What unmitigated clap trap. You claim that I somehow "took advantage" of
your ISP????

Then you go on to say that you were in violation "to a degree." You are
truly a pill.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"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

Now that is funny! Thanks for reposting!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Wally" wrote in message
. uk...
Capt. Neal® wrote:

At the risk of somebody accusing me of sucking your dick, may I say
you appear to become more brilliant by the day.

First time you've said something in weeks that's made me laugh. Keep it
up.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

"Wally" wrote in message . uk...
Capt. Neal® wrote:

(Neal, your line length seems to be screwed.)

I use carriage returns. Check your news reader settings or drag out your window...


Not entirely so. There are always those troublesome gray areas. Take
KKKatysails
netKKKopping of me with my expendable Individual.net account. In her
case,
I did nothing against their TOS. Go back and do some research before
you jump
to foolish conclusions. Katy reported me for forging. A close look at
the e-mail addy
I used will reveal the truth. Instead of using
, I used Do you
see the difference? If I used the first, it
would be against the TOS; since I used the latter, which is not her
addy and not
a legit email addy at all, it was not a forgery.

I'm not interested in the specifics of the alleged offence.

You choose to remain ignorant of the facts? Does that not go
at least a little way toward invalidating your conclusions?


The fact of the
matter is some news
servers sometimes decide if they get too many complaints, even if
they are not completely
legit as was the case in KKKatysail's complaints

If you know this, then you know to avoid it if you want to keep your
account.

You haven't been listening, Wally? I did not want to keep the account because
it was going from free to pay and it wasn't worth paying for an inferior server.



(I say complaints
because her M.O. is
to send multiple complaints from multiple addresses from multiple
computers), ...

Proof?

I got it straight from the party who read her abuse complaints.


... then the
subject of the complaints has to go because answering complaints
takes up their time.
On a free account, I can understand where they find it very easy to
pull the plug.

If you know this, then you know to avoid it if you want to keep your
account.

Silly, how many times do I have to write that I considered the account
expendable and used it as a tool to expose a couple of netcops?


Ganz's netKKKopping runs along similar lines. He thinks if he can
flood an ISP or
NSP with complaints then volume will speak louder than legitimacy.

Proof?

I got it straight from the person who dealt with and rejected his
bogus abuse complaints. That person even posted here in this very
site that Ganz had complained five times up till then. The first
complaint they sent back informing him it was bogus and the others
they ignored or returned after warning him to get his **** together.

You need to pay attention more to what goes on here. Kill filing
or ignoring those you accuse of strong arm tactics is resulting
in you not making very informed decisions.


Both Ganz and
KKKatysails seem to think they got me kicked off several ISP's in the
past. Both
KKKatysails and Ganz are wrong. I have never been kicked off an ISP.
The only
news server I've ever been kicked off is Individual.net and that was
four days
earlier than I would have been anyway since I did not sign up for
their pay service.

So, your complaint about suffering five years of netcopping at the hands of
Katy was false? What it really was was five years of you pushing up to the
boundaries, her complaining to service providers, but her complaints not
being upheld? Is that right?

At the hands of KKKaty and Ganz to be more exact. They never stop complaining.
It was five years of me posting things here that ****ed them off or offended
their sensibilities. Tough ****!. They brag about filters yet they hang on my every
word so they can complain about this and about that. They didn't like what I had
to say. That was the only thing I gave them to complain about orI would have been
TOSsed. Yes, their complaints were only effective at making more work for my
providers.


Stupid statement. If you had all the facts re Ganz and KKKatysails
you would
also call them rogue.

But I don't have the facts, Neal. All I have is you claiming that they
netcopped you. You've also claimed that you netcopped Ganzy. I suspect that
at least one of those isn't true, and that means that I can't take your word
for it that whatever remains is true.

Whose fault is that, Wally? You either say you aren't interested in specifics
or you choose not to read posts that present the facts. I'm not asking you
to take my word. I'm asking you to open your eyes and read posts which
present the facts.

Seems to me if somebody is spending time writing long posts which take
one side or another it would be to their advantage to read all the posts here
so theywould not appear be whining about ignorance they brought upon
themselves You would not have to take my word had you read Gary Burnore's
posts. Have you ever wondered just who that dude is? You might be very
surprised. Believe me, the man is in a position to know of which he speaks.


How would you like to get kicked off a ISP when
there
is no other in your town to turn to.

I wouldn't like it at all, of course.


