|
''There are
about a half-dozen hard core netKKKop supporters here.'' Name them, Putz. SV |
I assume some ISPs have different TOS (lines to
cross). "Yes, but the abuse@ address is not the newsgroup babysitter. " And neither is a bunch of ''flonkers''. Why burn down the house to kill a few ants? Scotty |
I can't think of a single person on this newsgroup who either supports or is
a netcop in the terms that these bozos have described, except for Neal who has proclaimed over and over again his abuse reports. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Scotty" wrote in message oups.com... ''There are about a half-dozen hard core netKKKop supporters here.'' Name them, Putz. SV |
He must be one of those net nazi's.I hope he don't rat us out to the
man. Joe |
Wally wrote:
Soque (Enjoque) Pupette wrote: I exercise my responsibility by staying withing the bounds of my provider's AUP/TOS and the law; however, I refuse to be constrained by some nutcase on a power trip. What if you were to transgress your provider's TOS, and some nutcase on a power trip got you booted? Would you accept responsibility for your transgression, or would you assert that the power-tripping nutcase is the only person to blame? If I travel outside the bounds of my provider's TOS I *should* get booted -- regardless who reports me or if my provider notices it himself. But, *I* don't have to worry about it as *I* won't go there. What if you transgressed the TOS of a series of providers, there being a series because you were regularly booted? What if this happened for five years, and you then deliberately transgressed your provider's TOS, knowing that the power-tripping nutcase would again get you booted? Someone that gets booted from a series of providers for deliberate abuse and/or TOS violations over the course of a five year flameware is a nutcase, too. Net-abuse and/or TOS violations are *not* justified by being on the right side of an argument. Do you think it's right that an online community, which essentially has no active part in this on-going feud, should get trashed as a way of attempting to coerce the power tripper to accept the blame? This is a fair question. I'm glad you brought it up. I think such a community should be self policing. Meaning: They should take a stand against the injustices by a rogue netkkkop in their midst, thereby quelling the need for a loud and boisterous protest of those injustices. If they don't, they're complicit in the injustice by allowing it to fester. It may look like a thrashing, it may be called a thrashing, it's actually a protest by folks that oppose rogue netkkkoping. Frankly, I've never been fond of the "We'll turn your group into a smoking crater" troll. But, I realize it's a troll. It's designed to provoke an emotional reaction by kicking the natural (and powerful) instinct of self-preservation. -- ,,, ..oo c - Soque |
Soque (Enjoque) Pupette wrote:
If I travel outside the bounds of my provider's TOS I *should* get booted -- regardless who reports me or if my provider notices it himself. ... Someone that gets booted from a series of providers for deliberate abuse and/or TOS violations over the course of a five year flameware is a nutcase, too. Net-abuse and/or TOS violations are *not* justified by being on the right side of an argument. 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. I think such a community should be self policing. Meaning: They should take a stand against the injustices by a rogue netkkkop in their midst, ... It seems to me that, complaints about supposed TOS transgressions can go one of two ways... If they're upheld, then the transgressor got what they deserved, insofar as they accepted the provider's TOS when they signed up. While I might not agree with netcopping, I don't see how a netcop in this situation could be described as a 'rogue'. If they aren't upheld, then there was no transgression, and the alleged transgressor doesn't get booted. While the person who filed the complaint might be described as a 'rogue netcop', their complaints don't actually have any effect, so there's nothing to get annoyed about - no injustice. In other words, there's no such thing as a 'rogue' netcop in the sense that such a netcop can bring about an unjust booting. There are only netcops, and people who pester service providers with frivolous complaints. ... thereby quelling the need for a loud and boisterous protest of those injustices. If they don't, they're complicit in the injustice by allowing it to fester. I put it to you that there was no injustice. He either stepped over the mark and got what was coming to him (by whatever facilitation), or he didn't step over the mark and his account remained intact. 