got it wrong

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:34:14 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:51:23 +1030, David
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:39:14 -0800 (PST), ricky-livid
typed furiously:

pedophiles only want the AOC changed so they can get into the pants of
kids legally, they don't give a ****ing damn about kids!

That is where you are wrong. I am very concerned that, particularly in
the US, AOC laws are increasingly being used to prosecute those whom
the laws are supposed to protect. This includes the case where two
thirteen year old children who had consensual sex with each other were
BOTH charged and convicted of statutory rape of the other participant.
BOTH are now required to register as sex offenders for the rest of
their life.

While I, personally, have no interest in pursuing a relationship with
anyone at the moment it could happen. I like to think that I am mature
enough to not want a relationship with someone who is immature either
physically or mentally.

For most folk having sex with a child is not something they " like to
think" would not happen.

This, of course, means that I do not fit the
correct definition of paedophile or even the incorrect definition
promulgated by the press.

You think adults having sex with children is just fine if the child
"wants it".

That can depend rather on your definition of child. Do you mean
pre-pubescent, post-pubescent, under the age of consent or under the
age of majority? It would help if you were to define your terms. I
certainly think that it should be the child who decides, not you nor
some politician or religious nutter in an ivory tower who has
forgoptten all about being a child or has been so brainwashed as to
think they know better.

You think fathers ****ing their daughters equally just fine if the
child "wants it"

When have I ever said that? Produce proof of your allegation. I have
stated that, after any participants reach the age of majority, it is
their business and none of the state's business providing that no
coercion is involved.

You argue perpetually against pedophiles changing their ways
and for adult/child sex relationships.

I argue that YOU define paedophile incorrectly by equating them with
child molesters.

I argue that the child should have the defining role in choosing
whether a sexual, or any relationship, should go ahead.

I have never advocated freedom for adults, they already have that as
regards relationships. Coercion of a child of any age is unacceptable.

You argue vehemently against the very idea that incest victims should
break away from the parents who abuse them and decry the very idea of
pedophile's victims, or incestor's victims receiving therapy for their
sexual abuse,even going as far as to suggest it's harmful for children
to disclose their ongoing sexual abuse.

Citation required. I have stated that, in many cases, I believe that
more harm is caused by the over-reaction of adults who find out. The
hysteria, demonstrated amply by your rants, and the shame and guilt
imposed by society on these events increases the pressure on the
children. If society were more accepting then there would be less
trauma involved and less need to separate willing collaborators who
consent to the acts.

It is coercion in any shape, size or form that is wrong. You are
trying to coerce everyone to accept your views.

Now just what do you think that makes you in the eyes of normal folk?

Sane.
--
Regards
David
fundamentalism (n.): fund = give cash to; amentalism = brainlessness

On 20 Jan 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.incest and heard
David cry out in ...

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:34:14 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:51:23 +1030, David
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:39:14 -0800 (PST), ricky-livid
typed furiously:

pedophiles only want the AOC changed so they can get into the pants
of kids legally, they don't give a ****ing damn about kids!

That is where you are wrong. I am very concerned that, particularly
in the US, AOC laws are increasingly being used to prosecute those
whom the laws are supposed to protect. This includes the case where
two thirteen year old children who had consensual sex with each other
were BOTH charged and convicted of statutory rape of the other
participant. BOTH are now required to register as sex offenders for
the rest of their life.

While I, personally, have no interest in pursuing a relationship with
anyone at the moment it could happen. I like to think that I am
mature enough to not want a relationship with someone who is immature
either physically or mentally.

For most folk having sex with a child is not something they " like to
think" would not happen.

This, of course, means that I do not fit the
correct definition of paedophile or even the incorrect definition
promulgated by the press.

You think adults having sex with children is just fine if the child
"wants it".

That can depend rather on your definition of child. Do you mean
pre-pubescent, post-pubescent, under the age of consent or under the
age of majority? It would help if you were to define your terms. I
certainly think that it should be the child who decides, not you nor
some politician or religious nutter in an ivory tower who has
forgoptten all about being a child or has been so brainwashed as to
think they know better.

