Obviously he was misquoted. He said it was my cane for a 6 year old, but due to a grave breach of journalistic integrity it was reported differently.

Are you sure it was a misquote?

No, no, no! Obviously this is the coolest project, but only six people know that :-)

^{_{Figuring it out was pretty easy :-)}}

I'm not saying anything until my teleportation device is published ;-)

I agree, but treb's comment makes it clearer (thanks both) L

I can't quite place "don't let junk through" as it sounds like material is subject to some kind of official moderation?

Without giving it away... Before things are public, it is reviewed. Ever publish an instructable and notice it doesn't go public immediately? If this has never happened to you - you've got quite a "wholesome" vocabulary :p

But that said - if you saw some of the gunk that attempts to get published.... You'd see what Eric is talking about :p

How did that spam get published? And all the stuff that does get flagged and then unpublished? I think what you're saying is that there's a basic glance (system or manual) to take out stuff that the site really doesn't want anyone to see, but a job-half done with no images can be dealt with later? L

Ah, that's a reasonable explanation. But we noticed that as experienced tinned-meat merchants, they kept creating new accounts. I take it from this pattern of action that they expect material to be removed, so don't even bother to return and check.
I would have a concern that if they did check back they might have the idea of posting links back, thereby using non-dodgy instructables.com URLs?

L