NACSA blocking
Barry Pearson
to see how consistent it is.
I've just tested the forums to see which ones NACSA is blocking me from posting
in.
I can post in:
Access
Campaign
Sisters
I am blocked from the following (my posts just disappear):
Advice
General
Reform
Webmaster
Is there any logic in this?
--
Barry Pearson (aka John Ward)
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk
Jon
<ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>NACSA has been blocking my posts to their forums. I test the block periodically
>to see how consistent it is.
>
>I've just tested the forums to see which ones NACSA is blocking me from posting
>in.
>
>I can post in:
>
>Access
>Campaign
>Sisters
>
>I am blocked from the following (my posts just disappear):
>
>Advice
>General
>Reform
>Webmaster
>
>Is there any logic in this?
They probably didn't get arround to setting the others to block! :-(
Most likely there isn't a global setting.
Jon
--
Jonathan Wilson
Phone 07775 638904.
I can only offer advise! No responsibility can be accepted.
All sugestions are provided on a personal basis,
such as would be recieved by talking to a friend.
stuart....@btinternet.com
manipulate public opion, If anyone wants to know the score check out
www.nacsa.org and read the posts on the general and advice forums.
"Jon" <ampall...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:5b18nt8bu6efk55l9...@4ax.com...
stuart....@btinternet.com
martindavies
<stuart....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9l5u6u$61i$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> Your posts were not blocked you were just choosing not to post to try and
> manipulate public opion, If anyone wants to know the score check out
> www.nacsa.org and read the posts on the general and advice forums.
>
Yet one post, the only post I have ever posted on any forum anywhere, that
didn't show, was using Barry's name as he requested in an email.
Yes, when I was shown inside the website controls there was no block. At
that time.
Before that, I cannot know. Except that one post was blocked!
And soon afterwards, Barry could post again.
There was definately some problem somewhere - and as I posted a missing
post, I can't say the problem was at Barry's end. I use a different PC and
internet connection (as I'm over 50 miles from him).
Martin <><
Barry Pearson
news:9l67a9$hts$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> For free advice and help on dealing with the CSA check out www.nacsa.org
My web site, which you claim has done a hatchet job on NACSA, says:
The most important lobby / activist group specifically about the CSA is NACSA
(National Association for Child Support Action):
"NACSA: Here to aid those suffering from the extremes of the CS Agency and to
further the promotion of a fair and equitable system of child support".
NACSA run a number of forums concerned with obtaining advice and many other
things.
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/advice_and_debate.htm
Wow! What a hatchet job! I can understand why NACSA condemns my web site!
Barry Pearson
news:VFvd7.23083$pv6.2...@news1.cableinet.net...
> <stuart....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9l5u6u$61i$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> > Your posts were not blocked you were just choosing not to post to
> > try and manipulate public opion, If anyone wants to know the score
> > check out www.nacsa.org and read the posts on the general and
> > advice forums.
>
> Yet one post, the only post I have ever posted on any forum anywhere,
> that didn't show, was using Barry's name as he requested in an email.
> Yes, when I was shown inside the website controls there was no block.
> At that time.
> Before that, I cannot know. Except that one post was blocked!
> And soon afterwards, Barry could post again.
>
> There was definately some problem somewhere - and as I posted a missing
> post, I can't say the problem was at Barry's end. I use a different PC and
> internet connection (as I'm over 50 miles from him).
Precisely!
(And who posted that "Test 4" post to all the forums in my name? It wasn't me!
If I had wanted to preserve an ILLUSION that I couldn't post - well, I would
have continued not to post! But I restarted posting the instant I found I could.
My guess is that the person who unblocked me also posted that "Test 4" post to
demonstrate that I could actually post).
There appear to be 2 main possibilities here:
1: You and I are both deliberately lying about this. (It can't be just one of
us). Or ...
2: Posts in my name were disappearing, as we say. And then another explanation
is needed - but the Webmaster may be too fixed on "1" that he won't investigate
further. (I wish I'd asked 10 other people to try too! It appears that even you
are not believed here!)
