishing. He won't stop until every last underhand
way of keeping URCM as it is has been tried. Reality, or at least that
peddled by people disagreeing with psycholists, must be kept at bay at
all costs!
<ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <slrnka9tju.sms.an...@azaal.plus.com>,
>Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
>>however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
>>after being banned is an abuse of the group.
>The software automatically selects the "abuse" rejection reason for
>banned posters. This is a known defect but since it only affects
>banned posters who have already been told they are banned it's hardly
>high up on my list of things to fix.
Oh dear - more economy with the truth.
The post was manually moderated - and was manually given the reason "abuse".
Was it moderated by you?
The person posting using the name James Michael Schmitt was clearly not banned
as they had previously posted.
Without putting too fine a point on it: you are lying again..
In uk.net.news.moderation, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
>In article <slrnka9tju.sms.an...@azaal.plus.com>,
>Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>Not true at all. It may not have been the best rejection reason
>>however continuing trying to post, especially by using new nyms,
>>after being banned is an abuse of the group.
>The software automatically selects the "abuse" rejection reason for
>banned posters. This is a known defect but since it only affects
>banned posters who have already been told they are banned it's hardly
>high up on my list of things to fix.
Once again you miss the point of who the target audience is for the
rejection messages.
-- 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 ]