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. It may look like a thrashing, it may be called a thrashing, it's actually a protest by folks that oppose rogue netkkkoping. It's a brow-beating - an attempt to coerce people to carry out certain actions by making so much noise that their normal activities within the group are curtailed. Those who undertake this might fervently believe that they're in the right, but those on the receiving end will never do what they ask - precisely *because* they're being brow-beaten into doing so. The epistolary equivalent of fascism doesn't convince, but cogent argument and solid evidence might. That said, I think you'll find that most people in here simply don't give a **** about whether Neal managed to get himself netcopped. He looks after his vessel, and the sailors here respect him for that. He starts a lot of sailing debate, which others may agree or disagree with, but most will give him credit for doing so. He's also a distasteful troll who, amongst other things, has posted very thinly veiled implications that he's a paedophile. Watching him get booted, most people will see the latter being hoisted by his own petard - not surprised, no sympathy, got what he asked for, etc. Frankly, I've never been fond of the "We'll turn your group into a smoking crater" troll. But, I realize it's a troll. It's designed to provoke an emotional reaction by kicking the natural (and powerful) instinct of self-preservation. Quite. However, there's a rather large difference between preserving oneself, and preserving some newsgroup where a bunch of sailors get together to have a laugh and shoot the breeze. One has to appreciate that self-preservation is part and parcel of the very activity that sailors undertake. By and large, sailing is a safe activity - provided you don't make mistakes. If you do make a mistake, it can become dangerous, sometimes to the point where your entire modus operandi is geared around keeping yourself alive. Every sailor knows that, when it all goes pear-shaped, you can't step out of the boat and walk home. To suppose that noising up the bar is going to invoke some sort of instinct for 'self preservation', to the extent that the incumbents will bay for the blood of one half of what amounts to some petty feud, is so wide of the mark, it's not even in the same regatta. Nobody cares about Neal getting booted, either recently, or in the past, and nobody cares whether Katy netcopped him for his latest infraction, or for any of his previous ones. It's their petty little feud. It's just another sideshow in the on-going ****-takes, debates, and arguments that make up the mileu of this group. Just a pair of regulars having yet another stupid spat in a corner of the bar. Nobody cares about it, other than the protagonists themselves and a bunch of noise-makers who think they've got a campaign to fight. -- Wally www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm www.wally.myby.co.uk |
Wally, excellent post. However, I believe there are some rogue netcops out
there. Typically, at least in the past, they took actions such as mass cancelling, even for pretty minor stuff, such as top posting. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Wally" wrote in message k... Soque (Enjoque) Pupette wrote: If I travel outside the bounds of my provider's TOS I *should* get booted -- regardless who reports me or if my provider notices it himself. ... Someone that gets booted from a series of providers for deliberate abuse and/or TOS violations over the course of a five year flameware is a nutcase, too. Net-abuse and/or TOS violations are *not* justified by being on the right side of an argument. 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. I think such a community should be self policing. Meaning: They should take a stand against the injustices by a rogue netkkkop in their midst, ... It seems to me that, complaints about supposed TOS transgressions can go one of two ways... If they're upheld, then the transgressor got what they deserved, insofar as they accepted the provider's TOS when they signed up. While I might not agree with netcopping, I don't see how a netcop in this situation could be described as a 'rogue'. If they aren't upheld, then there was no transgression, and the alleged transgressor doesn't get booted. While the person who filed the complaint might be described as a 'rogue netcop', their complaints don't actually have any effect, so there's nothing to get annoyed about - no injustice. In other words, there's no such thing as a 'rogue' netcop in the sense that such a netcop can bring about an unjust booting. There are only netcops, and people who pester service providers with frivolous complaints. ... thereby quelling the need for a loud and boisterous protest of those injustices. If they don't, they're complicit in the injustice by allowing it to fester. I put it to you that there was no injustice. He either stepped over the mark and got what was coming to him (by whatever facilitation), or he didn't step over the mark and his account remained intact. 