On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:59:14 GMT, the non <myaddress@server.co> wrote:
>The following email was sent to Easynews following notice that Leyland
>had complained about innocuous posted material:
>
>It has come to my attention that an individual using the name Steve
>This individual seeks to be offended by posts, even if they are totally
>innocuous. In other words, his motive is simply to disrupt the
>otherwise peaceful activity of others. Easynews would be well advised
>to respond cautiously, if at all, to complaints mounted by this
>individual. Inasmuch as I am not privy to your procedure in responding
>to complaints, I would nevertheless suggest that no complaint be acted
>upon unless it is substantiated from a number of diverse sources.
>
>In at least one such complaint by this individual, the subject matter
>was Russian nudist photography from the 1950s, in which there were no
>pornographic components: I am very familiar with both the genre and the
>period. The aforenamed individual then posted messages bragging about
>his complaint and the Easynews action in withdrawing the group of photos
>from circulation. That, in itself, is grounds for disqualifying that
>person from consideration of actionable complaints. To pose an analogy,
>would Easynews remove photos of Ferraris because someone objected to
>Italians? While there may be legitimate abuse complaints, they are more
>likely to center around harrassment by militant individuals than posters
>of topical information. It would be in the best interests of Easynews
>not to take seriously the howling complaints of psychotic crusaders.
Thank you, Non.
I have written a complaint, but they have not deemed an immediate
response proper, I suppose.
God Save Her Majesty the Queen.
God Preserve the Prince of Wales.
Rule Britannia!
|
|