This is what Ganz has threatened
Mooron
with just for writing words in posts and ragging Ganz about being
Gay. Ganz
picked a gray area in Mooron's TOS and kept working on it.

What grey area? It's possible for a user to write to their own provider to
seek clarification - I've done this several times regarding potentially
commercial use of web space on a domestic account, and in a climate where
there were several sad little assholes who spent their time snitching to the
ISP whenever they found a commercial site. I protected myself from that
problem by finding out exactly what I was allowed to do and staying within
the limitations I was given.

I believe Capt. Mooron answered your question far better than I could in
his post elsewhere. Have you read it? He thought he was acting within
ageed upon limitations too, for all the good it did him.


Mooron
didn't do
anything that Ganz has not done himself a hundred times.The only
difference is
Ganz ratted on Mooron using tried and true tactics.

Proof?

I'm sure Capt. Mooron would be happy to set your mind at ease. I cannot
provide proof in Mooron's case. Only he can. But, I'm surprised that you
seem to be willing to, in effect, call Capt. Mooron a liar.


Wrong, as I explained above. There is that gray area where decisions
can
go against a user based on nothing more than volume of complaints,
threats
of lawsuits, etc. I proved that to be the case with KKKatysails
netcopping, at least.

Proved it with what?

Did you read Haight's post where she admitted to turning both myself and
Lady Pilot in for abuse? She even said she also complained to att.net - her own
ISP and to Bigfoot.com. Instead of insisting others provide you with
proof, you need to keep up and read it for yourself. Otherwise, please
go to the back of the class.

snip
Ganz, for
example, has
pestered databasix with at least five bogus complaints as of a couple
of
weeks ago according to a post here from somebody from there who would
know
the number and is a believable source of such info.

Believable by whom?

You are too dense, Wally. Do you have any knowlege of databasix other than
your assumed bias? Apparently not. If you did you would not be asking such
naive questions. Frankly, I think Capt. Mooron is giving you more credit than is
due you.


No telling how
many
more complaints he's filed in the meantime or if he has finally given
up on it.

From the perspective of this ordinary user, there really is no telling -
because all there is is claims.

If you read the posts here you would not be making such absurd
remarks. It's not all that hard to figure out who is who and what
they do if you pay attention. Some of the people posting here
are the very same people dealing with abuse complaints from
Ganz and Haight. If you cannot figure out who is who then
you're not worthy of my continued efforts to enlighten you.


Let's make it more personal. I don't know about the situation in
Scotland
where you live but here in the USA they have anonymous crime tip
lines.

Yup, we got 'em too.


One can call these lines and report crimes without surrendering your
name, etc. Let's say you have a similar system in Scotland and a
couple
of people got together because you were a loud-mouthed son of a bitch
and they hated your ass and wanted to make your life a living hell.
They called and reported you for selling drugs out of your house and
they went to different locations and called again and again. Sooner
or later, the cops would be at your door with a search warrant. God
help you if they found some grass and a bong and a quantity of pot.
You'd find yourself slapped in jail and your house would be
confiscated.
You'd be put on trial for drug dealing. Sure it's illegal to smoke
pot in
your own home but you are suffering the punishment for dealing it.
Gray area and matter of degree. I bet you would not feel you deserved
a drug dealer sentence just for smoking pot in your own home.

Over here, the police have to find evidence in support of the claim. They
don't put people on trial, confiscate their homes, or throw them in jail,
just because a bunch of people claim something. Even people who *confess* to
crimes stand to not be taken seriously unless there's corroborating
evidence. So far as I'm aware, a bong and some grass isn't considered to be
evidence of dealing. Now, a bong, large quantities of grass, piles of cash,
lots of people coming and going, some of whom get stopped and searched and
found to be stoned and in possession of grass... now, that would be evidence
of dealing. Over here, you can also get busted for 'wasting police time'.

Pretty much the same here. It's a matter of degree. Some states have higher
drug amounts for it to be dealing and some lower.


You never sold drugs to anybody but those who ratted you out used a
gray area to take away your freedom and your house. No real difference
other than seriousness of the crime and seriousness of the punishment.

I believe there has been a recent change in legislation, where assests
purchased from the proceeds of the dealing can be confiscated. Prior to
that, it wouldn't have been touched.

I take the point of your example, but there are checks and balances in our
legal system to prevent people getting jailed on little more than the say-so
of potentially-malicious others.