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. It may look like a thrashing, it may be called a thrashing, it's actually a protest by folks that oppose rogue netkkkoping. It's a brow-beating - an attempt to coerce people to carry out certain actions by making so much noise that their normal activities within the group are curtailed. Those who undertake this might fervently believe that they're in the right, but those on the receiving end will never do what they ask - precisely *because* they're being brow-beaten into doing so. The epistolary equivalent of fascism doesn't convince, but cogent argument and solid evidence might. That said, I think you'll find that most people in here simply don't give a **** about whether Neal managed to get himself netcopped. He looks after his vessel, and the sailors here respect him for that. He starts a lot of sailing debate, which others may agree or disagree with, but most will give him credit for doing so. He's also a distasteful troll who, amongst other things, has posted very thinly veiled implications that he's a paedophile. Watching him get booted, most people will see the latter being hoisted by his own petard - not surprised, no sympathy, got what he asked for, etc. Frankly, I've never been fond of the "We'll turn your group into a smoking crater" troll. But, I realize it's a troll. It's designed to provoke an emotional reaction by kicking the natural (and powerful) instinct of self-preservation. Quite. However, there's a rather large difference between preserving oneself, and preserving some newsgroup where a bunch of sailors get together to have a laugh and shoot the breeze. One has to appreciate that self-preservation is part and parcel of the very activity that sailors undertake. By and large, sailing is a safe activity - provided you don't make mistakes. If you do make a mistake, it can become dangerous, sometimes to the point where your entire modus operandi is geared around keeping yourself alive. Every sailor knows that, when it all goes pear-shaped, you can't step out of the boat and walk home. To suppose that noising up the bar is going to invoke some sort of instinct for 'self preservation', to the extent that the incumbents will bay for the blood of one half of what amounts to some petty feud, is so wide of the mark, it's not even in the same regatta. Nobody cares about Neal getting booted, either recently, or in the past, and nobody cares whether Katy netcopped him for his latest infraction, or for any of his previous ones. It's their petty little feud. It's just another sideshow in the on-going ****-takes, debates, and arguments that make up the mileu of this group. Just a pair of regulars having yet another stupid spat in a corner of the bar. Nobody cares about it, other than the protagonists themselves and a bunch of noise-makers who think they've got a campaign to fight. -- Wally www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm www.wally.myby.co.uk |
JG wrote:
Wally, excellent post. However, I believe there are some rogue netcops out there. Typically, at least in the past, they took actions such as mass cancelling, even for pretty minor stuff, such as top posting. Fair point, but that's a rather different context from the present one. -- Wally www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm www.wally.myby.co.uk |
"Soque (Enjoque) Pupette" wrote in message ... Scotty wrote: Soque (Enjoque) Pupette writed; [...] We can't have jerks yelling ''FIRE'' in a theatre. Agreed? Yelling "FIRE!" in a newsgroup doesn't cause a panic and rush to the exits where people get trampled and die. Agreed. but constant swearing, vulgar abusive language, in an established group of ''friendly sailors'' is disrubtive, to say the least. It's the fight that ensues when someone tries to appoint themselves as the authority over what's allowed to be said that causes the disruption. If folks just filtered/ignored it and continued their normal conversations there wouldn't be a disruption. (there wouldn't be a fight.) You wouldn't want an older man talking dirty to a pre-teen girl. Right? A parent that allows a preteen girl to wander in an adult environment is not fulfilling their duties as a parent. You think letting one's daughter go to school is neglectful? Huh? There is no comparison between a school for preteens and Usenet. Yeah, you're right. It's more like high school. John Cairns [...] I assume some ISPs have different TOS (lines to cross). Yes, but the abuse@ address is not the newsgroup babysitter. -- ,,, .oo c - Soque |
Definitely different.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Wally" wrote in message k... JG wrote: Wally, excellent post. However, I believe there are some rogue netcops out there. Typically, at least in the past, they took actions such as mass cancelling, even for pretty minor stuff, such as top posting. Fair point, but that's a rather different context from the present one. -- Wally www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm www.wally.myby.co.uk |
