[Uram-rejections] Network smartphones - Amateur radio?

[webstump+uram-bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

 You appear to be accusing two contributors to the thread of being untruthful.



The post that you submitted to uk.radio.amateur.moderated has been rejected by a
moderator. 

Your message appears to the moderator to be abusive or hurtful to
another contributor.

The group charter and moderation policy can be found at
  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/uram/
Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup
  uk.net.news.moderation

============================================ Full text of your message follows
> From webstump at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jun 15 21:12:35 2018
> Return-path: <webstump at chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk
> Delivered-To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> From: Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>  <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words at yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> Subject: Re: Network smartphones - Amateur radio?
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 21:12:22 +0100
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Message-ID: <pg16je$sg1$2 at dont-email.me>
> References: <pfsudg$mab$1 at dont-email.me>
>  <MPG.358dfbeeeb9eca969896a9 at news.eternal-september.org>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
>  Thunderbird/52.8.0
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:KYAoepUb+2PQkjk1DvpLyB3j1Lk=
> X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1/Mj37i0JJ2fQV6S9lRSf9h5d5ppA+R0go=
> Content-Language: en-GB
> 
> On 15/06/2018 17:56, Dave Sergeant wrote:
> > In article <pfsudg$mab$1 at dont-email.me>, david-
> > taylor at blueyonder.co.uk.invalid says...
> >>
> >> The latest RadCom has articles on "Network Radio", accompanied by
> >> several suppliers making "special offers" on this kit.
> >>
> >> Appropriate material, or could the pages have been better used?
> > 
> > As others have said this has been discussed to death on rsgbtech.
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of such a discussion.
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJbJCLZAAoJEJ0q8Kb5p+Mewu0IAMYxgZxPEFBiZFt0xoPvcKTR
FE6lBzkuv8e4tqrkdAfkXuCSi3ld6dU72iyQlTQCCVsGGSTAJp5Ms/Igs02WMqjU
aysUta4gm5poiCwRT19JIKnE8ivlfLL+TaBjq+9rweBrPfaFH3uSJZBz4diClg9W
4Rb+ZrC0IJZnCK+DeevL5Wkt6sJ9aA1n5QrbrDtVQ+cqrje61VO3xtvGUbS1Iigs
iO/kCYaN7ohXCPxKR9Ez1OadM+Po41sYTS4xcwi+B9PVB23EYES42KPJANm5bpor
lRhsbczdkdPR/DUPHmTDMpvv64IE3q9PUOMEv4/Z+xDwd/dHZnXm9Eo5BqFGg74=
=OeHY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----