On 22/02/2024 14:01, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 23:13:24 +0000, Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/02/2024 04:23, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:13:56 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 02:07:44 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:24:42 -0800, erik simpson
>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've no idea what DIG uses to read TO, or if he's doing so now. I
>>>>>> assume he will still be the nominal "boss" if he so chooses.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DIG?
>>>>>
>>>> David Ian Greig, the t.o moderator (actually, the Keeper of
>>>> the Moderator).
>>>
>>>
>>> I presume even you understand my question isn't who is DIG, but how
>>> Erik's reference to DIG informs the discussion.
>>
>> DIG rarely uses the power to exclude people
>>from talk.origins. People are here because
>> DIG allows them to be.
>
>
> Is that supposed to answer my question?

Yes. The preceding remarks included the need
to ban a few people. Over and over again,
when necessary. And of such is the kingdom
of DIG.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 23:20:06 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 22/02/2024 14:01, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 23:13:24 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/02/2024 04:23, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:13:56 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 02:07:44 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:24:42 -0800, erik simpson
>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've no idea what DIG uses to read TO, or if he's doing so now. I
>>>>>>> assume he will still be the nominal "boss" if he so chooses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DIG?
>>>>>>
>>>>> David Ian Greig, the t.o moderator (actually, the Keeper of
>>>>> the Moderator).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I presume even you understand my question isn't who is DIG, but how
>>>> Erik's reference to DIG informs the discussion.
>>>
>>> DIG rarely uses the power to exclude people
>>>from talk.origins. People are here because
>>> DIG allows them to be.
>>
>>
>> Is that supposed to answer my question?
>
>Yes. The preceding remarks included the need
>to ban a few people. Over and over again,
>when necessary. And of such is the kingdom
>of DIG.

Really? My understanding is which newsreader DIG uses isn't relevant
to "the need to ban a few people". Apparently your mileage varies.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 23/02/2024 08:58, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 23:20:06 +0000, Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 22/02/2024 14:01, jillery wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 23:13:24 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/02/2024 04:23, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:13:56 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 02:07:44 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:24:42 -0800, erik simpson
>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've no idea what DIG uses to read TO, or if he's doing so now. I
>>>>>>>> assume he will still be the nominal "boss" if he so chooses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DIG?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Ian Greig, the t.o moderator (actually, the Keeper of
>>>>>> the Moderator).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I presume even you understand my question isn't who is DIG, but how
>>>>> Erik's reference to DIG informs the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> DIG rarely uses the power to exclude people
>>> >from talk.origins. People are here because
>>>> DIG allows them to be.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is that supposed to answer my question?
>>
>> Yes. The preceding remarks included the need
>> to ban a few people. Over and over again,
>> when necessary. And of such is the kingdom
>> of DIG.
>
>
> Really? My understanding is which newsreader DIG uses isn't relevant
> to "the need to ban a few people". Apparently your mileage varies.

This is going to sound more and more theological
but it isn't very clear that DIG reads in this
group at all. That's the "if he's doing so now"
part. And it's plausible that he has been using
Google Groups as a convenient reading and
statistics service. We don't know.

I don't /think/ he is offended by speculation on
this subject, but I don't want to push it too far.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 10:11:45 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

>This is going to sound more and more theological
>but it isn't very clear that DIG reads in this
>group at all. That's the "if he's doing so now"
>part. And it's plausible that he has been using
>Google Groups as a convenient reading and
>statistics service. We don't know.
>
>I don't /think/ he is offended by speculation on
>this subject, but I don't want to push it too far.

Ok, so you don't know if DIG's reading this froup at all, and you
don't know if he's using GG, and you don't know if he's offended by
speculation on the subject. I suppose listing irrelevancies you don't
know is one way to cease saying anything worthwhile.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 26/02/2024 11:31, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 10:11:45 +0000, Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> This is going to sound more and more theological
>> but it isn't very clear that DIG reads in this
>> group at all. That's the "if he's doing so now"
>> part. And it's plausible that he has been using
>> Google Groups as a convenient reading and
>> statistics service. We don't know.
>>
>> I don't /think/ he is offended by speculation on
>> this subject, but I don't want to push it too far.
>
>
> Ok, so you don't know if DIG's reading this froup at all, and you
> don't know if he's using GG, and you don't know if he's offended by
> speculation on the subject. I suppose listing irrelevancies you don't
> know is one way to cease saying anything worthwhile.

