Blocking senders

"~ janj" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:52:56 -0500, Galen Hekhuis
wrote:

Early on, before we even got around to the first draft of the RFD, the
subject of "blacklisting" or blocking posters based on IP number, nym, or
any of a number of different criteria. The suggestion was met with a
resounding "NO." Even if someone were to hold hostage and threaten to
kill
a cute kitten unless we "blacklisted" someone, we still wouldn't block a
poster. We aren't even looking at ways to do it, so we may not even be
able to do it even if we wanted to. If a post is civil and about ponds,
there is little doubt that it would be approved, no matter who submitted
it. Let me make it perfectly clear, we will allow anyone to post no
matter
how many cute kittens someone threatens to kill. There are NO plans to
moderate RPM on anything other than content. Of course, if someone
threatens cute bunnies we may have to rethink that...

I don't know about you Galen, but if a post comes thru on my watch
threatening to kill anything if we mods don't do something, I'll be
hitting
the reject button. :-) ~ jan

What Jan said.

Gail

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:52:29 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
wrote:

"~ janj" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:52:56 -0500, Galen Hekhuis
wrote:

Early on, before we even got around to the first draft of the RFD, the
subject of "blacklisting" or blocking posters based on IP number, nym, or
any of a number of different criteria. The suggestion was met with a
resounding "NO." Even if someone were to hold hostage and threaten to
kill
a cute kitten unless we "blacklisted" someone, we still wouldn't block a
poster. We aren't even looking at ways to do it, so we may not even be
able to do it even if we wanted to. If a post is civil and about ponds,
there is little doubt that it would be approved, no matter who submitted
it. Let me make it perfectly clear, we will allow anyone to post no
matter
how many cute kittens someone threatens to kill. There are NO plans to
moderate RPM on anything other than content. Of course, if someone
threatens cute bunnies we may have to rethink that...

I don't know about you Galen, but if a post comes thru on my watch
threatening to kill anything if we mods don't do something, I'll be
hitting
the reject button. :-) ~ jan

What Jan said.

Hey gang, maybe y'all should re-read the thing. I said nothing about
receiving a post that threatened us to take some action. I mentioned that
we had no plans to "blacklist" anyone, and that threats of any kind (I used
killing kittens, but it could have been puppies or anything) were quite
unlikely to make us do so. Threatening *posts* are an entirely different
matter.

--
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Hell hath no fury like a bird in the hand.

Galen Hekhuis wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:52:29 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
"~ janj" wrote in message
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
[ . . . ]
Hey gang, maybe y'all should re-read the thing. I said nothing about
receiving a post that threatened us to take some action. I mentioned
that we had no plans to "blacklist" anyone, and that threats of any kind
(I used killing kittens, but it could have been puppies or anything) were
quite unlikely to make us do so. Threatening *posts* are an entirely
different matter.

Playing Devil's Advocate here. So, if I say that, if you don't post my post
to rpm, I will kill YOU, would be treated differently than if I said I
would kill a baby kitten or all your koi?

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~

On 21 Dec 2006 22:21:44 GMT, wrote:

Playing Devil's Advocate here. So, if I say that, if you don't post my post
to rpm, I will kill YOU, would be treated differently than if I said I
would kill a baby kitten or all your koi?

I don't care if you threaten me, my kittens, my koi, (my tractor is a
different story), or much of anything, I still won't be "blacklisting"
folks. If you kill me, I sure won't be "blacklisting" anyone. Now if you
send me a threatening post, that's entirely different, and the post may be
returned, indeed, it may have a number of things done with it, such as
forwarding the post to various people and agencies. It probably wouldn't
get posted, as it is difficult for me to imagine how one could make a
"civil" threat, although there is something to be said for making such
threats public. Anyway, the whole thrust of the article was to say that
"blocking senders" was not on the table, nor did I feel that any threats
would be effective in making us block a particular sender.

--
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Hell hath no fury like a bird in the hand.

Galen Hekhuis wrote:
On 21 Dec 2006 22:21:44 GMT, wrote:

Playing Devil's Advocate here. So, if I say that, if you don't post my
post to rpm, I will kill YOU, would be treated differently than if I
said I would kill a baby kitten or all your koi?

I don't care if you threaten me, my kittens, my koi, (my tractor is a
different story), or much of anything, I still won't be "blacklisting"
folks. If you kill me, I sure won't be "blacklisting" anyone. Now if
you send me a threatening post, that's entirely different, and the post
may be returned, indeed, it may have a number of things done with it,
such as forwarding the post to various people and agencies. It probably
wouldn't get posted, as it is difficult for me to imagine how one could
make a "civil" threat, although there is something to be said for making
such threats public. Anyway, the whole thrust of the article was to say
that "blocking senders" was not on the table, nor did I feel that any
threats would be effective in making us block a particular sender.

Good! I, in fact, would never threaten harm to anyone or anything.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~

And there was me thinking that I'd find useful information on a site
such as this.