"Wally" wrote in message k... Soque (Enjoque) Pupette wrote: If I travel outside the bounds of my provider's TOS I *should* get booted -- regardless who reports me or if my provider notices it himself. ... Someone that gets booted from a series of providers for deliberate abuse and/or TOS violations over the course of a five year flameware is a nutcase, too. Net-abuse and/or TOS violations are *not* justified by being on the right side of an argument. 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. I think such a community should be self policing. Meaning: They should take a stand against the injustices by a rogue netkkkop in their midst, ... It seems to me that, complaints about supposed TOS transgressions can go one of two ways... If they're upheld, then the transgressor got what they deserved, insofar as they accepted the provider's TOS when they signed up. While I might not agree with netcopping, I don't see how a netcop in this situation could be described as a 'rogue'. If they aren't upheld, then there was no transgression, and the alleged transgressor doesn't get booted. While the person who filed the complaint might be described as a 'rogue netcop', their complaints don't actually have any effect, so there's nothing to get annoyed about - no injustice. In other words, there's no such thing as a 'rogue' netcop in the sense that such a netcop can bring about an unjust booting. There are only netcops, and people who pester service providers with frivolous complaints. ... thereby quelling the need for a loud and boisterous protest of those injustices. If they don't, they're complicit in the injustice by allowing it to fester. I put it to you that there was no injustice. He either stepped over the mark and got what was coming to him (by whatever facilitation), or he didn't step over the mark and his account remained intact. 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. It may look like a thrashing, it may be called a thrashing, it's actually a protest by folks that oppose rogue netkkkoping. It's a brow-beating - an attempt to coerce people to carry out certain actions by making so much noise that their normal activities within the group are curtailed. Those who undertake this might fervently believe that they're in the right, but those on the receiving end will never do what they ask - precisely *because* they're being brow-beaten into doing so. The epistolary equivalent of fascism doesn't convince, but cogent argument and solid evidence might. That said, I think you'll find that most people in here simply don't give a **** about whether Neal managed to get himself netcopped. He looks after his vessel, and the sailors here respect him for that. He starts a lot of sailing debate, which others may agree or disagree with, but most will give him credit for doing so. He's also a distasteful troll who, amongst other things, has posted very thinly veiled implications that he's a paedophile. Watching him get booted, most people will see the latter being hoisted by his own petard - not surprised, no sympathy, got what he asked for, etc. Frankly, I've never been fond of the "We'll turn your group into a smoking crater" troll. But, I realize it's a troll. It's designed to provoke an emotional reaction by kicking the natural (and powerful) instinct of self-preservation. Quite. However, there's a rather large difference between preserving oneself, and preserving some newsgroup where a bunch of sailors get together to have a laugh and shoot the breeze. One has to appreciate that self-preservation is part and parcel of the very activity that sailors undertake. By and large, sailing is a safe activity - provided you don't make mistakes. If you do make a mistake, it can become dangerous, sometimes to the point where your entire modus operandi is geared around keeping yourself alive. Every sailor knows that, when it all goes pear-shaped, you can't step out of the boat and walk home. To suppose that noising up the bar is going to invoke some sort of instinct for 'self preservation', to the extent that the incumbents will bay for the blood of one half of what amounts to some petty feud, is so wide of the mark, it's not even in the same regatta. Nobody cares about Neal getting booted, either recently, or in the past, and nobody cares whether Katy netcopped him for his latest infraction, or for any of his previous ones. It's their petty little feud. It's just another sideshow in the on-going ****-takes, debates, and arguments that make up the mileu of this group. Just a pair of regulars having yet another stupid spat in a corner of the bar. Nobody cares about it, other than the protagonists themselves and a bunch of noise-makers who think they've got a campaign to fight. -- Wally www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm www.wally.myby.co.uk Good points, with the exception of the part about "respecting" someone who lives in the keys in the floating equivalent of a cardboard shack in the mangroves. Trust me, if you drive down the overseas highway and look out to sea around any of the small communities down there you'll see what I mean. Nil is basically full of ****. Period. I've met some great sailors, none of them were remotely like nil, even when they had a few too many. And yeah, some of us do care. Over the years we've had some highly entertaining AND witty folks inhabit these environs, I suspect most left because they got tired of the resident troll/flame. It's one thing to get flamed with style, another to get insulted by a half wit, the equivalent of being cursed by the homeless person when you refused to give them the spare change in your pocket. John Cairns |
