*Two* posts in uk.l.m for petitions ?
On 2026-02-14, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Two posts in uk.l.m for petitions ?
No rule against that as far as I'm aware.
On 14/02/2026 21:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/02/2026 in message >><slrn10p1pcf.225.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-14, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Two posts in uk.l.m for petitions ?
No rule against that as far as I'm aware.
Lack of sufficient legal content?
One of those posts says:
Make social class a protected characteristic under the Equality Act
The government should amend the Equality Act 2010 and make social
class a protected characteristic.
unquote
I think that does have legal content, but I am sceptical that it would be
a useful reform.
On 15/02/2026 10:56, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/02/2026 in message <mvdjubFs8h0U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>wrote:
On 14/02/2026 21:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/02/2026 in message >>>><slrn10p1pcf.225.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-14, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Two posts in uk.l.m for petitions ?
No rule against that as far as I'm aware.
Lack of sufficient legal content?
One of those posts says:
Make social class a protected characteristic under the Equality Act
The government should amend the Equality Act 2010 and make social
class a protected characteristic.
unquote
I think that does have legal content, but I am sceptical that it would be >>>a useful reform.
The main group is pretty well free of spam because of the mods, be good >>to keep it that way :-)
Can you tell me please how much spam there is here and how many moderators >here?
I think your reasoning may be flawed.
On 15/02/2026 in message <mvesltF44tqU2@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:56, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/02/2026 in message <mvdjubFs8h0U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
On 14/02/2026 21:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/02/2026 in message
<slrn10p1pcf.225.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>
On 2026-02-14, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Two posts in uk.l.m for petitions ?
No rule against that as far as I'm aware.
Lack of sufficient legal content?
One of those posts says:
Make social class a protected characteristic under the Equality Act
The government should amend the Equality Act 2010 and make social
class a protected characteristic.
unquote
I think that does have legal content, but I am sceptical that it
would-a be a useful reform.
The main group is pretty well free of spam because of the mods, be
good to keep it that way :-)
Can you tell me please how much spam there is here and how many
moderators here?
I think your reasoning may be flawed.
It's a highly specialised group so not a good comparison, have a look at
the unmoderated legal group for a comparison.
On 15/02/2026 22:04, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/02/2026 in message <mvesltF44tqU2@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:56, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/02/2026 in message <mvdjubFs8h0U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>>wrote:
On 14/02/2026 21:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/02/2026 in message >>>>>><slrn10p1pcf.225.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>>
On 2026-02-14, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Two posts in uk.l.m for petitions ?
No rule against that as far as I'm aware.
Lack of sufficient legal content?
One of those posts says:
Make social class a protected characteristic under the Equality Act >>>>>The government should amend the Equality Act 2010 and make social >>>>>class a protected characteristic.
unquote
I think that does have legal content, but I am sceptical that it would-a >>>>>be a useful reform.
The main group is pretty well free of spam because of the mods, be good >>>>to keep it that way :-)
Can you tell me please how much spam there is here and how many >>>moderators here?
I think your reasoning may be flawed.
It's a highly specialised group so not a good comparison, have a look at >>the unmoderated legal group for a comparison.
The fact remains that correlation isn't causation, especially when there
is no correlation.
Now let me tell you the answers to the questions you so carefully avoided >answering. There is no spam here. There are no moderators here either. >The one does not apparently result from the other.
On 15/02/2026 in message <mvf0qdF4unkU1@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/02/2026 22:04, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/02/2026 in message <mvesltF44tqU2@mid.individual.net> Norman
Wells wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:56, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/02/2026 in message <mvdjubFs8h0U1@mid.individual.net> The
Todal wrote:
On 14/02/2026 21:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/02/2026 in message
<slrn10p1pcf.225.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>>>
On 2026-02-14, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Two posts in uk.l.m for petitions ?
No rule against that as far as I'm aware.
Lack of sufficient legal content?
