1960s?
1970s?
1980s?
1990s?
2000s?
2010s?
2020s?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

The idiot inquired:

> 1960s?
> 1970s?
> 1980s?
> 1990s?
> 2000s?
> 2010s?
> 2020s?

All of the above!

--
solar penguin

In article <uuu357$2pcag$1@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>The idiot inquired:
>
>> 1960s?
>> 1970s?
>> 1980s?
>> 1990s?
>> 2000s?
>> 2010s?
>> 2020s?
>
>All of the above!
>

Get ready for other to pick your feathers!

>--
>solar penguin

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

On 4/7/2024 07:21, solar penguin wrote:
> The idiot inquired:
>
>> 1960s?
>> 1970s?
>> 1980s?
>> 1990s?
>> 2000s?
>> 2010s?
>> 2020s?
>
> All of the above!
>

Well, I'm going to split hairs here:

IMHO, and speaking in general terms as there are good and bad in every
season:

1960's: pretty good, although there were some stories that dragged on
for too long. I present The War Games as an example.

1970's: probably the best 10 years of the show, although I think Brain
of Mobius, Day of the Daleks, and Underworld are stories best forgotten.

1980s to the first hiatus: not as good as the 70s, but still good
material. Just prior to the hiatus, the show starts to slip.

First hiatus to second hiatus: show continues to slip and is definitely
not what it once was.

1990s: aside from the TVM...just reruns for me. TVM was "meh", and was
primarily just an instrument to try and draw in more of the US market.
I did read some of the "Missing Adventure" books, and they were for the
most part good, but I did not read enough of them to make a more
detailed assessment.

2005-2013: a close second place to being the best years of the show.

On the whole, I do feel that "New Who" is paced way too quickly, and
misses many opportunities for more depth in plot and character
development that the classic 4-part story allows for (no, the story
doesn't have to plod along to accomplish that either).

2013-2017: starts off ok, but things start to slip again, and the show
devolves into a mess.

2018-2021: bad writing, bad production, and "meh" acting at best causes
the show to devolve from a mess...to a hot mess. Causes me to reassess,
and give the McCoy Era a reprieve.

2022-: remains to be seen.

Now, if you are going to insist I pick one decade...then I would have to
go with the 1970s.

--

Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan

On 4/7/2024 5:08 AM, The Doctor wrote:
> 1960s?
> 1970s?
> 1980s?
> 1990s?
> 2000s?
> 2010s?
> 2020s?

I literally have open right now a Doctor Who Wikipedia page that breaks
down the seasons. LOL Since I already have the episode list open,
let's take a look...

Tom Baker was the Doctor in the 70s, so "State of Decay" coming out in
1980 notwithstanding, the 70s.

However since obviously you didn't really mean to put Classic Who up
against New Who, for the reboot the best decade would be the 2000s.
That would give us Rose and David Tennant and all the awesome goodness
that came in between.

solar penguin wrote:

> The idiot inquired:
>
> > 1960s?
> > 1970s?
> > 1980s?
> > 1990s?
> > 2000s?
> > 2010s?
> > 2020s?
>
> All of the above!

Every decade of the show had its highs and lows...

But the best? For me, I'd have to go with the 1970's... Jon
Pertwee and Tom Baker were 'my' Doctors and the 1970's contained
a lot of my favourite Doctor Who episodes ever. The show was at
its peak in the second half of that decade as the Fourth Doctor,
with his floppy hat and long scarf, became the definitive
Doctor. Sure, there were some poor stories in the 1970's too,
just like in every era of Doctor Who, but overall nothing since
has topped the peaks of that era.

Hornplayer9599 wrote:

> On 4/7/2024 07:21, solar penguin wrote:
> > The idiot inquired:
> >
> > > 1960s?
> > > 1970s?
> > > 1980s?
> > > 1990s?
> > > 2000s?
> > > 2010s?
> > > 2020s?
> >
> > All of the above!
>
> [Snip]
>
> Now, if you are going to insist I pick one decade...then I
> would have to go with the 1970s.

