I am seeking the moderator of this group. Roadrunner has asked me to
post this message, in reference to a complaint. Please email me.

Thank you

"shipwreck" > wrote:
> I am seeking the moderator of this group. Roadrunner has asked me to
> post this message, in reference to a complaint. Please email me.

And of course they taught you to spell "moderator" first.

Bullshit.

Yeah, I goofed on the spelling sorry.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:03:54 -0600, "Pennyaline"
> wrote:

>"shipwreck" > wrote:
>> I am seeking the moderator of this group. Roadrunner has asked me to
>> post this message, in reference to a complaint. Please email me.
>
>And of course they taught you to spell "moderator" first.
>
>Bullshit.
>

"shipwreck" wrote:
> Yeah, I goofed on the spelling sorry.

But the essence of the message was that the post was:

> > Bullshit.

"shipwreck" > wrote in message
...

> I am seeking the moderator of this group. Roadrunner
> has asked me to post this message, in reference to a
> complaint. Please email me.

Being an unmoderated group, there is/are no moderator(s). That does
not, however, mean there's no charter or other posting
rules/conventions. I'm curious why Roadrunner would ask you to post
anything in response to a complaint, rather than dealing directly with
you (re whatever behavior caused the complaint) and the person(s) who
made said complaint.

-j

I'm being fined by my host site for a complaint against me from a
memeber of this group. It was one post, after participating here for
over a year, and now I've got the internet police after me.

I need the person who turned me in, as my host nor roadrunner will get
in touch with them, or give up their name.



On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 08:30:02 +0200, "jacqui{JB}"
> wrote:

>"shipwreck" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>> I am seeking the moderator of this group. Roadrunner
>> has asked me to post this message, in reference to a
>> complaint. Please email me.
>
>Being an unmoderated group, there is/are no moderator(s). That does
>not, however, mean there's no charter or other posting
>rules/conventions. I'm curious why Roadrunner would ask you to post
>anything in response to a complaint, rather than dealing directly with
>you (re whatever behavior caused the complaint) and the person(s) who
>made said complaint.
>
>-j
>

"shipwreck" > wrote:
> I'm being fined by my host site for a complaint against me from a
> memeber of this group. It was one post, after participating here for
> over a year, and now I've got the internet police after me.
>
> I need the person who turned me in, as my host nor roadrunner will get
> in touch with them, or give up their name.


As I have maintained all along, your post was bullshit. This is a
continuation of that bullshit.

<you were here for a year so you know there's no moderator but you're
looking for the moderator now only because "Roadrunner asked" you to do it
but no actually you want the name of the person who filed a complaint about
you and etc. etc. etc. and no one with any sense will believe a word you've
posted...

Is it beyond your understanding that you were turned in because of something
YOU did. and that the fault belongs to you and not the person who
complained?>

"Pennyaline" > wrote in
message ...
>
>
> As I have maintained all along, your post was bullshit. This is a
> continuation of that bullshit.
>
> <you were here for a year so you know there's no moderator but you're
> looking for the moderator now only because "Roadrunner asked" you to do it
> but no actually you want the name of the person who filed a complaint
about
> you and etc. etc. etc. and no one with any sense will believe a word
you've
> posted...
>
> Is it beyond your understanding that you were turned in because of
something
> YOU did. and that the fault belongs to you and not the person who
> complained?>
>
>

It's not necessarily bullshit. A lot of people have no clue about Usenet
and they assume a newsgroup is, more or less, just like a mailing list or
bulletin board. However, doing a search on shipwreck shows the first post
being in March 2004 which is not, as suggested by shipwreck, a year ago.
That does not mean s/he didn't use a different address prior to this, but it
does seem fishy. Further searching does not show anything of complainable
nature, except perhaps the mention of inventing a product and soliciting for
names. It is still possible, however, that someone complained, anyway.
People complain about anything and everything on Usenet, whether the
complaints are valid or not. I think the power of being 'anonymous' goes to
their heads.

That being said, I've never known roadrunner to give a shit about
complaints. Particularly spam.

rona
--
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and they will
**** upon your computer."
--Bruce Graham

shipwreck > writes:

>From: shipwreck >
>Newsgroups: rec.food.baking
>Subject: Moterator
>Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:37:16 GMT
>
>I'm being fined by my host site for a complaint against me from a
>memeber of this group. It was one post, after participating here for
>over a year, and now I've got the internet police after me.

If Roadrunner (rr.com) has done anything to enforce its Acceptable Use
Policy, it comes as a great surprise to many of us.

Back in early March, I received a spam which was "phishing" for
financial passwords and information by sending the naive recipient
to a very sophisticated but bogus web page which looked like a
genuine PayPal site. It actually collected information and forwarded
it to an address on a server in China. The bogus page was hosted on
an IP address assigned to a Roadrunner cable modem.

I spent quite a bit of time on the Roadrunner web site to see how to
notify Roadrunner of this criminal activity. I discovered that they
had designed their email support to require one to enter a Roadrunner
username and password to communicate with them. There were no
telephone numbers posted. And, finally, I found that Acceptable Use
Policy complaints should be emailed to "

I sent a detailed explanation. And, having spent well over an hour of
my time researching and writing this up, I was amazed to find that
my email bounced back at me saying that " is not
a working address.

If Roadrunner can't seem to follow up on actual criminal activity on
it's network, it's unbelievable that Roadrunning is spending time
dealing with Usenet violations of netiquette.

Roadrunner belongs to Time Warner.

Cheers,
The Old Bear

"The Old Bear" > wrote in message
news
> shipwreck > writes:
>
> >From: shipwreck >
> >Newsgroups: rec.food.baking
> >Subject: Moterator
> >Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:37:16 GMT
> >
> >I'm being fined by my host site for a complaint against me from a
> >memeber of this group. It was one post, after participating here for
> >over a year, and now I've got the internet police after me.
>
> If Roadrunner (rr.com) has done anything to enforce its Acceptable Use
> Policy, it comes as a great surprise to many of us.

I'll second that. I have had RR for about 5 years and they aren't even
interested in helping you when someone is trying to hack into your system.
That said, I can see the abuse department telling a customer to go figure it
out himself. RR is mostly bullshit. No matter what your problem, when you
call them they make you wade through several levels of customer service reps
who all read from a script. The first thing they do is make you reset your
modem and reboot your computer. You can be on the phone for an hour before
they finally open a work order and get you to a level 3 tech. At that point
they often have to call you back. If you aren't home, the whole process can
start again. If someone is trying to hack into your system, they won't even
talk to you on the phone. You have to email them a copy of your firewall
log and they will only accept the log if it is in ASCII format. You get an
automated response and they never do anything. RR is all about making the
customer jump through hoops.

I have corresponded with Shipwreck for some time. I can tell you that I
don't think he is the type of person who would flood newsgroups with
solicitation to buy his products. I didn't see anything that appeared to be
spam that he posted to this NG, but my threshold may be higher than others.
We all make mistakes. I don't understand why people are being so
aggressively nasty about all this.

A couple of years ago I visited a new superstore that had just opened in my
area called "The Great Indoors." It is similar to the Home Depot "Design
Expo," I thought the place was amazing and huge. It had lines of
appliances and cabinets that I had only seen in magazines like Architectural
Digest. I wrote a short messages here about how impressed I was, and
someone accused me of posting spam. Someone said that the message was a
slickly written promotion piece planted by the marketing department of the
store, written to appear as coming from an ordinary consumer! I was stunned
at what seemed to be a case of paranoia. Considering that I had been
posting to several food related newsgroup for some time, I was also
perplexed at how a person could come to such a conclusion.