[KC4UAI]

On Mar 8, 10:32 am, wrote:
On 8 Mar 2007 08:30:58 -0800, "KC4UAI" wrote:

On Mar 6, 8:04 pm, John Smith I wrote:
To Whom It May Concern:

Following is a message taken from RRAM. My REJECTED response to that
message. And, a message from the automaton on WHY the message was rejected.
snip
Your message has been rejected because you posted into a thread that had
strayed off topic and was closed by the moderators. All messages from
all posters, posted to this thread, are autorejected, and this rejection
does not single you out in any way.

Please read the charter of rec.radio.amateur.moderated at:

http://www.panix.com/~rram/usenet/rram/index.html

Please direct any queries to .
snip

John,

So your message was rejected because the thread was closed.... I don't
see a problem with that.

interesting the that he was not old this


You mean he was not told this in "advance" because the e-mail he
quoted clearly says that the thread was closed and that was why his
post was automatically rejected. Which is part of what I didn't snip
out of the original message.


If you do, please appeal the decision and it will be reviewed by the
board, who are not involved in any of the day to day moderation
decisions.

and frankly this alowing one insult in then closing the thread is
pretty lame


I don't understand what "insult" you are talking about. Closing a
thread is a valid moderation decision when the thread starts drifting
off the original poster's topic. This does cause the rejection of
otherwise acceptable posts automatically, which is what seems to be
the case here but that does not mean it's improper.

Again, review by the board is the method posters can use to effect
changes in the moderation practice and force better coordination in
the policy used by all the moderators. Individually we are not above
making mistakes or having differences of opinion about what is
acceptable but we can and do discuss various decisions that are close
to the line. We routinely discuss these issues as a group and we
routinely are asking each other about posts that are considered
questionable.

So.. If you think something was rejected for a bad reason.. Try to
edit your submission and make it acceptable, use the appeals process
or simply move on and forget it.

-= bob =-

[KH6HZ]

"KC4UAI" wrote:

You mean he was not told this in "advance" because the e-mail he
quoted clearly says that the thread was closed and that was why his
post was automatically rejected. Which is part of what I didn't snip
out of the original message.

To be fair to John, though, it would appear the thread was only alive for 2
days. The first post on 3/4 at 12:49, the last post 3/6 1:07pm.

Is 49 hours a legitimate amount of time to allow a thread to be alive in any
newsgroup, given USENET message propagation characteristics?

I would probably side with John on this one, personally. Unless you're
talking about a thread which has a certain timeliness (i.e. announcing a
special event this weekend and it is currently Thursday) it would seem a
thread should be open for discussion longer than 49 hours.

73
kh6hz

[Dee Flint]

"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"KC4UAI" wrote:

You mean he was not told this in "advance" because the e-mail he
quoted clearly says that the thread was closed and that was why his
post was automatically rejected. Which is part of what I didn't snip
out of the original message.

To be fair to John, though, it would appear the thread was only alive for
2 days. The first post on 3/4 at 12:49, the last post 3/6 1:07pm.

Is 49 hours a legitimate amount of time to allow a thread to be alive in
any newsgroup, given USENET message propagation characteristics?

I would probably side with John on this one, personally. Unless you're
talking about a thread which has a certain timeliness (i.e. announcing a
special event this weekend and it is currently Thursday) it would seem a
thread should be open for discussion longer than 49 hours.

73
kh6hz


I was told by one of the moderators that there seems to be some type of
issue that causes this rejection when the thread gets too long or too deeply
nested.

I've suggested that they have it autopost a final message when a thread is
closed so that we know to simply start anew.

Dee, N8UZE

[Bob Brock]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 18:14:58 -0500, "Dee Flint"
wrote:


"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"KC4UAI" wrote:

You mean he was not told this in "advance" because the e-mail he
quoted clearly says that the thread was closed and that was why his
post was automatically rejected. Which is part of what I didn't snip
out of the original message.

To be fair to John, though, it would appear the thread was only alive for
2 days. The first post on 3/4 at 12:49, the last post 3/6 1:07pm.

Is 49 hours a legitimate amount of time to allow a thread to be alive in
any newsgroup, given USENET message propagation characteristics?

I would probably side with John on this one, personally. Unless you're
talking about a thread which has a certain timeliness (i.e. announcing a
special event this weekend and it is currently Thursday) it would seem a
thread should be open for discussion longer than 49 hours.

73
kh6hz


I was told by one of the moderators that there seems to be some type of
issue that causes this rejection when the thread gets too long or too deeply
nested.

I've suggested that they have it autopost a final message when a thread is
closed so that we know to simply start anew.

ROTFLMAO

One can readily tell that band space is a problem in the ng with all
the posting going on over there.

[Bob Brock]

On 8 Mar 2007 12:28:06 -0800, "KC4UAI" wrote:



or simply move on and forget it.

I predict that there will be a lot of that going on over there for
awhile.