Ahah! Were are those same checks and balances in a NSP who doesn't even
understand their own rules and is overworked answering bogus abuse complaints?


You are being simplistic. There was no injustice? Tell that to the two
people (and their families) O.J. Simpson murdered. It is clear O.J.
stepped
over the mark but he was proven not guilty. In another civil trial
he was proven guilty. The result of a trial or the result of an action
based on an investigation is not infallible. Your logic sounds
reasonable
at first glance but it's cleary too simplistic.

Proof, proof, proof. Where is yours?

Proof of what this time? And, is it up to me to rub your face in
proof that you've ignored or chose not to read even when was
posted publicly on this newsgroup? You can lead a horse to
water but you can't make it drink.


I don't subscribe to the view that not taking a stand means that
those on the sidelines are suddenly complicit. To argue that is to
presuppose that they have the same opinion on the matter as the
noise-makers, and are sufficiently motivated to take action. I see
no evidence is support of those presuppositions.

Bogus argument again. It is law in this country, at least, that if
you do
not report a murder then you are complict in that murder even if you
are just a bystander. If you give aid and comfort to a murder you are
guilty of conspiracy which carries very severe penalties. Same goes
for child abuse, child neglect, animal cruelty, etc. You are bound by
law to report it as soon as it comes to your attention and if you
don't
and, later on, it comes to light that you knew and didn't report it,
then
you have committed a crime.

Bogus argument, y'self, dude.


To a lesser degree giving aid and comfort to known netKKKops,
especially,
those known to send in multiple bogus complaints, is to support
netKKKops.

Are you saying I'm giving "aid and comfort" to netcops?

It appears that way to me. You ignore evidence presented in black
in white by the very people who read the abuse complaints from
these netKKKops. What can I possibly say that will convince you when
you ignore that which comes from the horses mouth?


While netKKKopping is not a crime and it's not a crime to side with
them, it
definitely shows poor judgment.

I haven't sided with any netcops. I've consistently stated that it's up to
those who wish to skirt the fringes of their TOS to do so in the knowledge
that the netcop hazard is one that has to be accounted for. My argument has
been based on the concept of personal responsibility, and most definitely
*not* on any notion of supporting netcops.

I stand corrected, then.


You can't sit on the sidelines and
claim
neutrality and have much credibility at all.

Of course I can! Maybe the difference is that I can see more than one side
to the affair.

Hardly can you see the side of the netKKKopped until such time as you, yourself
are netKKKopped.


In the same way you
cannot
witness child neglect or endangerment and walk away from it and claim
neutrality and have a legal leg to stand on if it becomes known that
you
did so. Simply a matter of decrees.

Rubbish. It's a newsgroup. You're a loud-mouthed son of a bitch. You ****
people off. When you do that, some of them try to get back at you. You buy a
service, you play by the rules, you're fine. You break the rules, you get
boned. You play around in the grey areas, you take your chances.

Tough that some people get ****ed off. That's their problem. If they can't
stand the heat then get the **** out of the kitchen. Don't attempt to close
the door so others cannot use the kitchen. That's pathetic and lame.


If netKKKopping within the group is curtailed, that's a good thing. An
unmoderated alt. newsgroup should be a stronghold for unfettered free
speech. How can one "browbeat" somebody else in a newsgroup by
engaging in free speech on a newsgroup? That you think free speech
is browbeating demonstrates you are at least a little misguided. The
folks you accuse of browbeating are only doing what they have every
right to do here. They are posting. It looks to me as if they are
abiding by their TOS agreements. (They MUST be or they would be
kicked off - using your own logic! There have been one or posters
who seem to have broken a rule or two but I did notice those you
call browbeaters were quick to point out to the rulebreakers the
error of their ways and were not shy about asking them to please
desist.

Epistolary fascism, Neal. We've been admonished to demand an 'apology' from
Katy on pain of the group being destroyed - by dint of it being flooded with
garbage posts. You know it, I know it, those who are doing it know it, and
so does everybody else.

If the group can be destroyed by it's being flooded with people wishing to post
here, what right have you or I have to restrict their access. This is a public group
and anybody who wishes to, has a right to post here. You don't own this group. I
don't own this group. They don't own this group. Anybody who damned well pleases
is entiltled to post here. This talk of "outsiders" ruining "our group" is so pathetic
it sickens me. Get it through your thick skull. Nobody owns this group.


Let me ask you this: What gives you the right to decide a certain
group of posters is browbeating just because they are posting here.
You post here, are you also a browbeater? Some might think so.
Does that make you one?