I told you it was theological. ;-)

On 2/27/24 2:41 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On 26/02/2024 11:31, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 10:11:45 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This is going to sound more and more theological
>>> but it isn't very clear that DIG reads in this
>>> group at all.  That's the "if he's doing so now"
>>> part.  And it's plausible that he has been using
>>> Google Groups as a convenient reading and
>>> statistics service.  We don't know.
>>>
>>> I don't /think/ he is offended by speculation on
>>> this subject, but I don't want to push it too far.
>>
>>
>> Ok, so you don't know if DIG's reading this froup at all, and you
>> don't know if he's using GG, and you don't know if he's offended by
>> speculation on the subject.  I suppose listing irrelevancies you don't
>> know is one way to cease saying anything worthwhile.
>
> I told you it was theological.  ;-)
>
Be informed that you have committed the "Next Word" heresy. The TO
Inquisition will be scheduling your next appointment.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 14:55:32 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/27/24 2:41 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On 26/02/2024 11:31, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 10:11:45 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is going to sound more and more theological
>>>> but it isn't very clear that DIG reads in this
>>>> group at all.  That's the "if he's doing so now"
>>>> part.  And it's plausible that he has been using
>>>> Google Groups as a convenient reading and
>>>> statistics service.  We don't know.
>>>>
>>>> I don't /think/ he is offended by speculation on
>>>> this subject, but I don't want to push it too far.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, so you don't know if DIG's reading this froup at all, and you
>>> don't know if he's using GG, and you don't know if he's offended by
>>> speculation on the subject.  I suppose listing irrelevancies you don't
>>> know is one way to cease saying anything worthwhile.
>>
>> I told you it was theological.  ;-)
>>
>Be informed that you have committed the "Next Word" heresy. The TO
>Inquisition will be scheduling your next appointment.

More like the "First Word" heresy, to post something others thought it
better not to post.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23/02/2024 08:58, jillery wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 23:20:06 +0000, Robert Carnegie
> > <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 22/02/2024 14:01, jillery wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 23:13:24 +0000, Robert Carnegie
> >>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 19/02/2024 04:23, jillery wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:13:56 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 02:07:44 -0500, the following appeared
> >>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:24:42 -0800, erik simpson
> >>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I've no idea what DIG uses to read TO, or if he's doing so now. I
> >>>>>>>> assume he will still be the nominal "boss" if he so chooses.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> DIG?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> David Ian Greig, the t.o moderator (actually, the Keeper of
> >>>>>> the Moderator).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I presume even you understand my question isn't who is DIG, but how
> >>>>> Erik's reference to DIG informs the discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> DIG rarely uses the power to exclude people
> >>> >from talk.origins. People are here because
> >>>> DIG allows them to be.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Is that supposed to answer my question?
> >>
> >> Yes. The preceding remarks included the need
> >> to ban a few people. Over and over again,
> >> when necessary. And of such is the kingdom
> >> of DIG.
> >
> >
> > Really? My understanding is which newsreader DIG uses isn't relevant
> > to "the need to ban a few people". Apparently your mileage varies.
>
> This is going to sound more and more theological
> but it isn't very clear that DIG reads in this
> group at all. That's the "if he's doing so now"
> part. And it's plausible that he has been using
> Google Groups as a convenient reading and
> statistics service. We don't know.

Huh? DIG has direct access to the spool.
Why would he even think of reading back things that have gone out?

Jan

On 28/02/2024 12:58, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 23/02/2024 08:58, jillery wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 23:20:06 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/02/2024 14:01, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 23:13:24 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>>>>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19/02/2024 04:23, jillery wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:13:56 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 02:07:44 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:24:42 -0800, erik simpson
>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've no idea what DIG uses to read TO, or if he's doing so now. I
>>>>>>>>>> assume he will still be the nominal "boss" if he so chooses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DIG?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Ian Greig, the t.o moderator (actually, the Keeper of
>>>>>>>> the Moderator).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I presume even you understand my question isn't who is DIG, but how
>>>>>>> Erik's reference to DIG informs the discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DIG rarely uses the power to exclude people
>>>>> >from talk.origins. People are here because
>>>>>> DIG allows them to be.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that supposed to answer my question?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. The preceding remarks included the need
>>>> to ban a few people. Over and over again,
>>>> when necessary. And of such is the kingdom
>>>> of DIG.
>>>
>>>
>>> Really? My understanding is which newsreader DIG uses isn't relevant
>>> to "the need to ban a few people". Apparently your mileage varies.
>>
>> This is going to sound more and more theological
>> but it isn't very clear that DIG reads in this
>> group at all. That's the "if he's doing so now"
>> part. And it's plausible that he has been using
>> Google Groups as a convenient reading and
>> statistics service. We don't know.
>
> Huh? DIG has direct access to the spool.
> Why would he even think of reading back things that have gone out?