"John Cairns" wrote in message m... Good points, with the exception of the part about "respecting" someone who lives in the keys in the floating equivalent of a cardboard shack in the mangroves. Trust me, if you drive down the overseas highway and look out to sea around any of the small communities down there you'll see what I mean. Nil is basically full of ****. Period. I've met some great sailors, none of them were remotely like nil, even when they had a few too many. And yeah, some of us do care. Over the years we've had some highly entertaining AND witty folks inhabit these environs, I suspect most left because they got tired of the resident troll/flame. It's one thing to get flamed with style, another to get insulted by a half wit, the equivalent of being cursed by the homeless person when you refused to give them the spare change in your pocket. John Cairns YAWN! CN |
John Cairns wrote:
Good points, with the exception of the part about "respecting" someone who lives in the keys in the floating equivalent of a cardboard shack in the mangroves. One's perception of another's abode is highly relative. To describe someone's home as "the floating equivalent of a cardboard shack" is nothing less than arrogant. Who are you to judge what standard of living someone else should attain or aspire to? Seems to me that he keeps his boat in good order - he isn't slovenly about it, and that was my point. Trust me, if you drive down the overseas highway and look out to sea around any of the small communities down there you'll see what I mean. What, exactly, will I see? Anything other than people living their lives? Nil is basically full of ****. Period. Does this have some relation to your attitude to people who live in the keys in the "floating equivalent of a cardboard shack in the mangroves"? I've met some great sailors, none of them were remotely like nil, even when they had a few too many. So what? And yeah, some of us do care. About what? Neal getting netcopped after opening his yap and behaving like an obnoxious prick? Over the years we've had some highly entertaining AND witty folks inhabit these environs, I suspect most left because they got tired of the resident troll/flame. Seems to me that there was plenty of that going around until the recent spat brought in the noise makers. It's one thing to get flamed with style, another to get insulted by a half wit, Anyone who walks in here and feels insulted at some dumb comment is either in the wrong place or needs to thicken their skin. the equivalent of being cursed by the homeless person when you refused to give them the spare change in your pocket. Insulted?? My response to that would be, "**** you, too". -- Wally www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm www.wally.myby.co.uk |
Capt. Neal wrote: 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. What if you cannot voice your opinions here because the group turns into rubbish? ~~~~~~~~ Neal claims he is not allowed to voice is opinon. That is laughable. The very act of writing that false statement proves that he IS able to voice his opinions, despite what anyone did or didn't report about him. "What if you cannot voice your opinons here becuase the group turns into rubbish?" Neal, unfortunately, you are one of the peeps turning this group into rubbish. Everyone sees it. No escaping it. Cut it out, and get back to calling Ganz gay or something else as equally sophmoric and fun. -- Captain Lon "Rock stars! Is there anything they don't know?" Homer Simpson |
"Captain Lon" wrote in message news:piY7e.17771$hB6.11367@trnddc06... Capt. Neal wrote: 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. What if you cannot voice your opinions here because the group turns into rubbish? ~~~~~~~~ Neal claims he is not allowed to voice is opinon. That is laughable. The very act of writing that false statement proves that he IS able to voice his opinions, despite what anyone did or didn't report about him. "What if you cannot voice your opinons here becuase the group turns into rubbish?" Neal, unfortunately, you are one of the peeps turning this group into rubbish. Everyone sees it. No escaping it. Cut it out, and get back to calling Ganz gay or something else as equally sophmoric and fun. Would it be OK to call him an asshole or is that a reportable offense? Did you know calling Ganz a 'faggot' in Canada is now considered hate speech? CN |
"Capt. NealŽ" wrote There are always those troublesome gay areas. Is that where you and Jon met? |
"Capt. NealŽ" wrote That's the reason I baited KKKatysails. So you admit to being an asshole to get thrown off, and now you're bitching about it. You sure sound like a female. Scotty |