Let me ask you this: if the sudden influx of garbage posts was coming from
one poster, would that be within the typical provider's TOS? Flooding a
group with garbage is a TOSable offence - it's net abuse. When a group of
people act in concert to the same end, does it suddenly become okay? Does it
suddenly become *not* net abuse?

Definitely NOT. Who are you to make stick what is only some lame conspiracy
theory based on paranoia. These 'browbeaters' have as much right to post here
as anybody else. If you don't like it, then you don't have to stay here or you
can use filters. A bunch of people getting together and posting to a group is
not a violation of any TOS I've ever read.


The solid evidence you can look up in the case of KKKatysails. I told
you
I did not forge her headers. You can do some independent research and
verify this fact. But you won't; it's clear you've already made up
your
mind based on faulty, black and white logic.

I'm not interested in the specifics of the alleged offence.

Why not? You wish to continue to argue while continuing to remain ignorant?


So, on the basis of rumor and inuendo, you declare that I am a
pedophile

Bull**** of the highest order.

Proof?


and deserve to be booted because I'm a troll as well. The trolling
exists
in your own mind as does the pedophile claims.

I've read your 'paedophile' posts, Neal. They are clearly trolls which are
designed to look as if you advocate sex with minors, while not actually
admitting that you do such a thing. I don't for one minute think that you
actually do do such things, but there are people who will be incensed when
reading such material. It is them that it is aimed at with the deliberate
intent of provoking a reaction. In terms of acceptability to a service
provider, I think it would *very* borderline.

Tough **** if they're ****ed off. The pedophila exists in their minds. It is
their problem if they fear thinking about something that exists in this world.
That they cannot deal with the real world indicates to me they need help.
My or anybody else pushing their buttons is something they should deal with.
Maybe they should seek counseling.

Speech of any kind provokes reaction. One can say "God bless you" in this
day and age and there will be listeners who are deeply offended. I say
**** them. I cannot censor my speech to please everybody. If I were to
do so, I would be able to say nothing at all. If what they hear offends
them it is THEIR cross to bear and not mine.


Sad that you just
admitted that
you think netKKKopping is OK based on content of posts alone.

I haven't said that netcopping is okay. I've said one thing, and one thing
only: if you're going to play close to the edge, it's your responsibility.
Netcops exist and rules exist. They're hazards that have to be accounted for
in one's online activities.

Close to the edge is not a reason to holler abuse. Over the edge is.


FTR, I don't like netcops. I've been on usenet ten years and never netcopped
anyone. I've been netcopped once (didn't lose my account, but did get a
warning). Before usenet, I was involved with a very ordered and diligently
moderated BBS network for several years. Due to the inability of that
network to move with the times, I went to usenet. The first group I got into
was alt.alien.visitors - a hotbed of trolls and UFO kooks. After spending a
couple of weeks watching some Foaming True Believer being *mercilessly*
trolled, with me demanding the heads of the trolls on platters, the culture
shock subsided, and I settled into my own game (trolling the trolls).

I don't approve of netcopping, Neal. There are certain lines that shouldn't
be crossed, and getting someone's account binned is one of them. As I've
said before, what we have here is personas. In attacking someone on usenet,
we're attacking the persona they present. As a wise man once said, it's all
just ones and zeros. It's an entirely different matter to step beyond a
screenful of crap and an imaginary personality that you don't like, and turn
the attack into something real by hitting someone - the real person behnd
the persona - by taking away a real thing in their life.

You're a
hypocrite, Wally.

You're wrong, Neal.

It wouldn't be the first time.


Wrong again! *I* care about my freedom of speech and *I* care about
getting
booted.

Then you're between a rock and a hard place, aren't you?

Not at all. Now that I have a NSP who understands their own rules, life
just became a big bowl of cherries. They do news right. They aren't
about to surrender their principles even if Ganz and his like bombard
them with a million bogus abuse complaints.


LP cares about her freedom of speech and she cares about being
harassed and booted. It's more than a lame little feud to me. It's
more than
a little feud to her. I'm out to prove a point and that point seems
to be lost on you.
The point is using bogus complaint letters to an ISP or NSP in
unacceptable.
You should frown on such tactics, not defend them.

I *do* frown on such tactics - I just haven't seen any *evidence*of them.
Given the amount of bull**** that passes through here - your own claims to
have netcopped Ganzy included - what you're offering is just more claims.
Why should anyone believe these claims, and not other claims?