I don't know if the following is significant. On 31st July I registered a handle
in my own name. (I had been registered as John Ward before). I start by copying
& pasting the password in, then get Windows to remember it in future. Today, the
login failed. I was apparently not registered, and I've just had to re-register.
Why?
What I don't know is if this is significant, or even whether I had let the
handle of 31st July lapse. (Remember that the Webmaster deleted the threads
starting in 1st August, and I lost some of my work on those days, so I can't
check whether I was logged in when I posted on those days. So it could have been
my fault that I didn't claim the handle in time - I often don't bother to login
before posting).
Stuart
--
www.nacsa.org for free information on the Child Support Agency
"martindavies" <martin...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VFvd7.23083$pv6.2...@news1.cableinet.net...
>
>
Barry Pearson
news:9l6j99$nt5$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> There was no block, just Barry Pearson trying to manipulate the forums
On the 10th August, I emailed Martin Davies to ask him to impersonate me on the
NACSA forums for a while.
As Martin then posted to the NACSA Access forum (see below), he experienced
exactly the same problem I had been having - his post to one of the forums
simply disappeared without trace. (My posts to 4 of the forums had been
disappearing without trace, but Martin tried just one of the 4).
And within an hour or two I could post again! Presumably, whatever anyone thinks
about me, people trust Martin to tell the truth about this (which is why I asked
him). I guess someone promptly unblocked my posts.
Until you work out how to deal with Martin's statement, you will make no further
progress. (You will not be viewed favourably by people who believe that Martin
Davies is one of the most reliable & knowledgeable & honest people posting
here!)
See his statement on this newsgroup:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=VFvd7.23083%24pv6....@news1.cablei
net.net
Or see his statement on a NACSA forum (text below):
http://www.nacsa.org/access/posts/01-08-10/485.shtml
Date: 20:40:42 on Friday, August 10, 2001
Name: Paladin (martin...@cableinet.co.uk)
Subject: There is a block of some sort
He didn't make the posts this time. I did.
The advice forum test post was made just before the one for this forum.
Barry emailed me asking me to check for him, using a different PC and service
provider from him.
I posted the same message and the same details on the advice and access forum.
Only the access forum showed up - yet every single one of the posts with my own
name currently shows up.
To me that sounds like the problem isn't at Barry's end. Its at the server end.
What does it suggest to you?
Barry Pearson
Yes, I was blocked. Martin Davies will confirm that. (Indeed, he has done, both
here and in the NACSA forums).
> you were just choosing not to post
[snip]
You clearly have no possible way of identifying what I choose. Just stick to the
facts. It may lead you to start investigating the facts - for example, who else
could block me without your knowledge?
Because it has now gone too far for you to keep your head in the sand - unless
you state that you believe that both Martin & I are lying! It can't be just me -
you have to accuse Martin as well.
Stuart
me!
> If I had wanted to preserve an ILLUSION that I couldn't post - well, I
would
> have continued not to post! But I restarted posting the instant I found I
could.
> My guess is that the person who unblocked me also posted that "Test 4"
post to
> demonstrate that I could actually post).
Funny that, both posts came from the same DNS address, I think you were
testing again, and slipped up and posted in the wrong forums but who made
that post is not the point, the point is that you were able to reply to it,
thus proving you were not banned and lets be truthful here, I had posted
numerous times before that stating that you were not banned.
> There appear to be 2 main possibilities here:
>
> 1: You and I are both deliberately lying about this. (It can't be just one
of
> us). Or ...
That's one explanation.
>
> 2: Posts in my name were disappearing, as we say. And then another
explanation
> is needed - but the Webmaster may be too fixed on "1" that he won't
investigate
> further. (I wish I'd asked 10 other people to try too! It appears that
even you
> are not believed here!)
Cant be, for two very good reasons,
1. all banned posts end up in a log file on the server, it was empty and
still is.