"Capt. NealŽ" wrote in message ... If you had all the facts re Ganz and KKKatysails you would also call them rogue. How would you like to get kicked off a ISP when there is no other in your town to turn to. 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. 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. Granted. you're right about the Gay One. he's an asshole, always has been, always will be. SV |
Wrong stupid. You don't get a 'dealing sentence' for a few oz. and a
bong. "Capt. NealŽ" wrote in message ... . 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. 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. 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. |
Now what are you saying, that Jon & Katy did the right thing? Make up
your f%^king mind! "Capt. NealŽ" wrote in message ... 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. |
"Scotty" wrote in message ... "Capt. NealŽ" wrote That's the reason I baited KKKatysails. So you admit to being an asshole to get thrown off, and now you're bitching about it. You sure sound like a female. Scotty I admit to setting a trap. Have you ever hunted with traps? They only work if you're smarter than your prey. I never denied being an asshole. Being an asshole is not against any news server's TOS that I've ever read. Besides if being an asshole was grounds for getting TOSsed then half this group would have been gone long ago, including yourself. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. CN |
Red CloudŽ whined:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:28:10 -0400, Capt. NealŽ wrote: "Wally" wrote in message k... Soque (Enjoque) Pupette wrote: If I travel outside the bounds of my provider's TOS I *should* get booted -- regardless who reports me or if my provider notices it himself. ... Someone that gets booted from a series of providers for deliberate abuse and/or TOS violations over the course of a five year flameware is a nutcase, too. Net-abuse and/or TOS violations are *not* justified by being on the right side of an argument. 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. 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. That would be entirely up to the discretion of your ISP. Many ISP's would see that as a clear attempt to impersonate, and would regard it the same way they would any forgery or impersonation. Bull**** Congratulations - you have fought so hard to preserve your version of "freedom of speech" that you now have no audience who cares what you say. Who are you again? |
"Red CloudŽ" wrote in message ... On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:28:10 -0400, Capt. NealŽ wrote: 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. That would be entirely up to the discretion of your ISP. Many ISP's would see that as a clear attempt to impersonate, and would regard it the same way they would any forgery or impersonation. Your opinion of what it is or isn't has no bearing. Then they are acting out of ignorance and you claim I should be kicked of because they are ignorant? It has nothing to do with my opinion. It has everything to do with definitions of words. Forging has a specific meaning on Usenet. Any e-mail that is not identical and is not even legit because of the use of certain characters of the deletion of certain characters is not a forgery. You are claiming that if you age going 55 in a 55mph zone and you get a speeding ticket for going 155 because some stupid cop cannot read the radar gun that you deserve that speeding ticket. Yah, right! Audience? Bwahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahah! They come and they go . . . . You post hoping to get an audience who cares? Bwahahahhahahahahhahahaahhaha! What a loser. CN |
"Scotty" wrote in message ... Wrong stupid. You don't get a 'dealing sentence' for a few oz. and a bong. You do if you have a big enough stash. It varies from state to state. I think here in Florida anything over four ounces is considered dealing. Four ounces isn't much. You probably go through that much in less than a week. CN |
"Capt. NealŽ" wrote in message ... "Scotty" wrote in message ... "Capt. NealŽ" wrote That's the reason I baited KKKatysails. So you admit to being an asshole to get thrown off, and now you're bitching about it. You sure sound like a female. Scotty I admit to setting a trap. Have you ever hunted with traps? They only work if you're smarter than your prey. I never denied being an asshole. Being an asshole is not against any news server's TOS that I've ever read. Besides if being an asshole was grounds for getting TOSsed then half this group would have been gone long ago, including yourself. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. CN What did you say? -- Captain Lon "Rock stars! Is there anything they don't know?" Homer Simpson |
