Re: censorship process?
Dear Mr. Salsman, My quest for a solution to the issue of email fraud did not solicit for alternative energy solutions. If this is your idea of a solution to the problem, I think it's pathetic. Nigeria (and Nigerians as a whole) are good people and you cannot degrade them for mail frauds from a few unscrupulous individuals. I question your own motives and you should be seen as one of those fraudsters. Are you trying to deny them of their revenue from oil as a country or are you looking for a new market for your so-called hydrogen gas? I suggest you take your marketing gimmicks somewhere else and look for a sustainable victim. Nigerians will not buy it, neither will IETF. So Long and I apologise for adding to the spam. "James P. Salsman" wrote: I would like to know more about the decision process involving censorship on the IETF list. About October 5th I sent a reply to a message from "Cel" http://ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg13899.html which specifically asked for any ideas to stop the solicitation from the "DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES ... LAGOS, NIGERIA" http://ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg13896.html I suggested these URLs: http://www.phoenixproject.net/ (hydrogen as an alternative to petrol) http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22166&cid=2377370 (codeposition fusion) My message was apparently lost. I find it odd that a well-known scam would be allowed while honest suggestions for less destructive alternatives to a probable cause giving rise to the "Nigerian Letter" scam would be censored. I think the likely explanation is that an IETF administrator had decided to pull messages regarding the subject, and found mine inappropriate (and perhaps a joke) for a subjective reason. In fact, I think all engineers, even those involved primarily with communication technology, have a pressing need to support the study of fossil fuel alternatives. The way I always hoped this would happen was a greater support for telecommuting. But my attempts to encourage additional telecommuting to the Cisco V.P. of Information Systems, when I worked for him, were met with more direct and staunch forms of suppression. Cheers, James begin:vcard n:Ololo;C. C. tel;fax:972-477-7399 tel;work:972-477-7386 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Network Strategy - Teresterial Networks Div.;Alcatel Optics adr:;; version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Senior Manager - Data Comm Standards end:vcard
Re: censorship process?
James, I have asked the postmasters to elucidate what happened. In the normal way of things, the message SHOULD have gotten through. Harald --On fredag, oktober 26, 2001 11:47:38 -0700 "James P. Salsman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to know more about the decision process involving > censorship on the IETF list. > > About October 5th I sent a reply to a message from "Cel" > http://ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg13899.html > which specifically asked for any ideas to stop the solicitation > from the "DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES ... LAGOS, NIGERIA" > http://ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg13896.html > > I suggested these URLs: > http://www.phoenixproject.net/ (hydrogen as an alternative to petrol) > http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22166&cid=2377370 (codeposition > fusion) > > My message was apparently lost. I find it odd that a well-known > scam would be allowed while honest suggestions for less > destructive alternatives to a probable cause giving rise to the > "Nigerian Letter" scam would be censored.
censorship process?
I would like to know more about the decision process involving censorship on the IETF list. About October 5th I sent a reply to a message from "Cel" http://ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg13899.html which specifically asked for any ideas to stop the solicitation from the "DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES ... LAGOS, NIGERIA" http://ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg13896.html I suggested these URLs: http://www.phoenixproject.net/ (hydrogen as an alternative to petrol) http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22166&cid=2377370 (codeposition fusion) My message was apparently lost. I find it odd that a well-known scam would be allowed while honest suggestions for less destructive alternatives to a probable cause giving rise to the "Nigerian Letter" scam would be censored. I think the likely explanation is that an IETF administrator had decided to pull messages regarding the subject, and found mine inappropriate (and perhaps a joke) for a subjective reason. In fact, I think all engineers, even those involved primarily with communication technology, have a pressing need to support the study of fossil fuel alternatives. The way I always hoped this would happen was a greater support for telecommuting. But my attempts to encourage additional telecommuting to the Cisco V.P. of Information Systems, when I worked for him, were met with more direct and staunch forms of suppression. Cheers, James
