🚀 go-pugleaf

uk.net.regulation <EZGiQyDVEv48EAJ2@highwayman.com> Thu, 16 May 2002 
00:36:53 Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com>:

[demon.service added as per thread beginning]

>In article <N0g8AMNvZu48EwLG@tarrcity.demon.co.uk>, Wm...
><tcnw51@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>Yes, I can see that.  If what you are saying is right could we have a
>>few quite innocent newsgroups mentioned a number of times back, please,
>
>You are confusing two rather different issues.

I was doing it on purpose.  In part because my ISP has not been clear 
about *their* decisions versus those of the IWF.

>The IWF has created a list of newsgroups that at the current time (for
>some value of "current time") regularly (for some value of "regularly")
>contain illegal-to-possess material

Yes, one of those hopefully now on that list was reported by me -- 
actually it was there anyway but someone forgot to think about the 
.repost being added so the idea wasn't working very well was it?

>The list of newsgroups not carried on UK ISP news servers is "supposed"
>(for some value of "supposed") to be at least this long. However,
>individual ISPs may have chosen not to carry other groups as well. It
>has been a principle of Usenet since the earliest days that a server
>owner may make their own decision as to which newsgroups are to be
>carried on that server.

Yes, I understand that.  Do you not understand my and other people 
asking over a considerable amount of time "why?" about some groups not 
being carried.  Maybe you know and won't tell us?  Maybe the person who 
knows won't tell you?  The point is that the *excuse* (long since made 
rubbish by AndrewG) was that it was "the IWF wot did it" -- remember? 
Time passes, now we know the IWF didn't do it, now we know that the IWF 
forgot the .repost group for one of the (I presume) main places for 
young girls being put on show and indeed collected by those with an 
interest in such things but ...

... I have yet to hear a peep from anyone at THUS saying why the groups 
I think shouldn't have been pulled were.  At least when I say I think a 
group should be pulled I say why -- images illegal to posses in the UK 
-- can Demon / Thus apply the same standard?  I think not.

>There is little point discussing these other newsgroups (and I know you
>have particular ones in mind - which you are characterising as
>"innocent" and I would characterise as "not listed by the IWF") here
>since this is entirely a matter for individual ISPs and not a matter of
>"regulation" - the topic of this newsgroup.

So?  Get the ISP to say why male penises are bad viewing material for 
$deity's sake

I don't particularly want to look at them but Demon / THUS decided 
people shouldn't look at them and years have passed and they still 
haven't said why?  Do you not get it yet, Richard?

I accept the fact that I am a pain in your rectum because I keep on 
returning to this point but you will, I hope, accept that you are a pain 
in your defence of something I think is (and was) wrong.

>>since the IWF is no longer interested in Usenet much
>
>I cannot see how you deduce this. The position is that they don't have
>to spend a high proportion of their time on it these days.

Well, it shouldn't be complicated to deduce then should it?

>>and some people
>>never spotted an illegal or possibly illegal image in those newsgroups.
>
>Depending upon the reason for the ISP removing the newsgroup,

Oh, please tell, all-seeing-Richard

>this may
>or may not be relevant ...
>
>... mind you, it's also irrelevant to the IWF list as well since it's
>what the IWF staff have seen which matters, not "some people". However,
>none of the many people who are in a position to "blow a whistle" has
>ever suggested that the IWF's listing of a newsgroup is anything other
>than justified. viz: the newsgroups that the IWF report as regularly
>containing illegal-to-possess material do indeed regularly contain
>illegal-to-possess material.

You point being?  Unless I am mistaken you're pointing out the "ISPs 
just do some stupid things and we can't account for them" bit again.

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