You think fathers ****ing their daughters equally just fine if the
child "wants it"

When have I ever said that? Produce proof of your allegation. I have
stated that, after any participants reach the age of majority, it is
their business and none of the state's business providing that no
coercion is involved.

You have also said that sodomizing your child "can be" good parenting.







You argue perpetually against pedophiles changing their ways
and for adult/child sex relationships.

I argue that YOU define paedophile incorrectly by equating them with
child molesters.

I argue that the child should have the defining role in choosing
whether a sexual, or any relationship, should go ahead.

I have never advocated freedom for adults, they already have that as
regards relationships. Coercion of a child of any age is unacceptable.

You argue vehemently against the very idea that incest victims should
break away from the parents who abuse them and decry the very idea of
pedophile's victims, or incestor's victims receiving therapy for their
sexual abuse,even going as far as to suggest it's harmful for children
to disclose their ongoing sexual abuse.

Citation required. I have stated that, in many cases, I believe that
more harm is caused by the over-reaction of adults who find out. The
hysteria, demonstrated amply by your rants, and the shame and guilt
imposed by society on these events increases the pressure on the
children. If society were more accepting then there would be less
trauma involved and less need to separate willing collaborators who
consent to the acts.

It is coercion in any shape, size or form that is wrong. You are
trying to coerce everyone to accept your views.

Now just what do you think that makes you in the eyes of normal folk?

Sane.



--
ThePsyko
Public Enemy #7

******ing off the planet, one person at a time**

On 20 Jan 2008 18:19:04 GMT, ThePsyko
typed furiously:

On 20 Jan 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.incest and heard
David cry out in ...

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:34:14 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:51:23 +1030, David
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:39:14 -0800 (PST), ricky-livid
typed furiously:

pedophiles only want the AOC changed so they can get into the pants
of kids legally, they don't give a ****ing damn about kids!

That is where you are wrong. I am very concerned that, particularly
in the US, AOC laws are increasingly being used to prosecute those
whom the laws are supposed to protect. This includes the case where
two thirteen year old children who had consensual sex with each other
were BOTH charged and convicted of statutory rape of the other
participant. BOTH are now required to register as sex offenders for
the rest of their life.

While I, personally, have no interest in pursuing a relationship with
anyone at the moment it could happen. I like to think that I am
mature enough to not want a relationship with someone who is immature
either physically or mentally.

For most folk having sex with a child is not something they " like to
think" would not happen.

This, of course, means that I do not fit the
correct definition of paedophile or even the incorrect definition
promulgated by the press.

You think adults having sex with children is just fine if the child
"wants it".

That can depend rather on your definition of child. Do you mean
pre-pubescent, post-pubescent, under the age of consent or under the
age of majority? It would help if you were to define your terms. I
certainly think that it should be the child who decides, not you nor
some politician or religious nutter in an ivory tower who has
forgoptten all about being a child or has been so brainwashed as to
think they know better.

You think fathers ****ing their daughters equally just fine if the
child "wants it"

When have I ever said that? Produce proof of your allegation. I have
stated that, after any participants reach the age of majority, it is
their business and none of the state's business providing that no
coercion is involved.

You have also said that sodomizing your child "can be" good parenting.

In very limited circumstances only as was made clear in the original
post. That you do not choose to include a citation you are obviously
trying to make a point out of context.
--
Regards
David
fundamentalism (n.): fund = give cash to; amentalism = brainlessness

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:01:14 +1030, David
wrote:

On 20 Jan 2008 18:19:04 GMT, ThePsyko
typed furiously:

On 20 Jan 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.incest and heard
David cry out in ...

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:34:14 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:51:23 +1030, David
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:39:14 -0800 (PST), ricky-livid
typed furiously:

pedophiles only want the AOC changed so they can get into the pants
of kids legally, they don't give a ****ing damn about kids!

That is where you are wrong. I am very concerned that, particularly
in the US, AOC laws are increasingly being used to prosecute those
whom the laws are supposed to protect. This includes the case where
two thirteen year old children who had consensual sex with each other
were BOTH charged and convicted of statutory rape of the other
participant. BOTH are now required to register as sex offenders for
the rest of their life.

