🚀 go-pugleaf

snowhare@netcom.com (Benjamin Franz) writes:

>Peter Renzland (peter@renzland.org) wrote:
>: Someone states sweepingly:
>: >>The issue in question doesn't contain any information at all about 
>: >>the trial.

>: And someone else feels compelled to violate the publication ban by telling the
>: world:
>: >Yes there is. XXXX words. "She pleaded XXXXXXXX". If it wasn't for 
>: >those XXXX words it would not have been pulled from the shelves. The 
>: >ban covers the plea.

>: (I crossed out the plea and the word count so as not to republish the banned
>: information.)

>Of course - being a US citizen posting from a US system via a US 
>network the phrase 'She pleaded [obscured]' is no more banned than the 
>phrase 'John likes beagles'.

Perhaps our young free friend missed the fact that both the poster ("someone
else") and I are indeed posting from Canada.  It would have been pointless
(and stupid) of me to have posted my article, had I not made sure of those
facts.

>Get a clue. The vast majority of people reading these groups are NOT 
>Canandian nor are they subject to the Canandian court order.

 Canandian? I've never even heard of a Canandian. :-)

Non sequitur.  The "publication" references in my article were not to any
"vast majority" of "readers", but to precisely two posters, namely "someone
else", and myself.


PS: Ken, your rantings about Usenet admins not being publishers are misplaced.
    "someone else" and I were _author_publishers_ in this instance.  I never
    suggested that our respective sysadmins or systems owners were publishing
    what we said.  (I prefer playing go with you -- you talk less:-)

-- 
Peter Renzland

	"Until you understand a writer's ignorance,
	presume yourself ignorant of his understanding."
	Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834: Biographia Literaria