"Scotty" wrote in message ... Now what are you saying, that Jon & Katy did the right thing? Make up your f%^king mind! They did the wrong thing because what they observed was not a crime. If you observe certain crimes you are obliged to report them. Rude language on the Usenet is not a crime. But the whole point was the 'innocent' bystander issue to which Wally alluded. In many cases there is no such thing as an innocent bystander. Supporting netKKKopping is hardly innocent bystanding. You can't sit around and whine that innocent people in the group don't deserve to suffer any consequences. That's dumb. If there are consequences, all people in the group suffer them. Get it now? CN |
"Wally" wrote in message k... John Cairns wrote: Good points, with the exception of the part about "respecting" someone who lives in the keys in the floating equivalent of a cardboard shack in the mangroves. One's perception of another's abode is highly relative. To describe someone's home as "the floating equivalent of a cardboard shack" is nothing less than arrogant. Who are you to judge what standard of living someone else should attain or aspire to? Seems to me that he keeps his boat in good order - he isn't slovenly about it, and that was my point. Don't care. I would point out, in the virtual equivalent of a saloon, that if someone claims something and the reality is in all probability a different thing entirely, that they are full of ****. And I am happy to tell them so. Probably not in the witty fashion of some, but I do get an occasional one-liner in. Trust me, if you drive down the overseas highway and look out to sea around any of the small communities down there you'll see what I mean. What, exactly, will I see? Anything other than people living their lives? You will see a fair number of people living on boats that haven't gone anywhere since they were fixed to their moorings. Wouldn't qualify them as sailors. Nil is basically full of ****. Period. Does this have some relation to your attitude to people who live in the keys in the "floating equivalent of a cardboard shack in the mangroves"? nil would be full of **** wherever he was. nil is nil, after all. I've met some great sailors, none of them were remotely like nil, even when they had a few too many. So what? And yeah, some of us do care. About what? Neal getting netcopped after opening his yap and behaving like an obnoxious prick? My mistake. I don't give a flying f if nil gets netcopped. If he were bright he'd be worried about the content of some of his posts, especially those where he advocates criminal activity of a type that is considered extremely antisocial, even by the criminal element. Over the years we've had some highly entertaining AND witty folks inhabit these environs, I suspect most left because they got tired of the resident troll/flame. Seems to me that there was plenty of that going around until the recent spat brought in the noise makers. It's one thing to get flamed with style, another to get insulted by a half wit, Anyone who walks in here and feels insulted at some dumb comment is either in the wrong place or needs to thicken their skin. Well, vitually insulted, anyways. Someone threw something at me a while back, it was so funny I was practically in tears, and I let the poster know. It really was quite funny. the equivalent of being cursed by the homeless person when you refused to give them the spare change in your pocket. Insulted?? My response to that would be, "**** you, too". Myself, I would hope to come up with a very witty snappy comeback. John Cairns -- Wally www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm www.wally.myby.co.uk |
"John Cairns" blathered Myself, I would hope to come up with a very witty snappy comeback. You would be hoping for many long years . . . CN |
"Scotty" wrote in message oups.com... ''There are about a half-dozen hard core netKKKop supporters here.'' Name them, Putz. SV OK then. This is how I see it, at least. Known and admitted netKKKops --- Jonathan Ganz and Catherine Haight. NetKKKop supporters. Red Cloud. John Cairns Scotty Jeff DSK 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. CN |
"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 |
"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 |
"Capt. NealŽ" wrote in message 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. Wally is young ... but he has the ability to entertain viewpoints from differing aspects... what is important is to clarify those aspects to him so he can judge it for himself. The ability to engage multiple aspects of a position without the blurring afforded by emotion is not easily accommodated by the young and inexperienced. I believe that Wally has this ability... it merely undertakes exposure and reflection..... he will not readily succumb to verbal abuse.. nor will he offer consideration to those who have not earned his respect... this is a mark of true spirit. His points have merit..... when viewed within the constraints of his experience. I merely wish he expands his comprehension by viewing the entire canvas... rather than the technical confines of the brush strokes. Capt. Mooron S.V.Overproof |
All right already, stop your bitching.