One of those posts says:
Make social class a protected characteristic under the Equality Act >>>>>> The government should amend the Equality Act 2010 and make social
class a protected characteristic.
unquote
I think that does have legal content, but I am sceptical that it >>>>>> would be a useful reform.
The main group is pretty well free of spam because of the mods, be >>>>> good to keep it that way :-)
Can you tell me please how much spam there is here and how many
moderators here?
I think your reasoning may be flawed.
It's a highly specialised group so not a good comparison, have a look
at the unmoderated legal group for a comparison.
The fact remains that correlation isn't causation, especially when
there is no correlation.
Now let me tell you the answers to the questions you so carefully
avoided answering.-a There is no spam here.-a There are no moderators
here either. The one does not apparently result from the other.
Indeed, it is a highly specialised group so not a good comparison.
On 16/02/2026 08:52, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/02/2026 in message <mvf0qdF4unkU1@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>wrote:
On 15/02/2026 22:04, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/02/2026 in message <mvesltF44tqU2@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>>>wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:56, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/02/2026 in message <mvdjubFs8h0U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>>>>wrote:
On 14/02/2026 21:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/02/2026 in message >>>>>>>><slrn10p1pcf.225.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 2026-02-14, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Two posts in uk.l.m for petitions ?
No rule against that as far as I'm aware.
Lack of sufficient legal content?
One of those posts says:
Make social class a protected characteristic under the Equality Act >>>>>>>The government should amend the Equality Act 2010 and make social >>>>>>>class a protected characteristic.
unquote
I think that does have legal content, but I am sceptical that it would
be a useful reform.
The main group is pretty well free of spam because of the mods, be good
to keep it that way :-)
Can you tell me please how much spam there is here and how many >>>>>moderators here?
I think your reasoning may be flawed.
It's a highly specialised group so not a good comparison, have a look at >>>>the unmoderated legal group for a comparison.
The fact remains that correlation isn't causation, especially when there >>>is no correlation.
Now let me tell you the answers to the questions you so carefully avoided >>>answering.-a There is no spam here.-a There are no moderators here >>>either. The one does not apparently result from the other.
Indeed, it is a highly specialised group so not a good comparison.
Can you tell me please what relevance that has?
If there are rules about what can be discussed in any unmoderated group,
do say who enforces them.
On 16/02/2026 in message <mvg5q5FancpU1@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/02/2026 08:52, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/02/2026 in message <mvf0qdF4unkU1@mid.individual.net> Norman
Wells wrote:
On 15/02/2026 22:04, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/02/2026 in message <mvesltF44tqU2@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>>> Wells wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:56, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/02/2026 in message <mvdjubFs8h0U1@mid.individual.net> The >>>>>>> Todal wrote:
On 14/02/2026 21:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/02/2026 in message
<slrn10p1pcf.225.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2026-02-14, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Two posts in uk.l.m for petitions ?
No rule against that as far as I'm aware.
Lack of sufficient legal content?
One of those posts says:
Make social class a protected characteristic under the Equality Act >>>>>>>> The government should amend the Equality Act 2010 and make social >>>>>>>> class a protected characteristic.
unquote
I think that does have legal content, but I am sceptical that >>>>>>>> it-a-a would be a useful reform.
The main group is pretty well free of spam because of the mods, >>>>>>> be-a-a good to keep it that way :-)
Can you tell me please how much spam there is here and how many
moderators here?
I think your reasoning may be flawed.
It's a highly specialised group so not a good comparison, have a
look-a at the unmoderated legal group for a comparison.
The fact remains that correlation isn't causation, especially when
there is no correlation.
Now let me tell you the answers to the questions you so carefully
avoided answering.-a There is no spam here.-a There are no moderators >>>> here either. The one does not apparently result from the other.
Indeed, it is a highly specialised group so not a good comparison.
Can you tell me please what relevance that has?
No, if you can't work it out yourself you shouldn't be here.
If there are rules about what can be discussed in any unmoderated
group, do say who enforces them.
Presumably the same people who enforce the law normally.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 09:00:06 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
9 files (16,136K bytes) |
| Messages: | 208,126 |