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

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

"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

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

That's the reason I baited KKKatysails. She was stupid and revealed herself proudly
as a netKKKop and bragged about reporting me and LP. Neither complaint was
legit strictly according to the TOS either of us were operating under. Her complaint
about LP was totally bogus as LP did nothing other than write words in a post that
offended KKKatysails.

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. 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.


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'.

Stupid statement. 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.


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.

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.


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

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.



... 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.

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.


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.

To a lesser degree giving aid and comfort to known netKKKops, especially,
those known to send in multiple bogus complaints, is to support netKKKops.
While netKKKopping is not a crime and it's not a crime to side with them, it
definitely shows poor judgment. You can't sit on the sidelines and claim
neutrality and have much credibility at all. 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.



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.

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.

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?


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.

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.

So, on the basis of rumor and inuendo, you declare that I am a pedophile
and deserve to be booted because I'm a troll as well. The trolling exists
in your own mind as does the pedophile claims. Sad that ou just admitted that
you think netKKKopping is OK based on content of posts alone. You're a
hypocrite, Wally.



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.


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

If nobody cares about it but the protagonists, how come you're spending so
much time voicing your opinions. 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? Isn't that what you are decrying
the most? The eminent destruction of your precious group? 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.

CN