<claps> Me too! :-)

Arthur Lipscomb wrote:

> On 4/7/2024 5:08 AM, The Doctor wrote:
> > 1960s?
> > 1970s?
> > 1980s?
> > 1990s?
> > 2000s?
> > 2010s?
> > 2020s?
>
> I literally have open right now a Doctor Who Wikipedia page
> that breaks down the seasons. LOL Since I already have the
> episode list open, let's take a look...
>
> Tom Baker was the Doctor in the 70s, so "State of Decay"
> coming out in 1980 notwithstanding, the 70s.

State of decay sums up Doctor Who in the 1980's perfectly!
> However since obviously you didn't really mean to put Classic
> Who up against New Who, for the reboot the best decade would
> be the 2000s. That would give us Rose and David Tennant and
> all the awesome goodness that came in between.

"NuWho" can't really compare to the classic era of the show but
the first RTD era was very enjoyable. The Ninth Doctor/Rose and
the Tenth Doctor/Rose/Martha/Donna era put Doctor Who back on
the map. Doctor Who merch was everywhere again. It really was a
good time to be a fan.

From Steven Moffat's era of the show onwards I thought Doctor
Who became more style over substance with some grandiose ideas
but a lot of average enough stories. More misses than hits.

Now, RTD is back at the helm and we'll see what awaits us in
May...

In article <uuuecg$2rr50$1@dont-email.me>,
Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>On 4/7/2024 5:08 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>> 1960s?
>> 1970s?
>> 1980s?
>> 1990s?
>> 2000s?
>> 2010s?
>> 2020s?
>
>
>I literally have open right now a Doctor Who Wikipedia page that breaks
>down the seasons. LOL Since I already have the episode list open,
>let's take a look...
>
>Tom Baker was the Doctor in the 70s, so "State of Decay" coming out in
>1980 notwithstanding, the 70s.
>
>However since obviously you didn't really mean to put Classic Who up
>against New Who, for the reboot the best decade would be the 2000s.
>That would give us Rose and David Tennant and all the awesome goodness
>that came in between.

So for you 1970s, early 1980s and 2000s!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <rJyQN.408926$Pq2.252112@fx06.ams4>,
Hornplayer9599 <Hornplayer9599@aol.com> wrote:
>On 4/7/2024 07:21, solar penguin wrote:
>> The idiot inquired:
>>
>>> 1960s?
>>> 1970s?
>>> 1980s?
>>> 1990s?
>>> 2000s?
>>> 2010s?
>>> 2020s?
>>
>> All of the above!
>>
>
>Well, I'm going to split hairs here:
>
>IMHO, and speaking in general terms as there are good and bad in every
>season:
>
>1960's: pretty good, although there were some stories that dragged on
>for too long. I present The War Games as an example.
>
>1970's: probably the best 10 years of the show, although I think Brain
>of Mobius, Day of the Daleks, and Underworld are stories best forgotten.
>
>1980s to the first hiatus: not as good as the 70s, but still good
>material. Just prior to the hiatus, the show starts to slip.
>
>First hiatus to second hiatus: show continues to slip and is definitely
>not what it once was.
>
>1990s: aside from the TVM...just reruns for me. TVM was "meh", and was
>primarily just an instrument to try and draw in more of the US market.
>I did read some of the "Missing Adventure" books, and they were for the
>most part good, but I did not read enough of them to make a more
>detailed assessment.
>
>2005-2013: a close second place to being the best years of the show.
>
>On the whole, I do feel that "New Who" is paced way too quickly, and
>misses many opportunities for more depth in plot and character
>development that the classic 4-part story allows for (no, the story
>doesn't have to plod along to accomplish that either).
>
>2013-2017: starts off ok, but things start to slip again, and the show
>devolves into a mess.
>
>2018-2021: bad writing, bad production, and "meh" acting at best causes
>the show to devolve from a mess...to a hot mess. Causes me to reassess,
>and give the McCoy Era a reprieve.
>
>2022-: remains to be seen.
>
>Now, if you are going to insist I pick one decade...then I would have to
>go with the 1970s.
>