While I, personally, have no interest in pursuing a relationship with
anyone at the moment it could happen. I like to think that I am
mature enough to not want a relationship with someone who is immature
either physically or mentally.

For most folk having sex with a child is not something they " like to
think" would not happen.

This, of course, means that I do not fit the
correct definition of paedophile or even the incorrect definition
promulgated by the press.

You think adults having sex with children is just fine if the child
"wants it".

That can depend rather on your definition of child. Do you mean
pre-pubescent, post-pubescent, under the age of consent or under the
age of majority? It would help if you were to define your terms. I
certainly think that it should be the child who decides, not you nor
some politician or religious nutter in an ivory tower who has
forgoptten all about being a child or has been so brainwashed as to
think they know better.

You think fathers ****ing their daughters equally just fine if the
child "wants it"

When have I ever said that? Produce proof of your allegation. I have
stated that, after any participants reach the age of majority, it is
their business and none of the state's business providing that no
coercion is involved.

You have also said that sodomizing your child "can be" good parenting.

In very limited circumstances only as was made clear in the original
post. That you do not choose to include a citation you are obviously
trying to make a point out of context.

Fascinating...

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to under just *what* circumstances
sodomizing your children is "good parenting"?
---------------------------
Quite obviously when the kid wants to, and when he would be wanting
to butt-**** his brother and vice-versa. Your use of "sodomize"
is distortionist because it's a loaded term. Anal intercourse is what
people do when they would enjoy it, it is NOT any kind of rape.
Steve

On 20 Jan 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.boy-lovers and
heard Brandon D Cartwright cry out in
...

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:01:14 +1030, David
wrote:

On 20 Jan 2008 18:19:04 GMT, ThePsyko
typed furiously:

On 20 Jan 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.incest and
heard David cry out in
...

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:34:14 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:51:23 +1030, David
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:39:14 -0800 (PST), ricky-livid
typed furiously:

pedophiles only want the AOC changed so they can get into the
pants of kids legally, they don't give a ****ing damn about kids!

That is where you are wrong. I am very concerned that,
particularly in the US, AOC laws are increasingly being used to
prosecute those whom the laws are supposed to protect. This
includes the case where two thirteen year old children who had
consensual sex with each other were BOTH charged and convicted of
statutory rape of the other participant. BOTH are now required to
register as sex offenders for the rest of their life.

While I, personally, have no interest in pursuing a relationship
with anyone at the moment it could happen. I like to think that I
am mature enough to not want a relationship with someone who is
immature either physically or mentally.

For most folk having sex with a child is not something they " like
to think" would not happen.

This, of course, means that I do not fit the
correct definition of paedophile or even the incorrect definition
promulgated by the press.

You think adults having sex with children is just fine if the child
"wants it".

That can depend rather on your definition of child. Do you mean
pre-pubescent, post-pubescent, under the age of consent or under
the age of majority? It would help if you were to define your
terms. I certainly think that it should be the child who decides,
not you nor some politician or religious nutter in an ivory tower
who has forgoptten all about being a child or has been so
brainwashed as to think they know better.

You think fathers ****ing their daughters equally just fine if the
child "wants it"

When have I ever said that? Produce proof of your allegation. I
have stated that, after any participants reach the age of majority,
it is their business and none of the state's business providing
that no coercion is involved.

You have also said that sodomizing your child "can be" good
parenting.

In very limited circumstances only as was made clear in the original
post. That you do not choose to include a citation you are obviously
trying to make a point out of context.

Fascinating...

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to under just *what* circumstances
sodomizing your children is "good parenting"?

You'll note, of course, that he has neglected to respond to this. Or
the other requests for clarification. Considering he quite obviously
reads every response to his posts that you make, I find it highly
unlikely that he happened to miss this question more than once...



--
ThePsyko
Public Enemy #7

******ing off the planet, one person at a time**

On 20 Jan 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.boy-lovers and
heard David cry out in
...

