Likes: 
Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com> wrote
news:slrnc7h91j.2a5f.andrew+nonews@trinity.superne ws.net
> On 2004-04-10, Willem <gaatjenietaan@notvalid> wrote:
>> Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com> wrote
>> news:slrnc7eft0.27sf.andrew+nonews@trinity.superne ws.net
>>> I admit that, not being the abuse person here, I have no
>>> idea why the user in question was blocked in the first
>>> place. But it wasn't anything to do with the above post,
>>> which is dated some months after the original block.
>> How can you say that when Jeremy says it does:
> Because Jeremy didn't say that.
Supernews still has not explained why Jeremy quoted the fake
posts at all if they don't have anything to do with the
block. Until they do, Jeremy said it loud and clear.
>> Jeremy from Supernews says he has VERIFIED these posts
>> are not forged and that they speak for themselves. So he
>> means Supernews has proof they were posted by Mike.
> He means nothing of the sort
> (perhaps he should have made this point clearer).
So what DOES Supernews mean when it says it verified that
posts were not forged and speak for themselves.
A customer says he is not the poster of the fake posts, as a
reply Supernews presents more fakes posts and says they are
genuine and speak for themselves.
I say "I did not hide the apple".
Then you show the public an apple and say "this speaks for
itself".
What will 99% of the public think? That you present proof
the apple was hidden by me.
That is what Supernews is doing to Mike.
> We _WILL NOT COMMENT_ on the issue
> of which of our users made any specific post, or whether
> two or more posts were made by the same user, because
> that would be a violation of privacy. Naturally, this
> means that public discussion of abuse issues is rarely
> productive (as this thread demonstrates).
Again you are publicly suggesting the fake posts COULD have
been made by Mike. It is wrong to bring up a privacy policy
to imply things about a customer.
Supernews should research and handle this matter in an
honest way and stop implying things with showing fake posts
made with the name of their customers. Therefore I think
this thread is productive in bringing that out and asking
you to review the matter fairly.
>> He means they are related to the reason for blocking.
> No, that's simply your interpretation of what he meant.
Supernews posted them in reply to their customer's denial he
spammed, and said they spoke for themselves. There is no
other interpretation.
>> But you from Supernews say something different. What is
>> going on at Supernews Abuse, Andrew??
> What is going on is very simple: we won't violate our
> privacy policies simply to "win" a debate in public. If
> the "Artist Mike" poster wants his block on posting to be
> reviewed, then he can simply get his ISP to contact our
> abuse staff. Note: paying customers (that is: individual
> subscribers or corporate account holders themselves as
> opposed to their end-users) can contact abuse directly,
> but end-users of ISP outsource customers are expected to
> have their ISP contact us on their behalf.
Your privacy policy is not the issue. Supernews blocked a
customer based on fake posts. Supernews even posted some
examples, adding they were NOT forgeries and spoke for
themselves. The issue is that Supernews blocks innocent
customers based on fake posts and maybe even personal
reasons of their employees.
I happen to believe Mike when he says he HAS written to his
ISP and to Supernews. Who wouldn't contact their provider
when they are wrongly blocked?? When I see the way Jeremy
implies things with those fake posts, I can understand Mike
was ON HIS OWN against you guys and you Supernews wasn't
fair about it so he posted about the matter. I would too.
> Neither individual subscribers nor outsource end-users
> ever get their posting privileges revoked lightly. But it
> should be obvious that the vast majority of people who
> _do_ get blocked will claim that they were in fact
> blocked falsely: either because they were genuinely
> innocent, or because they are intentionally spamming and
> therefore lying about it, or they are guilty of some form
> of abuse other than simple spamming and believem for
> whatever reason, that their conduct was justified.
There goes Supernews implying again. "It should be obvious".
Supernews, I'm sorry but it is becoming more and more
obvious that this matter of your logs leading to wrong
blocks is not handled in an honest way.
> (As an example of such justification, see the assertion
> that's been made several times in this thread that simply
> being a paying customer confers some sort of right to use
> our service for promotional purposes - which is
> absolutely not the case.)
That has nothing to do with the block for posts someone
didn't make. Supernews keeps mixing it up, the customer is
trapped: now he got blocked for spamming, now he got blocked
for fake posts.
WJ
--
http://www.demon.nl/eng/support/newsgroups/index.html
http://tinyurl.com/yuxgq
http://tinyurl.com/yvrmo
Quote