2. Not only did I have the second webmaster check it I also got the software
author to check the forum system for a technical fault.
>
> I don't know if the following is significant. On 31st July I registered a
handle
> in my own name. (I had been registered as John Ward before). I start by
copying
> & pasting the password in, then get Windows to remember it in future.
Today, the
> login failed. I was apparently not registered, and I've just had to
re-register.
> Why?
Handles have a 30 day expiry date if not used, however when the server is
reset this problem can occur as the server's internal clock gets confused as
to the actual date and auto deletes handles that it thinks have expired and
the site was down for 35 minutes on Friday night while the server was reset
because of a software update
> What I don't know is if this is significant, or even whether I had let the
> handle of 31st July lapse. (Remember that the Webmaster deleted the
threads
> starting in 1st August, and I lost some of my work on those days, so I
can't
> check whether I was logged in when I posted on those days. So it could
have been
> my fault that I didn't claim the handle in time - I often don't bother to
login
> before posting).
Sorry wrong dates, I deleted stuff starting on the 3rd because I was on my
first access visit for a year and 200 miles away from my computer. I was
asked to modify posts to take out the URL however I only had limited web
access and I could only delete through the forum console rather than modify
posts through FTP and if you remember I explained all and my reasons on the
forums.
--
www.nacsa.org for free information on the Child Support Agency
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b76c...@bignews.vip.uk.com...
Stuart
The chap that wrote the book of the dead is on holiday, he is back in a
week. Any chance you could cool it on this matter while I get in touch and
get the evidence you want from him?
--
www.nacsa.org for free information on the Child Support Agency
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b76c...@bignews.vip.uk.com...
martindavies
pack call 0121 535 1215 (24hr ansaphone)
Stuart <stua...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9l72c8$eul$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> > (And who posted that "Test 4" post to all the forums in my name? It
wasn't
> me!
> > If I had wanted to preserve an ILLUSION that I couldn't post - well, I
> would
> > have continued not to post! But I restarted posting the instant I found
I
> could.
> > My guess is that the person who unblocked me also posted that "Test 4"
> post to
> > demonstrate that I could actually post).
>
> Funny that, both posts came from the same DNS address, I think you were
> testing again, and slipped up and posted in the wrong forums but who made
> that post is not the point, the point is that you were able to reply to
it,
> thus proving you were not banned and lets be truthful here, I had posted
> numerous times before that stating that you were not banned.
>
> > There appear to be 2 main possibilities here:
> >
> > 1: You and I are both deliberately lying about this. (It can't be just
one
> of
> > us). Or ...
>
> That's one explanation.
Not one that I'll ever accept as I know I'm not lying.
Martin <><
Stuart
The site access passwords are strictly controlled, only Webmaster2, NACSA's
Chairperson and myself have them but you are right beyond the logs on the
banned posts I do have no way to check but I know you were not banned and I
know the logs are empty
--
www.nacsa.org for free information on the Child Support Agency
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b76f...@bignews.vip.uk.com...
Barry Pearson
> Barry
>
> The chap that wrote the book of the dead is on holiday, he is
> back in a week. Any chance you could cool it on this matter
> while I get in touch and get the evidence you want from him?
See my other post. I'll update my web site just before 1st September.
Stuart
martindavies
Stuart <stua...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9l9cjh$8l$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>
> for free information on the Child Support Agency
Would that be a direct advert?
At least the majority of us have a post above an advert.
Martin <><
>
>
NACSA Webmaster
martindavies
NACSA Webmaster <webm...@nacsa.org> wrote in message
news:9lbq0r$bsl$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>
> www.nacsa.org for free information and help on the Child Support Agency
Yet another advert?
Are they allowed in the charter?
Most of us who advertise a particular site or whetever, do so as part of an
answer.
Or as a signature at the bottom.
Martin <><
>
>
NACSA Webmaster
martindavies
Yet another plain advert Stuart?
Come on, you can do better than that.
Or is this spamming a newsgroup?
Martin <><