🚀 go-pugleaf

demon.service <0moaeu4jt94c9hdsf3738o8ar3mjlvaguc@news.kempston.net> 
Fri, 17 May 2002 21:15:41 Mike Mann <mike@kempston.net>:

>On Thu, 16 May 2002 21:29:19 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcnw51@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>At least when I say I think a
>>group should be pulled I say why -- images illegal to posses in the UK
>
>Since you've dragged this thread back into d.s., I trust you will
>excuse me if I comment on just this one point while ignoring the rest
>[1].

Certainly.

>Have you considered that supporting Demon's actions in pulling certain
>newsgroups [2] may actually make it easier for Demon customers to find
>illegal material, if they wish to?

Who said I was supporting Demon's actions in pulling newsgroups?  I am 
positively against Demon pulling most of the newsgroups *they* have 
decided to do so and they and other people seem to be aware of that even 
if you aren't.

Query: are you perhaps muddling newsgroups that the IWF say should be 
pulled versus those Demon have pulled?

I think the answer to your question is "no, I am not making it easier". 
I have not signposted any groups that I know to have contained illegal 
to possess material.  Hmmn, OK, maybe I alluded to one (partial group 
name), but no signpost that I recall and if anyone bothers reading the 
uk.net.regulation archives they could dig a lot out of there and, of 
course, the IWF docs.  All me?  I think not.

>All they have to do is open an account with one of the "uncensored"
>news providers, compare the active file from this provider with the
>file available from Demon's news server and note the differences.

Yes, well, I suppose someone could do that.  They'd probably find about 
20K+ newsgroups in the diff.  So what?  If someone is looking for 
illegal to possess material they'll find it regardless; in any event it 
appears the IWF hotline is busy with websites rather than newsgoups 
nowadays.  I'm still pondering about that.

>[1] It really is difficult to follow your arguments when you keep on
>contradicting yourself. See [2]

As far as I know you are the only person that thinks I "keep on 
contradicting" myself.  Other people seem to be managing OK.  You seem 
to be stuck on the fact that I reported a newsgroup to the IWF and then 
wondered about the delay.  You don't seem to think there is any room for 
someone thinking *a* newsgroup should be pulled but that others 
shouldn't be pulled and have been.

Obviously it would be easier for you if I took a "no group should ever 
be pulled" or "any vaguely suspicious group should be pulled at Demon 
management's whim" stance but I'm not like that.  Sorry if that 
inconveniences you.

>[2] Despite saying earlier in this thread:
>
>>No, I think dropping groups is a bad thing, ...

If you don't follow the conversation it isn't surprising that you miss 
some things people say, is it?

-- 
Wm ...
address valid for at least 31 days from date of posting