patc - 9:58 pm on Apr 8, 2011 (gmt 0)
The specific and detailed type of reply patc received would have been more helpful to you , if the circumstances had been applicable to your case, it does sound like they may have actually looked at patc's site whereas you appear to have received a "canned" (albeit grammatically and logically presented and structured ) response.
I will add, the previous 5 requests yielded the standard response that Content_ed saw. Maybe I tripped a 'Pester' threshold at > 5 RRs!
They may have looked at the site but they clearly didn't look at the content of the actual request.
It's a bit of a problem that whilst I might be completely barking up the wrong tree, there is no real indication of whether there's a different tree I should be moving to, so to speak, and after exhaustive analysis (I didn't just submit requests, far from it!) I am genuinely stumped as to my position. So in essence, I have more info because of this new message, but it also raises me more questions when reading others who've felt the same 'tinfoil hat' paranoia about links outside of my control (which I didn't buy/sell/organise).
Now I am in a position any further RRs would seem somewhat massively pestering because the msg effectively says 'go away'. So I won't submit one, I just wish there was less of a 'guilty before proven innocent' mentality about these filters.