🚀 go-pugleaf

Kate wrote in message <3jnp4u84t2hjcu0mftnp9ale406lml7ccf@4ax.com>...
>On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 17:34:10 -0500 "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski"
>
>>   Content is part of the definition of the BI. "Substantively identical".
The
>>BI really only applies to third party cancels, or when calling for a UDP.
Any
>>service can use different criteria. For example, Altopia bans all
unsolicited
>>commercial advertisements, and a one shot post like that isn't spam.
However,
>>Altopia doesn't call this "spam"; such is just banned here.
>
>Yes. I don't think the peeps who cancel things consider content, but
>who knows.

  Well, nobody *truly* knows, but it's fairly easy to track down stuff
that's being cancelled and see who cancelled it and whether it really was
massposted spam or not.  People are often accusing the spamcancellers of
being censors and trying to drop hints that they (the cancellers) hide
cancels of messages they want to censor for personal or political
motivations here and there among the spamcancels.  But the people who shout
loudest about this never provide the slightest little bit of evidence, which
would be easy to do if it really was happening.

  During the US elections t'other year, there were quite a few
politically-motivated spam runs, and they all got cancelled, same as any
other spam.

  I'm betting that if there had been even the slightest *appearance* of bias
or anything less than 100%-evenhandedness from any of the spamcancellers,
the media-monitoring teams (of whichever side the spam was in favour of)
would *still* be here today, kicking up a fuss about it.  There wasn't a
peep out of any of the political parties over the issue though.

          DaveK
--
moderator of
alt.talk.rec.soc.biz.news.comp.humanities.meow.misc.moderated.meow
Burn your ID card!  http://www.optional-identity.org.uk/
Help support the campaign, copy this into your .sig!
Proud Member of the Exclusive "I have been plonked by Davee because he
thinks I'm interesting" List
Member #<insert number here>