What I do find is a bunch of good advice completely ruined by childish
self-important morons who see fit to bicker and argue in a forum about
ponds. PONDS!!!!???? I'm writing that, but I can't actually believe
that something as benevolent as ponds can attract internet clowns.

It you've ever flamed or, posted inflammatory or derisory comment about
another user in a pond forum you need to look long and hard at your
life. Is this really how you get your kicks? Has your life become that
tragic?

Me, well I'm off to find the information I'm after elsewhere. Have fun.



Dan
X




--
redlinedan

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:14:06 +0000, redlinedan
wrote:


And there was me thinking that I'd find useful information on a site
such as this.

What I do find is a bunch of good advice completely ruined by childish
self-important morons who see fit to bicker and argue in a forum about
ponds. PONDS!!!!???? I'm writing that, but I can't actually believe
that something as benevolent as ponds can attract internet clowns.

It you've ever flamed or, posted inflammatory or derisory comment about
another user in a pond forum you need to look long and hard at your
life. Is this really how you get your kicks? Has your life become that
tragic?

Me, well I'm off to find the information I'm after elsewhere. Have fun.



Dan
X


Hi Dan,

I hope that you're still here to see my reply.
I certainly understand your frustration. It has also happened to
many other persons who visited this newsgroup for their first time
during the past 2 years.

I sincerely hope that you came back to see this post.
_Please_ look for the post entitled:

Attn: All Persons Looking for Pond Information

I posted it on 12-26-06 at 9:38am EST in the U.S.
Hopefully, it will explain why this group looks the way it does.

Please post your questions here, for now. There are some
long-time rec.ponders who should be able to heelp you. If any trolls
respond, please shrug them off.

I hope that you find the message I posted on the 26th. We could
definitely use your support to help us establish a decent pond
newsgroup once again.

If you read this, but can't find the message, please reply
to this message and let me know. Or, you can email me.
I plan to repost that 26th message every 3-4 days, until the
new group is established and running.

Again, I'm sorry for your bad experience here.

Please give us a chance to welcome and help you.

Ron Schompert

Sorry Ron...Its only been your so called moderators thats been posting
here and a well known asshole named Carol aka Rebulon and about all
they can feel free to find and do is talk about who and why they will
ban someone or practice their poonk ability.....You would really think
those ****wads would be seeding the group instead of diligently
talking about how and who to ban for what..dogs killings, cat and
kitten killings etc etc etc.....bunch of freaking losers you got there
Ron, rec.ponds.moderated is gona be a big hit,,,,I am sure....and y
can dam sure tell that none of those that replied to my one post knows
a dam thing about a natrual or large pond......and thats a
given......and I for one am not gonna be thier teacher.....


On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 09:50:06 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:14:06 +0000, redlinedan
wrote:


And there was me thinking that I'd find useful information on a site
such as this.

What I do find is a bunch of good advice completely ruined by childish
self-important morons who see fit to bicker and argue in a forum about
ponds. PONDS!!!!???? I'm writing that, but I can't actually believe
that something as benevolent as ponds can attract internet clowns.

It you've ever flamed or, posted inflammatory or derisory comment about
another user in a pond forum you need to look long and hard at your
life. Is this really how you get your kicks? Has your life become that
tragic?

Me, well I'm off to find the information I'm after elsewhere. Have fun.



Dan
X


Hi Dan,

I hope that you're still here to see my reply.
I certainly understand your frustration. It has also happened to
many other persons who visited this newsgroup for their first time
during the past 2 years.

I sincerely hope that you came back to see this post.
_Please_ look for the post entitled:

Attn: All Persons Looking for Pond Information

I posted it on 12-26-06 at 9:38am EST in the U.S.
Hopefully, it will explain why this group looks the way it does.

Please post your questions here, for now. There are some
long-time rec.ponders who should be able to heelp you. If any trolls
respond, please shrug them off.

I hope that you find the message I posted on the 26th. We could
definitely use your support to help us establish a decent pond
newsgroup once again.

If you read this, but can't find the message, please reply
to this message and let me know. Or, you can email me.
I plan to repost that 26th message every 3-4 days, until the
new group is established and running.

Again, I'm sorry for your bad experience here.

Please give us a chance to welcome and help you.

Ron Schompert




-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

wrote:

Galen Hekhuis wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:52:29 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
"~ janj" wrote in message
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
[ . . . ]
Hey gang, maybe y'all should re-read the thing. I said nothing about
receiving a post that threatened us to take some action. I mentioned
that we had no plans to "blacklist" anyone, and that threats of any kind
(I used killing kittens, but it could have been puppies or anything) were
quite unlikely to make us do so. Threatening *posts* are an entirely
different matter.

Playing Devil's Advocate here. So, if I say that, if you don't post my
post to rpm, I will kill YOU, would be treated differently than if I said
I would kill a baby kitten or all your koi?

No. I would actually report either of those to the police (experience says
it makes no difference if I report it to their ISP).

But if someone threatened to kill someone or something if I didn't blacklist
someone else - which is Galen's example - I agree that I'm not blacklisting
the third party on those grounds.
--
derek