Now THAT is what I call an answer!
>
>--
>
>Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
>--Carl Sagan
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <xn0okaqvhgktbkk002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>solar penguin wrote:
>
>> The idiot inquired:
>>
>> > 1960s?
>> > 1970s?
>> > 1980s?
>> > 1990s?
>> > 2000s?
>> > 2010s?
>> > 2020s?
>>
>> All of the above!
>
>Every decade of the show had its highs and lows...
>
>But the best? For me, I'd have to go with the 1970's... Jon
>Pertwee and Tom Baker were 'my' Doctors and the 1970's contained
>a lot of my favourite Doctor Who episodes ever. The show was at
>its peak in the second half of that decade as the Fourth Doctor,
>with his floppy hat and long scarf, became the definitive
>Doctor. Sure, there were some poor stories in the 1970's too,
>just like in every era of Doctor Who, but overall nothing since
>has topped the peaks of that era.

Thought so!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <xn0okaqyxgkya8f003@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>Hornplayer9599 wrote:
>
>> On 4/7/2024 07:21, solar penguin wrote:
>> > The idiot inquired:
>> >
>> > > 1960s?
>> > > 1970s?
>> > > 1980s?
>> > > 1990s?
>> > > 2000s?
>> > > 2010s?
>> > > 2020s?
>> >
>> > All of the above!
>>
>> [Snip]
>>
>> Now, if you are going to insist I pick one decade...then I
>> would have to go with the 1970s.
>
><claps> Me too! :-)

Yeah! Yeah!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <xn0okare9glki8r004@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>
>> On 4/7/2024 5:08 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>> > 1960s?
>> > 1970s?
>> > 1980s?
>> > 1990s?
>> > 2000s?
>> > 2010s?
>> > 2020s?
>>
>> I literally have open right now a Doctor Who Wikipedia page
>> that breaks down the seasons. LOL Since I already have the
>> episode list open, let's take a look...
>>
>> Tom Baker was the Doctor in the 70s, so "State of Decay"
>> coming out in 1980 notwithstanding, the 70s.
>
>State of decay sums up Doctor Who in the 1980's perfectly!
>
>> However since obviously you didn't really mean to put Classic
>> Who up against New Who, for the reboot the best decade would
>> be the 2000s. That would give us Rose and David Tennant and
>> all the awesome goodness that came in between.
>
>"NuWho" can't really compare to the classic era of the show but
>the first RTD era was very enjoyable. The Ninth Doctor/Rose and
>the Tenth Doctor/Rose/Martha/Donna era put Doctor Who back on
>the map. Doctor Who merch was everywhere again. It really was a
>good time to be a fan.
>
>From Steven Moffat's era of the show onwards I thought Doctor
>Who became more style over substance with some grandiose ideas
>but a lot of average enough stories. More misses than hits.
>
>Now, RTD is back at the helm and we'll see what awaits us in
>May...

Suddenly BS is in the game!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:

>The idiot inquired:

>>1960s?
>>1970s?
>>1980s?
>>1990s?
>>2000s?
>>2010s?
>>2020s?

>All of the above!

Once again, the regulars of rec.arts.drwho show themselves to utterly
despise the rest of Usenet. Yads is a troll. Each and every one of you
knows that. Yet you refuse to stop troll feeding and you won't discuss
Dr. Who.

If you MUST troll feed, keep your shit in rec.arts.drwho. No one outside
the Dr. Who newsgroups has ever wanted to become afflicted with Yads'
shit. Why the users of rec.arts.drwho want Yads among them is a mystery.

CUT THE CROSSPOST. DAMN YOU ALL TOO HELL. CUT THE CROSSPOST.

Just because Yads is an asshole who nearly always crossposts doesn't
mean that YOU must crosspost in followup. If you want to continue to
contribute to the cesspool that is rec.arts.drwho, no one will stop you,
but DO NOT crosspost into the rest of Usenet.

WHEN YOU CROSSPOST IN FOLLOWUP TO YADS, YOUR BEHAVIOR IS AS BAD AS
YADS' BEHAVIOR.

Do you get it yet? Do you understand? Was I being too subtle?

rec.arts.drwho shows it is the worst active newsgroup on Usenet.