I don't wish to belabor the point but if you'd kept your eyes open you would
have seen proof.


If nobody cares about it but the protagonists, how come you're
spending so
much time voicing your opinions.

What I care about in this context is the banter and reparte that is the
normal business of this group. I don't give a damn about your feud with
Katy. When you two start poking sharp sticks at each other, I largely ignore
it.


You call what you're doing right now ignoring it? Coulda fooled me. . .


What if you were not allowed to
voice your
opinions in the future because you ****ed a couple of netKKKops off?
I bet
you'd be singing a different tune then.

That would depend on why I got netcopped. If I was out of order WRT my TOS,
then I have myself to blame. I like to think I manage to stay sufficiently
within my TOS, such that I'd be facing a warning and a negotiation long
before being insta-booted. I've seen what sort of stuff gets an instant
account revocation from my ISP, and I have no desire to cut that close to
the quick to begin with. Indeed, their TOS warns people that discourse in
unmoderated newsgroups is often 'robust', and that the faint-hearted are
advised not to venture there.


What if you cannot voice your
opinions
here because the group turns into rubbish?

It's more about having to trawl through loads of **** to read the others'
opinions that interest me.

That's life on Usenet. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.


Isn't that what you are
decrying
the most? The eminent destruction of your precious group?

I'm not sure I'd go so far as 'precious', but it is good fun in here - and
it's the prospect of losing that particular strand of fun than I'm concerned
about. That BBS network I talked about - it imploded because hundreds of
people drifted off to newsgroups, mailing lists and online forums.
Connecting to a BBS and doing messaging that way became too much hassle
because the newer technology made everything easier and more convenient. If
this place is flooded with crap because some people want to make a point,
then it will go the same way. If what has been happening here doesn't stop,
then this group really will be destroyed, because it will be too much hassle
for people to get what they want out of it. Another wise man once said that
messages beget messages - but they have to be messages that people want to
read and reply to.

Now you're imposing more of your own rules on the newsgroup. Nowhere does
it say posts have to be interesting or motivational. Sure you have an opinion and
a desire for a newsgrop to conform to your wishes and standards. Forget it.
It ain't gonna happen unless you create your own moderated group and impose
your standards upon it.



If *ONE*
person's
freedom of speech is abridged here and you don't speak out against
it, then
you bear part of the blame for *your* freedom of speech being
abridged.

Find another way to make your point, Neal. Look for the multiple instances
of the word beginning with 'p' in the foregoing and give it some thought.

I'm not saying your point is invalid, although I would submit that I have a
different approach to netcops - I don't take the same risks that some do.
But I do object to the tactics you're using make your point.

Fair enough because I now realize you, at least, will not resort to netKKKopping
when you cannot get your way. And, it's good to see you came out against
netKKKops.

CN

"Wally" wrote in message k...
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

NetKKKop supporters.

Wally

If I'm wrong then I apologize but I have yet to see any of the above
denounce netKKKops. Instead they seem to try to justify netKKKopping.

I think you need to read my recent longish post to you.



Read it last night; replied to it today.

CN

"Scotty" wrote in message ...
but it was a toy gun (frogging), not a real one (forging).


Newsgroup headers can be examined at one's leisure and do not kill.
One can determine a froggery vs. a forgery at one's leisure with no danger
to life and limb.

People pointing toy guns do not kill but people pointing real guns can and do.
A police officer doesn't have time to think about it, he must act.

Your analogy is flawed.

Is this an official admission of reporting Cap't Mooron?

SV

"JG" wrote in message
...
What unmitigated clap trap. You claim that I somehow "took
advantage" of
your ISP????

"Joe" wrote in message oups.com...
Liar...

Go ahead.... make some more annoying usless mindless, retarded noise.

Your as threating and annoying as a nat.

Do not do anything but annoy the **** out of people. Infact you spread
so much stench I bet your setting in a soiled diaper right now cat boy.

joe


Joe, you disappoint me. You sound small, very small!

CN

"Wally" wrote in message k...
Capt. Neal® wrote:

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.

Examples which I didn't think were particularly good. Why employ a poor
analogy when you can get straght to the point with evidence?


Your
facts about Ganz's continued use of TOS gray areas from your personal
perspective
is far more effective IMHO.

Let's just say that Mooron made his point in a way that's more accessible to
me. Dragging a bunch of rowdies in to trash the bar never constitutes an
argument.


