ATTN plus.net: ABUSIVE USER!

Attention plus.net:

One of your users is committing VERBAL SEXUAL ASSAULT and claims it is
authorized under plus.net's Terms Of Service.

The offending message can be found here:

<http://groups.google.com/group/news....msg/3dcdeb5182
48b8bb?dmode=source&hl=en>

In this message your user implies that plus.net approves of this action:

<http://groups.google.com/group/news....msg/bda4a7ebac
684513?dmode=source&hl=en>

How can plus.net tolerate blatant threats of rape?

A copy of this complaint is also being sent to the plus.net abuse
address.

My last message contained an incorrect link, these are correct.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:28:56 GMT, Organic Gloomrider wrote:

>The offending message can be found here:

YPB?

--
Nigel M

Organic Gloomrider <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Attention plus.net:
>
> One of your users is committing VERBAL SEXUAL ASSAULT and claims it is
> authorized under plus.net's Terms Of Service.
>
> The offending message can be found here:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/news....msg/3dcdeb5182
> 48b8bb?dmode=source&hl=en>
>
> In this message your user implies that plus.net approves of this action:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/news....msg/bda4a7ebac
> 684513?dmode=source&hl=en>
>
> How can plus.net tolerate blatant threats of rape?

I thought a message without blatant threats of rape contravened the charter
for news.admin.net-abuse.email.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:28:56 GMT, in uk.telecom.broadband , Organic
Gloomrider <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>Attention plus.net:

and why are you posting this to UKTB? Clown.

Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:28:56 GMT, in uk.telecom.broadband , Organic
> Gloomrider <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>Attention plus.net:
>
>
> and why are you posting this to UKTB? Clown.
>

Because they are a UK telecom company and their abuse people read
here, asshat.

--

Oh, you are out of your rabbid assed mind.- KJK

On 19 Dec 2005, WindsorFox <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>their abuse people read here

perhaps in the past, but as there has been a switch in direction that
may no longer be the case, so you're probably wasting your time.

Ian Stirling <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:43a72287$0$82673$(E-Mail Removed):

> I thought a message without blatant threats of rape contravened the
> charter for news.admin.net-abuse.email.

It might do however looking at the posts linked to (of which only one was
posted via PlusNet) it just looks like a stupid flame war. If an ISP was
require to get involved everytime some halfwit got his/her nickers in a
twist They could probably employ half the country in their abuse department
and those costs would have to go somewhere..

--
Colin
*Drop DEAD from the email address to reply*

cw <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Ian Stirling <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:43a72287$0$82673$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> I thought a message without blatant threats of rape contravened the
>> charter for news.admin.net-abuse.email.
>
> It might do however looking at the posts linked to (of which only one was
> posted via PlusNet) it just looks like a stupid flame war. If an ISP was
> require to get involved everytime some halfwit got his/her nickers in a
> twist They could probably employ half the country in their abuse department
> and those costs would have to go somewhere..

I have in the past suggested a prisoner moderated usenet.
You have several prisoners voting on each article if it's spam/UCE
or not.

Ian Stirling wrote


> I have in the past suggested a prisoner moderated usenet.
> You have several prisoners voting on each article if it's spam/UCE
> or not.
>


Cunt

In uk.telecom.broadband MinusNet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Ian Stirling wrote
>
>
>> I have in the past suggested a prisoner moderated usenet.
>> You have several prisoners voting on each article if it's spam/UCE
>> or not.

> Cunt

On the whole, I'm in favour of them.