[Uram-rejections] Revalidating Online

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

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

 Please correct other poster's errors more diplomatically



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 Mon Jan 02 10:09:23 2017
> Return-path: <webstump at chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk
> X-Envelope-To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> X-Forwarding-To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> Delivered-To: forwarding-uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at example.com
> To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> From: "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig.netta at ntlworld.com>
> Newsgroups: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> Subject: Re: Revalidating Online
> Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 10:09:10 -0000
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Message-ID: <o4d8pe$9kl$1 at dont-email.me>
> References: <o3bf72$rqk$1 at dont-email.me> <o3bkkp$h7h$1 at dont-email.me> <JgStR2AcuuWYFwJD at g8bur.demon.co.uk> <o3g3gl$leg$1 at dont-email.me> <4u2p5cdan5ji63a157bfo7939emgqm702f at 4ax.com> <3Nwy66AuTjYYFwN1 at g8bur.demon.co.uk> <o3uh1f$vrl$1 at dont-email.me> <uDiUZWBmRtYYFwu1 at g8bur.demon.co.uk> <o3v41k$ui7$1 at dont-email.me> <o403ab$1oq3$2 at gioia.aioe.org> <o40hec$cr2$1 at dont-email.me> <o45p8q$stj$1 at dont-email.me> <o466ak$i61$1 at dont-email.me> <o48328$e11$1 at gioia.aioe.org> <jsIhU7DLl7ZYFwEP at g3ohx.co.uk> <o48j8c$s65$1 at dont-email.me> <1mz4s9n.dnt5yp1gpssuiN%roger at hayter.org> <o4907b$fgi$1 at dont-email.me> <fVP+qqJb9AaYFwot at g3ohx.co.uk> <o4apnp$jrd$1 at gioia.aioe.org> <o4avkq$aqb$1 at dont-email.me> <1mz6h1c.1if671m1uvszi8N%roger at hayter.org> <o4d7gl$5j3$1 at dont-email.me>
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
> X-Priority: 3
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
> X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX18G8swsxijEm1mHiaEcrqnH3Kt9QkJ/J8E=
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:JB9Yta9JsiTeNlLMXFzufdlf9Z0=
> X-Gradwell-Message-ID: 42932620
> X-Gradwell-MongoId: 586a26cb.12c1f-7357-5
> X-Gradwell-Forwarding-Rule: 1748292
> X-Gradwell-Edge-Server: inbound-edge-5.mail.thdo.gradwell.net
> 
> 
> "mm0fmf" <none at invalid.com> wrote in message 
> news:o4d7gl$5j3$1 at dont-email.me...
> > On 01/01/2017 14:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
> >> mm0fmf <none at invalid.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 01/01/2017 11:38, Jeff wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In the 1960s, the licence specifically forbade discussions and
> >>>>> promotions of politics, religion, commerce (etc), and anything likely 
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> be perceived as offensive.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No it didn't forbid discussion, it was only the over zealousness of the
> >>>> post office inspectors that forbade such, and no one was willing to 
> >>>> take
> >>>> them on in those days.
> >>>>
> >>>> The actual licence wording forbade commercial use, advertising,
> >>>> propaganda and messages for the benefit of social, commercial, 
> >>>> political
> >>>> or religious organisations.
> >>>>
> >>>> So nothing in the licence actually forbade discussion of those topics 
> >>>> as
> >>>> long as it was not for the benefit of those organisations. However, the
> >>>> attitude of the GPO was so over the top that people were afraid to even
> >>>> mention where they worked for fear of being hauled over the coals for
> >>>> advertising. That lead to all sorts of euphemisms for company names
> >>>> among other things!!
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeff
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you Jeff. There are at least 2 of us who understand!
> >>>
> >>> HNY
> >>
> >> Even if it turned out not to be enforceable in the  face of determined
> >> opposition, the policy was a good one, in that it encouraged civility,
> >> and protected us to an extent from having to listen to the bigotry du
> >> jour.
> >>
> >>
> > I'd disagree Roger. I want my licencing body to uphold the licencing 
> > conditions as they are and not what some enforcement guy on a power trip 
> > wants them to be. I'm surprised you'd not want the same.
> 
> nobody cares about licensing conditions these days...most people can't even 
> spell it properly .....guy on the other side of the motorway from me came on 
> 27.555 yesterday with his big trio burner...no idea why he can't stick to 
> his ham licence conditions....I mean why did he go for one anyway?...was it 
> just a cover for his 11m activities?..... 
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYailPAAoJEJ0q8Kb5p+MeBwwH+gIEoY4mYjImXcwu71It67uT
TjR+4sduDKqCUapvIvArUg4sYt8yhaHqdgV/H4IJVQPV7vJUgR4QshJPApaTRGpr
KL7hAxa9n43VCsnzJ5ZQWFdeQN1ounCNzvX1T3M38mwm0tj4MLJEIGL2J9NiSuPT
f6E1ncBmXJD9SSCbyBNBDq90cut2xgoE2hGWvK/3AJ+6Gs+yXGlMfmeGYPlXeHL+
+s0urLnKiSYnNmTF82isgy9SGCk/FkN++Yn1LI6cTKULjNMHyrITE34frGeeDj7W
FPEUEarV1zjSIAx+GgEC8cs4B4bJqAPL2IK7N7aahEOV8leVbVc5QE0ii3B2TPE=
=YyEL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----