SV "Capt. NealŽ" wrote in message ... "Scotty" wrote in message ... "Capt. NealŽ" wrote That's the reason I baited KKKatysails. So you admit to being an asshole to get thrown off, and now you're bitching about it. You sure sound like a female. Scotty I admit to setting a trap. Have you ever hunted with traps? They only work if you're smarter than your prey. I never denied being an asshole. Being an asshole is not against any news server's TOS that I've ever read. Besides if being an asshole was grounds for getting TOSsed then half this group would have been gone long ago, including yourself. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. And, I'm not bitching. I'm just stating the facts because skulls are so thick around here people have to hear the same thing over and over again about twenty times before it sinks in. CN |
"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:X3_7e.34882$vt1.8471@edtnps90... "Capt. NealŽ" wrote in message 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. Wally is young ... but he has the ability to entertain viewpoints from differing aspects... what is important is to clarify those aspects to him so he can judge it for himself. The ability to engage multiple aspects of a position without the blurring afforded by emotion is not easily accommodated by the young and inexperienced. I believe that Wally has this ability... it merely undertakes exposure and reflection..... he will not readily succumb to verbal abuse.. nor will he offer consideration to those who have not earned his respect... this is a mark of true spirit. His points have merit..... when viewed within the constraints of his experience. I merely wish he expands his comprehension by viewing the entire canvas... rather than the technical confines of the brush strokes. Capt. Mooron S.V.Overproof At the risk of somebody accusing me of sucking your dick, may I say you appear to become more brilliant by the day. CN |
If a gang banger pulls a realistic looking toy gun on a cop, and that
cop shoots the punk. Would you blame the cop? Scotty "Capt. NealŽ" wrote in message ... "Red CloudŽ" wrote in message ... On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:28:10 -0400, Capt. NealŽ wrote: 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. That would be entirely up to the discretion of your ISP. Many ISP's would see that as a clear attempt to impersonate, and would regard it the same way they would any forgery or impersonation. Your opinion of what it is or isn't has no bearing. Then they are acting out of ignorance and you claim I should be kicked of because they are ignorant? It has nothing to do with my opinion. It has everything to do with definitions of words. Forging has a specific meaning on Usenet. Any e-mail that is not identical and is not even legit because of the use of certain characters of the deletion of certain characters is not a forgery. You are claiming that if you age going 55 in a 55mph zone and you get a speeding ticket for going 155 because some stupid cop cannot read the radar gun that you deserve that speeding ticket. Yah, right! Audience? Bwahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahah! They come and they go . .. . . You post hoping to get an audience who cares? Bwahahahhahahahahhahahaahhaha! What a loser. CN |
For the record; I support Katy. Gaynz was wrong, is a dork, and
deserves whatever he gets. Scotty "Capt. NealŽ" wrote in message ... "Scotty" wrote in message oups.com... ''There are about a half-dozen hard core netKKKop supporters here.'' Name them, Putz. SV OK then. This is how I see it, at least. Known and admitted netKKKops --- Jonathan Ganz and Catherine Haight. NetKKKop supporters. Red Cloud. John Cairns Scotty Jeff DSK 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. CN |
"Scotty" wrote in message ... If a gang banger pulls a realistic looking toy gun on a cop, and that cop shoots the punk. Would you blame the cop? Scotty No, that would qualify as self-defense IMO. CN |
Sounds like the crew of a ship. To bad we cant hold a Ol fashion
blanket party and put an end to this bull****! Joe |
What exactly did you say/do that caused ind.net to boot you?
SV "Capt. NealŽ" wrote in message ... "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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com