I normally ignore this newsgroup as I am busy with real police
officers and real lawyers in real courts cases instead of the usual opiniated, mistaken, amateurish drivel in this newsgroup.
"Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouce?ter" <thanks-to@Taf.com> wrote in message news:10q4064$1q9t7$2@paganini.bofh.team...
I normally ignore this newsgroup as I am busy with real police
officers and real lawyers in real courts cases instead of the usual
opiniated, mistaken, amateurish drivel in this newsgroup.
Pass !
On 2026-03-27, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouce?ter" <thanks-to@Taf.com> wrote in message
news:10q4064$1q9t7$2@paganini.bofh.team...
I normally ignore this newsgroup as I am busy with real police
officers and real lawyers in real courts cases instead of the usual
opiniated, mistaken, amateurish drivel in this newsgroup.
Pass !
Is there a reason it shouldn't have been?
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn10seotf.7ge.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-03-27, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouce?ter" <thanks-to@Taf.com> wrote in message >>> news:10q4064$1q9t7$2@paganini.bofh.team...
I normally ignore this newsgroup as I am busy with real police
officers and real lawyers in real courts cases instead of the usual
opiniated, mistaken, amateurish drivel in this newsgroup.
Pass !
Is there a reason it shouldn't have been?
Well yes; because it's meta.
It's a comment on the functioning of the group itself.
Rather than concerning itself with a legal question or topic;
or matters pertaining thereof.
On 28 Mar 2026 at 09:24:06 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10seotf.7ge.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-03-27, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouce?ter" <thanks-to@Taf.com> wrote in message >>>> news:10q4064$1q9t7$2@paganini.bofh.team...
I normally ignore this newsgroup as I am busy with real police
officers and real lawyers in real courts cases instead of the usual
opiniated, mistaken, amateurish drivel in this newsgroup.
Pass !
Is there a reason it shouldn't have been?
Well yes; because it's meta.
It's a comment on the functioning of the group itself.
Rather than concerning itself with a legal question or topic;
or matters pertaining thereof.
Is commenting on the group members, as opposed to the moderation, forbidden? I
suppose it is arguable.
--
Roger Hayter
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:9269249142.cc07d64d@uninhabited.net...
On 28 Mar 2026 at 09:24:06 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10seotf.7ge.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-03-27, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouce?ter" <thanks-to@Taf.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:10q4064$1q9t7$2@paganini.bofh.team...
I normally ignore this newsgroup as I am busy with real police
officers and real lawyers in real courts cases instead of the usual >>>>>> opiniated, mistaken, amateurish drivel in this newsgroup.
Pass !
Is there a reason it shouldn't have been?
Well yes; because it's meta.
It's a comment on the functioning of the group itself.
Rather than concerning itself with a legal question or topic;
or matters pertaining thereof.
Is commenting on the group members, as opposed to the moderation, forbidden? I
suppose it is arguable.
Any reference to "the group", even its very existence, can be considered as meta.
As its self-referential.
As in "this newsgroup", above.
Whereas comments on group members would not be. Although they might
be found objectionable on other grounds,
On 2026-03-28, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:9269249142.cc07d64d@uninhabited.net...
On 28 Mar 2026 at 09:24:06 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10seotf.7ge.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-03-27, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouce?ter" <thanks-to@Taf.com> wrote in message
news:10q4064$1q9t7$2@paganini.bofh.team...
I normally ignore this newsgroup as I am busy with real police
officers and real lawyers in real courts cases instead of the usual >>>>>>> opiniated, mistaken, amateurish drivel in this newsgroup.
Pass !
Is there a reason it shouldn't have been?
Well yes; because it's meta.
It's a comment on the functioning of the group itself.
Rather than concerning itself with a legal question or topic;
or matters pertaining thereof.
Is commenting on the group members, as opposed to the moderation, forbidden?
I
suppose it is arguable.
Any reference to "the group", even its very existence, can be considered as >> meta.
As its self-referential.
As in "this newsgroup", above.
Whereas comments on group members would not be. Although they might
be found objectionable on other grounds,
You are right that it is kind've meta, and if that had been the whole
content of the message then I quite likely would have rejected it for
that reason. But it wasn't.
(I've spoken in this group before about the difference between things
that are 'must reject' - e.g. abuse, defamation - and things that are
'may reject' - e.g. meta, off-topic.)
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 12:09:56 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (10,064K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,374 |