|
"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 |
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 06:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com