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>
> [Angry man rant snipped]
>
> rec.arts.drwho shows it is the worst active newsgroup on
> Usenet.

DeYadify... DeYadify... DeYadify...

I can just imagine these three going around saying that
actually...

https://shorturl.at/msvz5

On 4/7/2024 15:12, Blueshirt wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>
>> [Angry man rant snipped]
>>
>> rec.arts.drwho shows it is the worst active newsgroup on
>> Usenet.
>
> DeYadify... DeYadify... DeYadify...
>
> I can just imagine these three going around saying that
> actually...
>
> https://shorturl.at/msvz5
>
>

I wonder if Adam realizes that the thread he chose to go full Karen Mode
on was one where Yads was kinda sorta on topic, and kinda sorta relevant
to the groups that he cross-posted?

Speaking of cross-posting, as I write this I only see one post that
cross-posted a reply. All the other posts I see didn't cross-post.

Perhaps Adam just needs to have a drink and relax.

--

Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan

On 07/04/2024 13:08, The Doctor wrote:
> 1960s?
> 1970s?

1970s

We has both Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker, and none of that woke crap that
brought the series to its end in 2017.

> 1980s?
> 1990s?
> 2000s?
> 2010s?
> 2020s?

--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner

In article <uuv13u$30dm2$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 07/04/2024 13:08, The Doctor wrote:
>> 1960s?
>> 1970s?
>
>1970s
>
>We has both Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker, and none of that woke crap that
>brought the series to its end in 2017.
>
>> 1980s?
>> 1990s?
>> 2000s?
>> 2010s?
>> 2020s?
>

So far mostly the 1970s

>--
>The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
>
>"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
>stands for." -William Shatner
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <uuur5c$2ul3q$2@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The idiot inquired:
>
>>>1960s?
>>>1970s?
>>>1980s?
>>>1990s?
>>>2000s?
>>>2010s?
>>>2020s?
>
>>All of the above!
>
>Once again, the regulars of rec.arts.drwho show themselves to utterly
>despise the rest of Usenet. Yads is a troll. Each and every one of you
>knows that. Yet you refuse to stop troll feeding and you won't discuss
>Dr. Who.
>
>If you MUST troll feed, keep your shit in rec.arts.drwho. No one outside
>the Dr. Who newsgroups has ever wanted to become afflicted with Yads'
>shit. Why the users of rec.arts.drwho want Yads among them is a mystery.
>
>CUT THE CROSSPOST. DAMN YOU ALL TOO HELL. CUT THE CROSSPOST.
>
>Just because Yads is an asshole who nearly always crossposts doesn't
>mean that YOU must crosspost in followup. If you want to continue to
>contribute to the cesspool that is rec.arts.drwho, no one will stop you,
>but DO NOT crosspost into the rest of Usenet.
>
>WHEN YOU CROSSPOST IN FOLLOWUP TO YADS, YOUR BEHAVIOR IS AS BAD AS
>YADS' BEHAVIOR.
>
>Do you get it yet? Do you understand? Was I being too subtle?
>
>rec.arts.drwho shows it is the worst active newsgroup on Usenet.

Adam get back on your stimulants.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <xn0okatuagotjia000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>
>> [Angry man rant snipped]
>>
>> rec.arts.drwho shows it is the worst active newsgroup on
>> Usenet.
>
>DeYadify... DeYadify... DeYadify...
>
>I can just imagine these three going around saying that
>actually...
>
>https://shorturl.at/msvz5
>
>
>
>

I hear a Dalek!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <OIDQN.409591$Pq2.242118@fx06.ams4>,
Hornplayer9599 <Hornplayer9599@aol.com> wrote:
>On 4/7/2024 15:12, Blueshirt wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [Angry man rant snipped]
>>>
>>> rec.arts.drwho shows it is the worst active newsgroup on
>>> Usenet.
>>
>> DeYadify... DeYadify... DeYadify...
>>
>> I can just imagine these three going around saying that
>> actually...
>>
>> https://shorturl.at/msvz5
>>
>>
>
>I wonder if Adam realizes that the thread he chose to go full Karen Mode
>on was one where Yads was kinda sorta on topic, and kinda sorta relevant
>to the groups that he cross-posted?
>
>Speaking of cross-posting, as I write this I only see one post that
>cross-posted a reply. All the other posts I see didn't cross-post.
>
>Perhaps Adam just needs to have a drink and relax.
>

Adam need a drink that is over 80 proof.

