"shazzbat" wrote in message
...

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in
message
...
The message m
from netstudio contains
these
words:

it's a real shame you don't allow direct
pictures which is very easy for many people who don't have the
facility
or now how to host their own pictures.

"Not allowing" isn't Tumbleweed's personal decision. It's a
usenet
regulation.

You are posting to a public service newsgroup, on Usenet. Usenet
and
newsgroups are entirely independent of gardenbanter, the
lame-brain-website-for-internet-numpties through whose crappy
portal
you're accessing this newsgroup.

I don't know any internet service providers (isp) that* don't*
allow
if you have direct pictures /files .

You're revealing the gaping breadth of your ignorance. Isps do
not
decide the charters of Usenet groups.

I trust the above helps and thank you for a such a good
resource.

If a poster abuses Usenet (for instance by posting binaries to a
non-binary group), usually such behaviour contravenes the terms of
service of his isp. Multiple complaints from a group to that isp
often
result in termination of the idiot's account and service. Most
people in
uk.rec.gardening know how to locate a pests's isp in their Usenet
message header, and file a complaint.

Janet.

To be fair to the OP, if he sent it to gardenbanter rather than URG,
it's
not really his fault is it? I assume that garden banter wouldn't
have minded
and it only became a problem because of the link to URG. Or am I
oversimplifying?

Then somebody should tell the person who runs gardenbanter to make
sure the the posts which are directed to urg complies with urg
netiquette.

What is the *real* purpose of gardenbanter?

Franz