🚀 go-pugleaf

danno@chsw.com (Daniel Norton), in article
<32b3bcbc.40319766@news.albany.net> wrote:

>[followups directed to capdist.admin]
>
>truland@albany.net (David W. Truland) wrote:
>>Funny how Dan didn't cancel the original message, eh?
>
>I did issue a cancel for the original message, David.

It must be nice to be God.

>I issued a cancel for your reply too because it was just as off-topic as
>the original.  You only make things worse by responding to spams
>(especially when you copy the entire spam in your response).  Please
>just ignore them or, if you are completely familiar with the Usenet
>headers (Path and NNTP-Posting-Host), send a complaint message to the
>administrator of the originating site.

That's an interesting theory but it neglects to take into
consideration the fact that the point the original poster
was trying to make has already been made without being
challenged.  

All you do by censoring newsgroups is allow spamming idiots
to win by default.  Now if you want a moderated newsgroup, that's
different.  The original article doesn't get there in the first place.

Newsgroups should be either moderated or open.  This idea that 
you can cancel posts once they have appeared on servers is 
disgusting.
----------------------------------------
www.albany.net/~truland/