Re: Multiple abuses from i2pn2.

Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:

Le 18/10/2024 à 19:30, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
 

  You've shown no "technical reasons" for getting these accounts deleted.

 
<news:9bsgTIa0sdYSd0Yt_sVkVKSixeg@jntp>

  I said "You've shown no "technical reasons" for getting these accounts
deleted." referring to an earlier post does not change that.

  I also said, but you snipped:

<me>
  If you think you have, then explain *which* "technical reasons" you
think are valid reasons to get these accounts deleted. And no more
vagueries, just verifiable facts.
</me>

  That post does *not* contain "valid reasons to get these accounts
deleted", *nor* does it contain any "verifiable facts". It's just your
usual vagueries, innuendo, whining, etc..

  You should be well aware of that, because I responded to that very
post, so apparently - contrary to some people - a) I had read it and b)
I had not considered its content to describe actual actionable abuse.

  Bottom line: Give it up. No one is buying your censoring demands and
no one is going to do your censoring for you.

  And, for the umpteenth time, (client-side) filter the stuff you don't
want to see.

[Other 'convenient' silent snips duly noted.]