Capt. Neal® wrote:

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

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.


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.



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

Proof?



... 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.


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?


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?


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.



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.


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?


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?


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.

They are one and the same, as far as I'm concerned.

They may be the same in terms of intent, but not in terms of effect. If I
call someone a "turd" in an unmoderated newsgroup, my service provider would
laugh their arses off at someone who complained and demanded that my account
be closed.


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?


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.


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'.


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.


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?


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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

Bull**** of the highest order.


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.



Sad that ou 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.

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.



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?


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?


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.


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.


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 tobe messages that people want to
read and reply to.


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.


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

"Scotty" wrote in message ...
What exactly did you say/do that caused ind.net to boot you?

I refused to pay for their service, for one. As you know they went commercial as of April 1.

For two, I frogged headers and ****ed off a couple of asa netKKKops who were too stupid
to know the difference between a froggery and a forgery and manipulated them into
complaining and bragging about it because I was arrogant.

CN

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

"Joe" wrote in message ups.com...
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


How to end it? That's easy. This would be all it takes . . .


"I'm sorry I'm a ****wit netcop. What I did was wrong, stupid and
disruptive. I will no longer defend my actions and I will not do it again. I promise."

"Signed
Jonathan Ganz
Catherine Haight."

"Scotty" wrote in message ...
For the record; I support Katy. Gaynz was wrong, is a dork, and
deserves whatever he gets.

Scotty



Given the fact that Ganz is, indeed, a dork and is wrong and a loser to boot,
just curious why it's wrong when Ganz does it but OK when Haight does it?

CN

"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.


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

He's bull****tin ya Scotty.

Neal ****ed off because Katy called his new squeeze a ho.

They two girls called each other names in a hissy fit rage.

Neal wanting to keep getting laid took up and lead the charge to
defends his new lovers honor by trashing Katy.

Katy felt Neal crossed the line when he forged (ie frogged whatever)
her name and email address so she turned him in and he lost his soon to
expire freebee.

The gay ones always been a snitch..it's in has nature he's a momma boy.

So Neal invites the internets top retards to babble like mindless
locust a cast a plaque upon ASA.

You gotta quit working so much Scotty, your missing the really good
****!

Joe

Your risk of accusation is more like a verification of fact.

but it was a toy gun (frogging), not a real one (forging).


SV


"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...

"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

"Wally" wrote

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


if he could do that, LP would have stayed with him longer and this
whole mess never would have started.

SV