With newsgroup interface software, you can
read selectively. You can search for
particular text in messages. It may be not
!easy to do that on the server side -
though it isn't necessarily hard to feed
the messages to your own news server.

I am committing theological speculation,
as I say. I believe that DIG does not
personally see most of what is posted in
t.o. DIG rarely posts himself. When he
does, that is likely to reveal what he is
posting with, and possibly reading with.
There may be two different answers to two
questions. I haven't investigated, and
I do not see another regular coming forward
to say that DIG is known to favour,
Say, NZBGet.

I think we are not meant to know.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 28/02/2024 12:58, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 23/02/2024 08:58, jillery wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 23:20:06 +0000, Robert Carnegie
> >>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 22/02/2024 14:01, jillery wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 23:13:24 +0000, Robert Carnegie
> >>>>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 19/02/2024 04:23, jillery wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:13:56 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 02:07:44 -0500, the following appeared
> >>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:24:42 -0800, erik simpson
> >>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I've no idea what DIG uses to read TO, or if he's doing so now. I
> >>>>>>>>>> assume he will still be the nominal "boss" if he so chooses.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> DIG?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> David Ian Greig, the t.o moderator (actually, the Keeper of
> >>>>>>>> the Moderator).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I presume even you understand my question isn't who is DIG, but how
> >>>>>>> Erik's reference to DIG informs the discussion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DIG rarely uses the power to exclude people
> >>>>> >from talk.origins. People are here because
> >>>>>> DIG allows them to be.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is that supposed to answer my question?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. The preceding remarks included the need
> >>>> to ban a few people. Over and over again,
> >>>> when necessary. And of such is the kingdom
> >>>> of DIG.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Really? My understanding is which newsreader DIG uses isn't relevant
> >>> to "the need to ban a few people". Apparently your mileage varies.
> >>
> >> This is going to sound more and more theological
> >> but it isn't very clear that DIG reads in this
> >> group at all. That's the "if he's doing so now"
> >> part. And it's plausible that he has been using
> >> Google Groups as a convenient reading and
> >> statistics service. We don't know.
> >
> > Huh? DIG has direct access to the spool.
> > Why would he even think of reading back things that have gone out?
>
> With newsgroup interface software, you can
> read selectively. You can search for
> particular text in messages. It may be not
> !easy to do that on the server side -
> though it isn't necessarily hard to feed
> the messages to your own news server.
>
> I am committing theological speculation,
> as I say. I believe that DIG does not
> personally see most of what is posted in
> t.o. DIG rarely posts himself. When he
> does, that is likely to reveal what he is
> posting with, and possibly reading with.
> There may be two different answers to two
> questions. I haven't investigated, and
> I do not see another regular coming forward
> to say that DIG is known to favour,
> Say, NZBGet.
>
> I think we are not meant to know.

DIG has used both Google and AIOE for testing purposes.
Usually his test postings are injected directly at Ediacara,

Jan

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/02/2024 12:58, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/02/2024 08:58, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 23:20:06 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>>>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22/02/2024 14:01, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 23:13:24 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>>>>>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19/02/2024 04:23, jillery wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:13:56 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 02:07:44 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:24:42 -0800, erik simpson
>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've no idea what DIG uses to read TO, or if he's doing so now. I
>>>>>>>>>>> assume he will still be the nominal "boss" if he so chooses.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DIG?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David Ian Greig, the t.o moderator (actually, the Keeper of
>>>>>>>>> the Moderator).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I presume even you understand my question isn't who is DIG, but how
>>>>>>>> Erik's reference to DIG informs the discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DIG rarely uses the power to exclude people
>>>>>>> from talk.origins. People are here because
>>>>>>> DIG allows them to be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that supposed to answer my question?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. The preceding remarks included the need
>>>>> to ban a few people. Over and over again,
>>>>> when necessary. And of such is the kingdom
>>>>> of DIG.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? My understanding is which newsreader DIG uses isn't relevant
>>>> to "the need to ban a few people". Apparently your mileage varies.
>>>
>>> This is going to sound more and more theological
>>> but it isn't very clear that DIG reads in this
>>> group at all. That's the "if he's doing so now"
>>> part. And it's plausible that he has been using
>>> Google Groups as a convenient reading and
>>> statistics service. We don't know.
>>
>> Huh? DIG has direct access to the spool.
>> Why would he even think of reading back things that have gone out?
>
> With newsgroup interface software, you can
> read selectively. You can search for
> particular text in messages. It may be not
> !easy to do that on the server side -
> though it isn't necessarily hard to feed
> the messages to your own news server.
>
> I am committing theological speculation,
> as I say. I believe that DIG does not
> personally see most of what is posted in
> t.o. DIG rarely posts himself. When he
> does, that is likely to reveal what he is
> posting with, and possibly reading with.
> There may be two different answers to two
> questions. I haven't investigated, and
> I do not see another regular coming forward
> to say that DIG is known to favour,
> Say, NZBGet.
>
> I think we are not meant to know.
>
Whenever DIG checks the server software and applies an update he usually
makes testing comments so one could check his headers if so inclined. My
guess is he’s using some arcane old school reader like slrn. I know Beagle
is based on a Berkeley Software Distribution platform but maybe also
clouded on AWS. That’s not super relevant to the newsreader DIG uses which
is verging on fans acquiring the sneaker brand preferred by some NBA
hotshot.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:52:52 +0100
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 28/02/2024 12:58, J. J. Lodder wrote:

[dunno too deep]

> > >>>> Yes. The preceding remarks included the need
> > >>>> to ban a few people. Over and over again,
> > >>>> when necessary. And of such is the kingdom
> > >>>> of DIG.
[]
> >
> > I think we are not meant to know.
>
> DIG has used both Google and AIOE for testing purposes.
> Usually his test postings are injected directly at Ediacara,
>

I managed to sneak in without any particular problem.
Maybe there's not a lot of posts getting rejected?

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:52:52 +0100
> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 28/02/2024 12:58, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>
>
> [dunno too deep]
>
> > > >>>> Yes. The preceding remarks included the need
> > > >>>> to ban a few people. Over and over again,
> > > >>>> when necessary. And of such is the kingdom
> > > >>>> of DIG.
> []
> > >
> > > I think we are not meant to know.
> >
> > DIG has used both Google and AIOE for testing purposes.
> > Usually his test postings are injected directly at Ediacara,
> >
>
> I managed to sneak in without any particular problem.
> Maybe there's not a lot of posts getting rejected?

Nothing gets ever rejected to begin with.
The group is bot-moderated against posters, not against posts.
You, and all your posts with you, get rejected only
when you manage to hit DIG's irogenenic zones hard enough
to generate sufficient ire to get him to program the bot
to kill you.
Few people have ever succeeded in doing that.
BTW, nym-shifting to avoid kill-files is forbidden.
IIRC someone, that is, all of him,
did succeed in getting banned for this reason.

Nando succeeded in getting banned once,
by flaunting a direct order, but even he is back again,
under two nyms even,

Jan

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:52:52 +0100
>> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28/02/2024 12:58, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> [dunno too deep]
>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. The preceding remarks included the need
>>>>>>>> to ban a few people. Over and over again,
>>>>>>>> when necessary. And of such is the kingdom
>>>>>>>> of DIG.
>> []
>>>>
>>>> I think we are not meant to know.
>>>
>>> DIG has used both Google and AIOE for testing purposes.
>>> Usually his test postings are injected directly at Ediacara,
>>>
>>
>> I managed to sneak in without any particular problem.
>> Maybe there's not a lot of posts getting rejected?
>
> Nothing gets ever rejected to begin with.
> The group is bot-moderated against posters, not against posts.
> You, and all your posts with you, get rejected only
> when you manage to hit DIG's irogenenic zones hard enough
> to generate sufficient ire to get him to program the bot
> to kill you.
> Few people have ever succeeded in doing that.
> BTW, nym-shifting to avoid kill-files is forbidden.
> IIRC someone, that is, all of him,
> did succeed in getting banned for this reason.
>
> Nando succeeded in getting banned once,
> by flaunting a direct order, but even he is back again,
> under two nyms even,
>
Yeah I think it takes a lot to raise DIG’s hackles. Didn’t jonathan the
complexity guy try and maybe succeed at suicide by moderator? Jabriol,
Prawnster, and DrDr stand out as rare occurrences if my memory is correct.

