Re: Network modules

[Keith Thompson]

InuY4sha <inuy4sha@gmail .comwrites:
[...]

Indeed I got an answer (and a good one), and I don't think that this
post can damage the NG more than any other spam message (I see
thounsands in this NG).

If your standard is "no more damaging than spam", you should re-think
your criteria.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) <kst-u@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: Network modules

In article <874pa48lkp.fsf @kvetch.smov.or g>,
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.orgwrote:

>InuY4sha <inuy4sha@gmail .comwrites:
>[...]

>Indeed I got an answer (and a good one), and I don't think that this
>post can damage the NG more than any other spam message (I see
>thounsands in this NG).

>
>If your standard is "no more damaging than spam", you should re-think
>your criteria.

The OP's point is that it would be a Good Thing if the "regs" could just
silently ignore stuff they don't like (because it offends their sense of
"on-topic-ness") the same way they (quite successfully) silently ignore
the (other) spam.

That they don't/can't, shows their hypocrisy.