sci.physics.particle

On Feb 19, 8:04=A0pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
> On Feb 14, 9:12=A0am, Igor wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 12:24=A0am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 12, 11:28=A0am, Igor wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, Igor Khavkine is a moderator of sci.physics.research. =A0And he=
's
> > > > probably forgotten more physics than you'll ever understand. =A0Anyt=
hing
> > > > else you wish to know?
>
> > > whose assy moderator[s] wouldn't let my post on elemental alqali
> > > superconductors on, without =A0reason.
>
> > Most likely, you were the one without reason. =A0That's usually the
> > central rationale for rejecting posts.
>
> (But I'm the unlikeliest person in the world. =A0And "for gerund noun"
> is gibberish.) =A0The reason was always in the post itself if not in its
> link's paper. =A0The moderator would not say what the group's
> disinterest was with alqali superconductivity, especially as the
> effect is unexpected for the s block, so his rejection was without
> reason. =A0(And my posts under "gimme money" were self-explanatory, so
> they did not lack theoretic or empeiric proof. =A0But the retarded
> moderator couldn't back up his side.) =A0And I'd expect such states to
> be a good bridge for metallic superconductive hydrogen.
>
> -Aut

Technically, the mods could reject anything for any reason. That
doesn't necessarily mean that you couldn't argue your case and defend
your post. But, in the end, the mods will have the final say.
Besides, who ever said usenet is the only place to present new ideas?
The internet is vast and wide and if you have a decent idea, word will
start to get around.