(Kelly) wrote:

Pamela wrote:

On 15:06 20 May 2020, Kelly said:
Simon Mason wrote:

...when I was investigated, they discovered that I never took a meal or
tea break and so they forced me to have them, during which I could post
about cycling matters to urc using company IT. In fact, they always
encouraged us to use the internet as it was "free IT training".

I think it is heinous that anyone should take a grievance they have with
someone on usenet and then anonymously and maliciously take it out into
real life. That in itself is bad enough, in my opinion.

The Internet is not some protected playpen where people can act illegally
and get away with it. There is real-world accountability:


A JUDGE has ordered a Seattle man to stop posting to a skiing
discussion group on the Internet after a six-month flame war developed
into threats of violence.

Scott Abraham and several others had been involved in a long-running
feud, both on the Usenet newsgroup rec.skiing.alpine and sometimes in
person on the slopes. The battle started with an argument over free
ski-lift tickets, and escalated to a flame war with insults, personal
attacks and offers to fight.

Later an anonymous poster threatened to shoot Abraham, who responded
that he had started carrying a gun. Two of Abraham’s opponents filed
complaints charging him with harassment. And on 12 November, a district
court judge ordered Abraham not to contact the defendants or post
anything to rec.skiing.alpine.

Yes, but what has got nothing to do with ukrc.

Oh dear, let me start again.

You state, "The Internet is not some protected playpen where people
can act illegally and get away with it."

Okay, no, its not. But what is the relevance of your statement here?
Who exactly are you suggesting has acted illegally and sought to get
away with it?