Path:
authen.yellow.readfreenews.net!green.octanews.net! news-out.octanews.net
!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp .giganews.com!newsfee
d.iinet.net.au!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!per-qv1-newsstorage1.iinet.net.au!
per-qv1-newsstorage1.iinet.net.au!per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au!no
t-for-mail From: David
Newsgroups:
alt.support.boy-lovers,alt.support.incest,alt.support.girl-lovers,alt.p
arenting.solutions Subject: got it wrong
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:01:14 +1030
Organization: Anywhere but loose 5
Message-ID:
References:





X-Newsreader: Forte
Agent 4.2/32.1118 X-No-Archive: no
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 66
NNTP-Posting-Host: 124.171.108.127
X-Trace: 1200871874 per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au 17188
124.171.108.127 Xref: authen.yellow.readfreenews.net
alt.support.boy-lovers:171759 alt.support.incest:20634
alt.support.girl-lovers:18156 alt.parenting.solutions:353565

On 20 Jan 2008 18:19:04 GMT, ThePsyko
typed furiously:

On 20 Jan 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.incest and
heard David cry out in
. ..

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:34:14 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:51:23 +1030, David
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:39:14 -0800 (PST), ricky-livid
typed furiously:

pedophiles only want the AOC changed so they can get into the
pants of kids legally, they don't give a ****ing damn about kids!

That is where you are wrong. I am very concerned that, particularly
in the US, AOC laws are increasingly being used to prosecute those
whom the laws are supposed to protect. This includes the case where
two thirteen year old children who had consensual sex with each
other were BOTH charged and convicted of statutory rape of the
other participant. BOTH are now required to register as sex
offenders for the rest of their life.

While I, personally, have no interest in pursuing a relationship
with anyone at the moment it could happen. I like to think that I
am mature enough to not want a relationship with someone who is
immature either physically or mentally.

For most folk having sex with a child is not something they " like
to think" would not happen.

This, of course, means that I do not fit the
correct definition of paedophile or even the incorrect definition
promulgated by the press.

You think adults having sex with children is just fine if the child
"wants it".

That can depend rather on your definition of child. Do you mean
pre-pubescent, post-pubescent, under the age of consent or under the
age of majority? It would help if you were to define your terms. I
certainly think that it should be the child who decides, not you nor
some politician or religious nutter in an ivory tower who has
forgoptten all about being a child or has been so brainwashed as to
think they know better.

You think fathers ****ing their daughters equally just fine if the
child "wants it"

When have I ever said that? Produce proof of your allegation. I have
stated that, after any participants reach the age of majority, it is
their business and none of the state's business providing that no
coercion is involved.

You have also said that sodomizing your child "can be" good parenting.

In very limited circumstances only as was made clear in the original
post. That you do not choose to include a citation you are obviously
trying to make a point out of context.
--
Regards
David
fundamentalism (n.): fund = give cash to; amentalism = brainlessness


just saving this post since Google says it is set to expire

That would explain where all your posts are disappearing to

--
ThePsyko
Public Enemy #7

******ing off the planet, one person at a time**

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:56:08 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On 24 Jan 2008 22:54:51 GMT, ThePsyko
wrote:

On 20 Jan 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.boy-lovers and
heard David cry out in
. ..

Path:
authen.yellow.readfreenews.net!green.octanews.net! news-out.octanews.net
!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp .giganews.com!newsfee
d.iinet.net.au!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!per-qv1-newsstorage1.iinet.net.au!
per-qv1-newsstorage1.iinet.net.au!per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au!no
t-for-mail From: David
Newsgroups:
alt.support.boy-lovers,alt.support.incest,alt.support.girl-lovers,alt.p
arenting.solutions Subject: got it wrong
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:01:14 +1030
Organization: Anywhere but loose 5
Message-ID:
References:





X-Newsreader: Forte
Agent 4.2/32.1118 X-No-Archive: no
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 66
NNTP-Posting-Host: 124.171.108.127
X-Trace: 1200871874 per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au 17188
124.171.108.127 Xref: authen.yellow.readfreenews.net
alt.support.boy-lovers:171759 alt.support.incest:20634
alt.support.girl-lovers:18156 alt.parenting.solutions:353565

On 20 Jan 2008 18:19:04 GMT, ThePsyko
typed furiously:

On 20 Jan 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.incest and
heard David cry out in
m...