On 3/13/24 6:33 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>> Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:52:52 +0100
>>> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 28/02/2024 12:58, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [dunno too deep]
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes. The preceding remarks included the need
>>>>>>>>> to ban a few people. Over and over again,
>>>>>>>>> when necessary. And of such is the kingdom
>>>>>>>>> of DIG.
>>> []
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we are not meant to know.
>>>>
>>>> DIG has used both Google and AIOE for testing purposes.
>>>> Usually his test postings are injected directly at Ediacara,
>>>>
>>>
>>> I managed to sneak in without any particular problem.
>>> Maybe there's not a lot of posts getting rejected?
>>
>> Nothing gets ever rejected to begin with.
>> The group is bot-moderated against posters, not against posts.
>> You, and all your posts with you, get rejected only
>> when you manage to hit DIG's irogenenic zones hard enough
>> to generate sufficient ire to get him to program the bot
>> to kill you.
>> Few people have ever succeeded in doing that.
>> BTW, nym-shifting to avoid kill-files is forbidden.
>> IIRC someone, that is, all of him,
>> did succeed in getting banned for this reason.
>>
>> Nando succeeded in getting banned once,
>> by flaunting a direct order, but even he is back again,
>> under two nyms even,
>>
> Yeah I think it takes a lot to raise DIG’s hackles. Didn’t jonathan the
> complexity guy try and maybe succeed at suicide by moderator? Jabriol,
> Prawnster, and DrDr stand out as rare occurrences if my memory is correct.
>
Don't forget Garry Denke and his many emanations.

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:52:52 +0100
> >> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 28/02/2024 12:58, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [dunno too deep]
> >>
> >>>>>>>> Yes. The preceding remarks included the need
> >>>>>>>> to ban a few people. Over and over again,
> >>>>>>>> when necessary. And of such is the kingdom
> >>>>>>>> of DIG.
> >> []
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we are not meant to know.
> >>>
> >>> DIG has used both Google and AIOE for testing purposes.
> >>> Usually his test postings are injected directly at Ediacara,
> >>>
> >>
> >> I managed to sneak in without any particular problem.
> >> Maybe there's not a lot of posts getting rejected?
> >
> > Nothing gets ever rejected to begin with.
> > The group is bot-moderated against posters, not against posts.
> > You, and all your posts with you, get rejected only
> > when you manage to hit DIG's irogenenic zones hard enough
> > to generate sufficient ire to get him to program the bot
> > to kill you.
> > Few people have ever succeeded in doing that.
> > BTW, nym-shifting to avoid kill-files is forbidden.
> > IIRC someone, that is, all of him,
> > did succeed in getting banned for this reason.
> >
> > Nando succeeded in getting banned once,
> > by flaunting a direct order, but even he is back again,
> > under two nyms even,
> >
> Yeah I think it takes a lot to raise DIG's hackles. Didn't jonathan the
> complexity guy try and maybe succeed at suicide by moderator? Jabriol,
> Prawnster, and DrDr stand out as rare occurrences if my memory is correct.

Now that you mention it, yes, iirc deliberately starting
a hundred or so off-topic threads, and going on with it repeatedly
after several warnings, was too much,

Jan

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 01:33:09 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:

>J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>> Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:52:52 +0100
>>> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 28/02/2024 12:58, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [dunno too deep]
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes. The preceding remarks included the need
>>>>>>>>> to ban a few people. Over and over again,
>>>>>>>>> when necessary. And of such is the kingdom
>>>>>>>>> of DIG.
>>> []
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we are not meant to know.
>>>>
>>>> DIG has used both Google and AIOE for testing purposes.
>>>> Usually his test postings are injected directly at Ediacara,
>>>>
>>>
>>> I managed to sneak in without any particular problem.
>>> Maybe there's not a lot of posts getting rejected?
>>
>> Nothing gets ever rejected to begin with.
>> The group is bot-moderated against posters, not against posts.
>> You, and all your posts with you, get rejected only
>> when you manage to hit DIG's irogenenic zones hard enough
>> to generate sufficient ire to get him to program the bot
>> to kill you.
>> Few people have ever succeeded in doing that.
>> BTW, nym-shifting to avoid kill-files is forbidden.
>> IIRC someone, that is, all of him,
>> did succeed in getting banned for this reason.
>>
>> Nando succeeded in getting banned once,
>> by flaunting a direct order, but even he is back again,
>> under two nyms even,
>>
>Yeah I think it takes a lot to raise DIG’s hackles. Didn’t jonathan the
>complexity guy try and maybe succeed at suicide by moderator? Jabriol,
>Prawnster, and DrDr stand out as rare occurrences if my memory is correct.
>
True, but only Jabbers has the distinction (AFAIK) of being
banned at the specific request of another newsgroup; a rape
support group IIRC. If you look up "a real piece of work"
you'll see Jabber's picture.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov