Re: Are the moderators at uk.legal.moderated up to the job?

On 21 Jan 2006 21:14:34 -0800, Theo_Delight@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On 21 Jan 2006 17:35:04 -0800, Theo_Delight@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >Adam Upham wrote:
>> >> Theo_Delight@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> > What "identical version of a minority browser"? Are they
>> >> > using FireFox or Opera? If so, I must have missed that
>> >> > detail and I really am most grateful to you for having so
>> >> > kindly pointed it out.
>> >> The OP appears to be using the same browser as you:
>> >> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98;
>> >> DIL0001021),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>> >Yes. And Microsoft Internet Explorer is "a minority browser",
>> >is it?
>> Nobody has suggested it might be.
>
>Actually, someone did. I believe it was Anthony
>"Good As" Gold who first made that idiotic comment
>when he claimed that the troll and I use an "identical
>version of a minority browser".
>

No he didn't.

He based it on your headers, which show you as using Mozilla 4.0


>> Both you and he are using Mozilla version 4.0
>> Which *is* a minority browser.
>
>That may be how it identifies itself, but the program
>I use is certainly not Mozilla. It is a customised
>version of Microsoft Internet Explorer, version 5.5
>and I refuse to upgrade to version 6 until all the
>security holes have been plugged.

Well actually, version 5.5 *is* a minority browser nowadays :-)

But it wasn't that he was basing it on.

>> >However, I note that you are a moderator of
>> >uk.legal.moderated, so would you care to comment
>> >on the allegation made that rejected submissions are
>> >not notified to the would-be contributor as is indicated
>> >in the newsgroup charter?
>>
>> They don't bother if the address is, or looks likely to be, a spam
>> trap address
>>
>> And the charter says they don't with certain types of rejection
>> anyhow.
>
>I do believe you are quite utterly mistaken.
>

You believe wrong.

Both of the above statements are absolutely true.


>I know it must be most irksome even to consider
>the merest possibility that a troll such as Mr Jampton
>might have a valid point, but you really ought to try.
>The strain should not prove too great and the
>exercise may do you some good.
>

I can see his point.

I personally do not believe that the effort of replying to such an
obvious troll would have been worthwhile, but given that he had a
valid email address, and it wasn't actually spam, they probably
technically should have sent him an email.

The charter probably needs changing to include "obvious trolls" along
with the spam. Or maybe the moderators consider that obvious trolls
are a form of spam.

The charter certainly gave them the right to immediately blacklist
him, as an obvious troll is definitely (IMO) an attempt to disrupt the
group and waste the moderators time.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
In /dev/null no one can hear you scream...
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.

Relevant Pages