What exactly did you say/do that caused ind.net to boot you?

SV


"Capt. Neal®" 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