Wally, does appear to side at least somewhat with netKKKops

Nope.


... but I can't picture him ever stooping so low himself.

Nope.


... He seems to have pretty good self-esteem

Yup.


but is somewhat rule-driven. When they call for rebels.
Don't expect Wally to step forward.

I weigh up each situation as I find it.


Before or after you consult with your mother?

CN

"Wally" wrote in message
k...
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 don't know if counter-claims would work. While I would weigh them up as
a
tactical option, I would be tempted to avoid using them on principle. For
me, the arena is here, and not some nefarious back-stabbing crap conducted
in email between self and opponent's service provider. That BBS network I
talked about in my post to Neal - it was heavily moderated and completely
unlike usenet, but a good thing about it was that all moderation, hearing
of
complaints, and bootings/reconcilliations were done in public for the
entire
network to see.

I'm not certain how to comment on this. It seems to me that if I made a
false or marginal complaint against someone to their ISP, it would be up to
the ISP to either dismiss it out of hand or to use their best judgement
about how to react. Most ISPs respect the privacy of both the person
complaining and the person being complained against. Of course, there's
nothing that either party can do about it if they don't do that, but so far
the only "proof" Mooron has offered is his own statement that I made a
complaint. In any case, whether I did or not, it's still up to his ISP to
take it seriously or not.


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.

I haven't been making statements about you, but about Neal's declared
deliberate stepping outside his provider's TOS (now softened to 'almost'
stepping outside it and being booted due to weight of complaint numbers).
As
I say, I haven't been aware of what your telling me here (kinda saw the
posts but wasn't really following what was going on).


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 wonder if Jonathan would care to comment on this? In my view, this
situation has gone beyond the "I can neither confirm nor deny" line. If
it's
true, he's completely out of order.

I have never heard of an ISP claiming such a thing. What regulations? I've
had complaints lodged against me in the past. My ISP looks at the rules
they've set down, looks at the situation, and makes a determination based on
their assessment. For example, at one point many months ago, my ISP got in
touch with me about a large volume of email that was coming from my shell
account with them. This was a clear violation of my TOS. I was mystified,
since I don't usually use my shell account for email and certain not for
large volumes of it. We both agreed that something needed to be done
immediately, and they put suspended my outgoing email service for a couple
of hours while the investigation ensued. It turned out that I made a
scripting error and multiple emails were being sent for every one received.
This is also a clear violation of my TOS, since I'm completely responsible
for scripts I create. They found the problem, called me back (I was out of
town on business), explained the problem, created a temporary fix for me,
then restarted my email.

There was another situation that happened years ago that was even worse. It
was when spam first started become a real problem and there we no elegant
solutions. I sent a spam report to PSI (large backbone). They sent me a
long-winded, automated reply, but the spam still continued. Everytime I
reported the problem, I got the same long-winded reply but no action.
Finally, I had enough and crafted a script that would return their reply to
them. This created a loop and resulted in 10,000 emails being generated in
the first hour. This was on a Sunday. I got a couple of phone calls. The
first was from PSI telling me to remove the reply filter. I told them that I
would be happy to do so as soon as they fixed their problem with generating
long-winded replies in the first place, and I hung up. The guy called back,
saying, ok, ok, they fixed their end. So, I removed the filter. The emails
stopped looping. Then, I got a call from my ISP saying that they noticed a
problem which went on for about an hour then stopped and was wondering what
happened. I told them. They told me that technically, I had violated my TOS,
but that they understood the situation and was glad it was resolved. I
offered to pay for the excessive bandwidth, which they appreciated but said
to forget it.


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 can assure that there is no intention for my opinions to come across as
pretentious. I understand your predicament, but I do still see it as black
and white. Hard as it may be, your circumstances have changed, and the
basic
choice that I've outlined several times still stands. For you, some of the
ledge has fallen away, and the edge now closer than it was - and that's a
damn shame. If they've changed because someone has messed around with a
real-world resource that you use, than that's plain wrong.


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!

Jonathan? What say you?

What would Mooron like me to do to help? Does he want me to send an email or
call his ISP and tell him it's ok for him to do whatever he wants even if it
violates his TOS? Do you think they would listen to me? He claims that I'm
beyond contempt, but this is nothing new.

I still and will always assert that if someone violates their TOS and their
ISP decides that they have, they need to live with the result. I have done
nothing wrong.

"meow"

is that more to your liking?

Joe