On Mar 26, 7:34 pm, "Chris" wrote:
On 26 Mar 2007 16:20:33 -0700, an_old_asshole wrote:


nope nothing says I may not unintetnional dispurt a NG

Everyone - including Hughes - says you may NOT intentionally disrupt
Usenet and keep on doing business with them.

agreed but what is your point? I do not intentionaly disruprt USENET
some disruption does occour as an incidental result result of my
exercising legitmate self defence

you are arguing that if a Ham unintentional does interfer with another
ham that is automaticaly jamming

such dispurtion as a ocours mby action is inecedental to the primary
goal

Dloyd has admited he has delieberatly provoked the response the
intentional disruptor of the NG is therefore Dloyd who on his blog
threatens further action if I do not exceed to his demands