On Mar 4, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Peter Ehlers wrote: > On 2013-03-04 12:04, Ista Zahn wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Rolf Turner <rolf.tur...@xtra.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>> I never saw the "original note" nor its resubmission. Nor could I find it >>> in the R-help archives. >>> >>> Is it just me? >> >> No, same here. > > Think Nabble!!! > (where there are often waits for approval)
"Think Nabble" is correct, however, that wait will take infinite time on some posts. There is now an automatic censoring process for Nabble posts that resemble the signatures of prior spambot attacks on Rhelp. It was known that some innocent posts would be affected, including, unfortunately, some of the posts from our most valued members if they happen to be posting from Nabble at the time. This eventuality was noted when those filters were installed. In this case Frank saw it on Nabble and gave a perfectly valid reply that was not censored. The moderation queue was getting 20 or thirty postings that on cursory review were valid, but which turned out on investigation to be duplicates of prior Nabble-mediated posts and the only new content was bogus advertising. The moderators were not volunteering to do investigation of all such posts. -- David Winsemius Alameda, CA, USA ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
