"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:fvZ7e.34876$vt1.12415@edtnps90...

"Wally" wrote in message

While I can see that there's an ethical or principled aspect to this, the
brass tacks of the matter are that there are enforcable rules which the
user
can choose to abide by, or transgress. It's simply about accepting your
provider's TOS, and then choosing whether or not to abide by them.

Wally.... with all due respect ... I must take this assumption to task.
Rules are set as guidelines... although enforceable to the letter... this
does not justify nor mitigate abuse of those enforceable guidelines as a
shield to prevent engagement with an opponent on a "verbal" matter.

I would state that once precedence is set.... once parameters of engagement
have been mutually established.... it is plainly wrong to resort to evoking
such action.

To explain .... and I'm certain you are aware... I have taken Jonathan to
task. During that encounter a certain established exchange of insults was
undertaken. The difference being that Jonathan elected to report me for
defamation to my ISP... despite an ongoing interchange of established
insults between us. Jonathan had the option of not responding .. or kill
filing me. I made no attempt throughout this altercation... to mask my
identity nor alter my header. I provided everyone with "if subject contains"
keywords to facilitate kill filing.

Despite my efforts... Jonathan took advantage of my TOS to report me. I know
I was in violation to a degree... but this benchmark was established within
the protocol of the group and until Jonathan began filing abuse complaints
... I had been in verbal quarrels to a much greater degree of dissention
than what had taken place with Ganz. I even on occasion had come to his aid.
Having the these boundaries established within the group... I felt that I
was not in violation of the "spirit of intent" of my TOS.

I have refused to follow the recommendations of my ISP and file counter
complaints.... since I have accepted the terms of engagement on this group.

I firmly believe that to blindly state that I am guilty of violations of my
TOS is a rather narrow minded and short sighted accusation.... based on the
letter of the law rather than the intent.

To quote my ISP... "although we agree with your position, our hands are
tied by the regulations"... sums up what they think of the complaints
forwarded to them from Jonathan.

I stand righteous in my indignation..... so don't paint this canvas in
black and white... and do not talk down to me from a precarious perch of
pretensions.

I have only one provider in my area..... I knew this when I entered into
the diatribe... and Jonathan was the only one to report me in the years I've
posted here. He has established himself as such...... without a doubt...
beneath my contempt!

Capt.Mooron
S.V. Overpoof



A most excellent post, sir! I, too, railed at Wally's black and white interpretation
of abuse situations and referred him to examples of gray areas by proxy. Your
facts about Ganz's continued use of TOS gray areas from your personal perspective
is far more effective IMHO.

Wally, does appear to side at least somewhat with netKKKops but I can't picture him
ever stooping so low himself. He seems to have pretty good self-esteem but is somewhat
rule-driven. When they call for rebels. Don't expect Wally to step forward.

CN