"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
On 1/27/2007 5:18 PM, Gene Kearns wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:16:26 -0500, Bert Robbins penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Bill Kearney wrote:
There are knowledgeable and
published posters that read rec.boats and associated newsgroups that
stopped, on advice from their attorneys, posting to other web based
forums that had similar TOS.
Really? Cite examples.
I want to see the "TOS" for rec.boats or for any other USENET newsgroup.

Since I am quoted... I'll try again.... I said, "web based forums." I
did not mean, nor did I imply any USENET newsgroup. In fact, I
specifically had in mind those (privately held) forums that had TOS
and in most cases moderated (censored) content.

Rec.boats was created before charters were deemed necessary and when
people acted with a bit more decorum than they do now. It is sad
social commentary.

So, you can come here and be as bad as you want to be. Then, the only
remaining venue will be a private site where you can go say (only)
what the moderator wishes others to see and where you have to adhere
to a certain code of behavior or be sued....

Thus, there is no charter, there is no TOS, there is, however, an
out-of date FAQ:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgrou...rec.boats.html


Have at it.....



All you have to do to get rid of most of the useless slime here is for
usenet to require that real names and IPs be used in posting. That would
be the end of at least 90% of them.

Yep...shine the light of day into the dark crevices.

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:07:41 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

On 1/27/2007 5:18 PM, Gene Kearns wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:16:26 -0500, Bert Robbins penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Bill Kearney wrote:
There are knowledgeable and
published posters that read rec.boats and associated newsgroups that
stopped, on advice from their attorneys, posting to other web based
forums that had similar TOS.
Really? Cite examples.
I want to see the "TOS" for rec.boats or for any other USENET newsgroup.

Since I am quoted... I'll try again.... I said, "web based forums." I
did not mean, nor did I imply any USENET newsgroup. In fact, I
specifically had in mind those (privately held) forums that had TOS
and in most cases moderated (censored) content.

Rec.boats was created before charters were deemed necessary and when
people acted with a bit more decorum than they do now. It is sad
social commentary.

So, you can come here and be as bad as you want to be. Then, the only
remaining venue will be a private site where you can go say (only)
what the moderator wishes others to see and where you have to adhere
to a certain code of behavior or be sued....

Thus, there is no charter, there is no TOS, there is, however, an
out-of date FAQ:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgrou...rec.boats.html


Have at it.....



All you have to do to get rid of most of the useless slime here is for
usenet to require that real names and IPs be used in posting. That would
be the end of at least 90% of them.

Is that because they would be well behaved like you are, Harry?
--
***** Have a super day! *****

John H

Let's not forget the wars about "sigs" because they used up too much
bandwidth!

--Mike

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 19:16:16 -0500, Bert Robbins
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:21:58 -0500, Bert Robbins
wrote:

Do you remember the Richard Depew(sp?) incident of the early 90's?
I do - it was an interesting application.

I bet 'cha can't guess who uses cancelbots currently (without looking
it up that is).
You are correct, I have no idea who is using cancelbots today.

The Church of Scientology. They use something called Cancelbunny.

That makes sense due to the fact that their religious texts are
copyrighted. I have never understood the purchasing of salvation or
enlightenment.

I just remember that I was involved in tiff with The Dick about his
actions. He said that he had been appointed/approved as a net cop by
somebody I can't remember. I asked to see his badge and he said he
didn't have one.

Usenet was much more interesting in those days. :)

The vote No wars to prevent new groups from being created. Hooking up to a
UUCP site via a 1200 bps modem. Telling people there wasn't enough space
on the news server for the group to have more than 1 days worth of
messages. That was back when UNIX admins were Kings.

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:55:07 +0000, Don White wrote:


All you have to do to get rid of most of the useless slime here is for
usenet to require that real names and IPs be used in posting. That would
be the end of at least 90% of them.

Yep...shine the light of day into the dark crevices.

You both take usenet far too seriously, but I would suggest that using a
"real name" could lead to truly serious complications. Besides the
annoyance of additional spam, more than one person has been the victim of
identity theft due to online activities. Then there are the even more
serious issues, stalkers, pedophiles, etc. Using your real name flies in
the face of all online recommendations, and is basically stupid.

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:29:03 -0000, thunder wrote:

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:55:07 +0000, Don White wrote:


All you have to do to get rid of most of the useless slime here is for
usenet to require that real names and IPs be used in posting. That would
be the end of at least 90% of them.

Yep...shine the light of day into the dark crevices.

You both take usenet far too seriously, but I would suggest that using a
"real name" could lead to truly serious complications. Besides the
annoyance of additional spam, more than one person has been the victim of
identity theft due to online activities. Then there are the even more
serious issues, stalkers, pedophiles, etc. Using your real name flies in
the face of all online recommendations, and is basically stupid.

I think you've touched on several of the reasons Harry would like everyone
to use their real name (and address, and phone number).
--
***** Have a super day! *****

John H

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:38:47 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

On 1/28/2007 3:29 AM, thunder wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:55:07 +0000, Don White wrote:


All you have to do to get rid of most of the useless slime here is for
usenet to require that real names and IPs be used in posting. That would
be the end of at least 90% of them.
Yep...shine the light of day into the dark crevices.

You both take usenet far too seriously, but I would suggest that using a
"real name" could lead to truly serious complications. Besides the
annoyance of additional spam, more than one person has been the victim of
identity theft due to online activities. Then there are the even more
serious issues, stalkers, pedophiles, etc. Using your real name flies in
the face of all online recommendations, and is basically stupid.


Whatever.

Nowadays, I just stuff the a**holes into my Bozo Bin.

As of this morning, the following boys are playing with each other in the

allota fagina
.
M15
US CVNS
Montgomery Scott
Not Me
John Herring
Fredo
Reggie in all his known false IDs
Charles
Dan Krueger
Elvez
Bert Robbins
Screw you
Jackoff
whoamInot
JB

It only takes a couple secs to stuff the latest a**hole in there.

Thanks Harry! You *are* the man!
--
***** Have a super day! *****

John H

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:05:40 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Snipped

The problem with many usenet groups is that they have been infested with
slime who think they can get away with posting any sort of insult they
like because they're "anonymous."

Of course, if you post using your name, then it's perfectly acceptable to
post any sort of slimey insult you like!

If you filter out the trash from these posters, you'll have a more
readable newsgroup he

In other words, anonymous posting is OK, if you're someone to whom Harry
wants to suck up!
--
***** Have a super day! *****

John H

John Leo H wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:05:40 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Snipped
The problem with many usenet groups is that they have been infested with
slime who think they can get away with posting any sort of insult they
like because they're "anonymous."

Of course, if you post using your name, then it's perfectly acceptable to
post any sort of slimey insult you like!

If you filter out the trash from these posters, you'll have a more
readable newsgroup he

In other words, anonymous posting is OK, if you're someone to whom Harry
wants to suck up!
--
***** Have a super day! *****

John H
Harry posted his comment and his "list" just to get a rile out of
everyone on his "list". He is upset since he no longer can post 100's
of insult a day responding to OT posts, I try ignore his comments
because it is the only thing that really ****es him off.

"John Leo H" wrote in message
...

In other words, anonymous posting is OK, if you're someone to whom Harry
wants to suck up!
--
***** Have a super day! *****

John H


John... you seem desperate to get Harry's attention. If you try being nice,
you may even get another invite out on his boat.
just think...you'd have a 'captive audience' out there on the Bay a couple
miles offshore.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:44:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Experts in a field who can write are not part of the 'amateur blogosphere.'

What do you consider "amateur"?

Tom,
I would be interested in some links to some of the blogs you rate highly.