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:34:14 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:51:23 +1030, David
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:39:14 -0800 (PST), ricky-livid
typed furiously:

pedophiles only want the AOC changed so they can get into the
pants of kids legally, they don't give a ****ing damn about kids!

That is where you are wrong. I am very concerned that, particularly
in the US, AOC laws are increasingly being used to prosecute those
whom the laws are supposed to protect. This includes the case where
two thirteen year old children who had consensual sex with each
other were BOTH charged and convicted of statutory rape of the
other participant. BOTH are now required to register as sex
offenders for the rest of their life.

While I, personally, have no interest in pursuing a relationship
with anyone at the moment it could happen. I like to think that I
am mature enough to not want a relationship with someone who is
immature either physically or mentally.

For most folk having sex with a child is not something they " like
to think" would not happen.

This, of course, means that I do not fit the
correct definition of paedophile or even the incorrect definition
promulgated by the press.

You think adults having sex with children is just fine if the child
"wants it".

That can depend rather on your definition of child. Do you mean
pre-pubescent, post-pubescent, under the age of consent or under the
age of majority? It would help if you were to define your terms. I
certainly think that it should be the child who decides, not you nor
some politician or religious nutter in an ivory tower who has
forgoptten all about being a child or has been so brainwashed as to
think they know better.

You think fathers ****ing their daughters equally just fine if the
child "wants it"

When have I ever said that? Produce proof of your allegation. I have
stated that, after any participants reach the age of majority, it is
their business and none of the state's business providing that no
coercion is involved.

You have also said that sodomizing your child "can be" good parenting.

In very limited circumstances only as was made clear in the original
post. That you do not choose to include a citation you are obviously
trying to make a point out of context.
--
Regards
David
fundamentalism (n.): fund = give cash to; amentalism = brainlessness


just saving this post since Google says it is set to expire

That would explain where all your posts are disappearing to

Yep...

The requested message, ,
could not be found.

So is google X-No-Archiving them or, as I suspect, is he nuking them
then claiming he never posted them?

shrug

I am _not_ the one nuking them. All of my posts have the x-no-archive
header set to "no". I have written to Google asking for an
explanation.

I have never claimed that I have not posted something I obviously
have, unlike Brandon.

I do note that there is a bot that has picked up on my address and is
posting to groups where I have never posted or even subscribed.
--
Regards
David
fundamentalism (n.): fund = give cash to; amentalism = brainlessness

On 25 Jan 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.boy-lovers and
heard David cry out in
...

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:56:08 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On 24 Jan 2008 22:54:51 GMT, ThePsyko
wrote:

On 20 Jan 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.boy-lovers and
heard David cry out in
...

Path:
authen.yellow.readfreenews.net!green.octanews.net! news-out.octanews.
net
!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp .giganews.com!news
fee
d.iinet.net.au!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!per-qv1-newsstorage1.iinet.net.
au!
per-qv1-newsstorage1.iinet.net.au!per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au
!no t-for-mail From: David
Newsgroups:
alt.support.boy-lovers,alt.support.incest,alt.support.girl-lovers,al
t.p arenting.solutions Subject: got it wrong
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:01:14 +1030
Organization: Anywhere but loose 5
Message-ID:
References:





X-Newsreader:
Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 X-No-Archive: no
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 66
NNTP-Posting-Host: 124.171.108.127
X-Trace: 1200871874 per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au 17188
124.171.108.127 Xref: authen.yellow.readfreenews.net
alt.support.boy-lovers:171759 alt.support.incest:20634
alt.support.girl-lovers:18156 alt.parenting.solutions:353565

On 20 Jan 2008 18:19:04 GMT, ThePsyko
typed furiously:

On 20 Jan 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.incest and
heard David cry out in
om...

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:34:14 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:51:23 +1030, David
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:39:14 -0800 (PST), ricky-livid
typed furiously:

pedophiles only want the AOC changed so they can get into the
pants of kids legally, they don't give a ****ing damn about
kids!