>--
>
>Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
>--Carl Sagan
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

Hornplayer9599 wrote:

> On 4/7/2024 15:12, Blueshirt wrote:
> > Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > [Angry man rant snipped]
> > >
> > > rec.arts.drwho shows it is the worst active newsgroup on
> > > Usenet.
> >
> > DeYadify... DeYadify... DeYadify...
> >
> > I can just imagine these three going around saying that
> > actually...
> >
> > https://shorturl.at/msvz5
>
> I wonder if Adam realizes that the thread he chose to go full
> Karen Mode on was one where Yads was kinda sorta on topic, and
> kinda sorta relevant to the groups that he cross-posted?

I didn't see Dave's original post but yeah, it was a
surprisingly on topic post from him. There has been plenty of
other posts from Dave that would have been more deserving of a
rant.

> Speaking of cross-posting, as I write this I only see one post
> that cross-posted a reply. All the other posts I see didn't
> cross-post.

I did trim Dave's excessive cross-posting, but as he runs his
own nntp server I'm sure he'd say cross-posting to six
newsgroups is allowed in his TOS! :-)

> Perhaps Adam just needs to have a drink and relax.

Don't we all! ;-)

The True Doctor wrote:

> On 07/04/2024 13:08, The Doctor wrote:
> > 1960s?
> > 1970s?
>
> 1970s
>
> We has both Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker, and none of that woke
> crap that brought the series to its end in 2017.

Definitely the best two Doctors.

That doesn't mean that some of those 1970's Doctor Who stories
didn't deal with the political issues of the day... we were
children back then so we just enjoyed Doctor Who for what it was.

On 4/7/2024 5:08 AM, The Doctor wrote:
> 1960s?
> 1970s?
> 1980s?
> 1990s?
> 2000s?
> 2010s?
> 2020s?

The only Doctor Who in the 1990s was the awful Americanised movie with
Paul McGann in 1996.

The original show ended in 1989 and the resurrected show started in 2005.

On 2024-04-07 4:15 p.m., Blueshirt wrote:
> Hornplayer9599 wrote:
>
>> On 4/7/2024 15:12, Blueshirt wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [Angry man rant snipped]
>>>>
>>>> rec.arts.drwho shows it is the worst active newsgroup on
>>>> Usenet.
>>>
>>> DeYadify... DeYadify... DeYadify...
>>>
>>> I can just imagine these three going around saying that
>>> actually...
>>>
>>> https://shorturl.at/msvz5
>>
>> I wonder if Adam realizes that the thread he chose to go full
>> Karen Mode on was one where Yads was kinda sorta on topic, and
>> kinda sorta relevant to the groups that he cross-posted?
>
> I didn't see Dave's original post but yeah, it was a
> surprisingly on topic post from him. There has been plenty of
> other posts from Dave that would have been more deserving of a
> rant.
>
>> Speaking of cross-posting, as I write this I only see one post
>> that cross-posted a reply. All the other posts I see didn't
>> cross-post.
>
> I did trim Dave's excessive cross-posting, but as he runs his
> own nntp server I'm sure he'd say cross-posting to six
> newsgroups is allowed in his TOS! :-)
>
>> Perhaps Adam just needs to have a drink and relax.
>
> Don't we all! ;-)

Binky's TOS have been reduced to a wishy washy sort of whiny statement
which really means very litte.

His "Unlimited Access" is limited to 2 hours max....not sure how that
computes?

I love his spam policy:

"Email / Usenet (news) spam (unsolicited commercial email / usenet
posting OR Bulk mailing through our server ) will not be tolerated, NO
EXCEPTIONS! Users found to be spamming will have their account
terminated without warning, and without refund. "

He then drones on about how bad spam is and how much work it generates
for his "staff".

Nothing about cross-posting, big surprise there.

--
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.

George Bernard Shaw