That is where you are wrong. I am very concerned that,
particularly in the US, AOC laws are increasingly being used to
prosecute those whom the laws are supposed to protect. This
includes the case where two thirteen year old children who had
consensual sex with each other were BOTH charged and convicted
of statutory rape of the other participant. BOTH are now
required to register as sex offenders for the rest of their
life.

While I, personally, have no interest in pursuing a relationship
with anyone at the moment it could happen. I like to think that
I am mature enough to not want a relationship with someone who
is immature either physically or mentally.

For most folk having sex with a child is not something they "
like to think" would not happen.

This, of course, means that I do not fit the
correct definition of paedophile or even the incorrect
definition promulgated by the press.

You think adults having sex with children is just fine if the
child "wants it".

That can depend rather on your definition of child. Do you mean
pre-pubescent, post-pubescent, under the age of consent or under
the age of majority? It would help if you were to define your
terms. I certainly think that it should be the child who decides,
not you nor some politician or religious nutter in an ivory tower
who has forgoptten all about being a child or has been so
brainwashed as to think they know better.

You think fathers ****ing their daughters equally just fine if
the child "wants it"

When have I ever said that? Produce proof of your allegation. I
have stated that, after any participants reach the age of
majority, it is their business and none of the state's business
providing that no coercion is involved.

You have also said that sodomizing your child "can be" good
parenting.

In very limited circumstances only as was made clear in the
original post. That you do not choose to include a citation you are
obviously trying to make a point out of context.
--
Regards
David
fundamentalism (n.): fund = give cash to; amentalism =
brainlessness


just saving this post since Google says it is set to expire

That would explain where all your posts are disappearing to

Yep...

The requested message, ,
could not be found.

So is google X-No-Archiving them or, as I suspect, is he nuking them
then claiming he never posted them?

shrug

I am _not_ the one nuking them. All of my posts have the x-no-archive
header set to "no". I have written to Google asking for an
explanation.

It IS odd... there is nothing in your headers that I could see that would
cause Google to nuke the post. I'm curious about what their reply will
be




I have never claimed that I have not posted something I obviously
have, unlike Brandon.

I do note that there is a bot that has picked up on my address and is
posting to groups where I have never posted or even subscribed.

It's happening to many of us.

--
ThePsyko
Public Enemy #7

******ing off the planet, one person at a time**

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:21:09 +0100 (CET), Baal
] typed furiously:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Friday 25 January 2008 07:04, in alt.support.boy-lovers,
in Message-ID: ,
David wrote:

I am _not_ the one nuking them. All of my posts have the x-no-archive
header set to "no". I have written to Google asking for an
explanation.

Why include X-No-Archive: No ??? Why just not remove this statement
altogether? Has it ever occurred to you that Google might automatically
remove posts when it sees the X-No-Archive: directive, regardless of
what is after the colon? Why don't you try removing the X-No-Archive:
line completely from your posts, and see if this fixes the problem?

I did it after one idiot, and I use the term loosely, thought it would
be funny to include an unrecognisable, to my software, header which
persisted over reposts. I was accused of deliberately putting the
x-no-archive header in my posts by Brandon and Psyko when I had not
done so. I therefore instructed my software to always insert the
header with the switch set to no.

This deletion does not seem to be happening to all my posts. It's as
if some ninny is deliberately selecting certain of my posts and making
them disappear. I do wish he'd stop being so petty.

FWIW, you can't depend on Google for an explanation--they obviously don't
give a damn.

I realise that but I am trying.to have the matter resolved. I did some
test posts but google seems to be still removing them whether the
header is present or not. I will do some more experimentation.

I have never claimed that I have not posted something I obviously
have, unlike Brandon.

I do note that there is a bot that has picked up on my address and is
posting to groups where I have never posted or even subscribed.

I've noticed a *lot* of this recently--you're far from being the only
one.

Yes. Somebody probably thinks it is funny rather than pathetic.
--
Regards
David
fundamentalism (n.): fund = give cash to; amentalism = brainlessness