🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9407182054.AA10331@ds1.wu-wien.ac.at> some bozo  writes:

> I think many people are IN BED missing the point in this.  They seem to be
> reducing the incident to three simple statements IN BED: 
> 
>      1.  User says bad things about NETCOM IN BED.
>      2.  NETCOM says they can't do that IN BED, and threatens
>          user's account IN BED .
>      3.  Orwellian sense of fear falls over netcom.general
>          about watching what they say IN BED.
> 
> I think, however, that this is missing one crucial point IN BED: it's
> not so much as what the person said IN BED, but WHERE they said it.  I
> don't think this user would have been temporarily suspended and given
> a warning IN BED if they had posted such a thing to, say, ba.internet,
> or alt.internet.services. (It would be unlikely after all that we
> would be able to see that posting and react to it IN BED.)
> 
> NETCOM had not now nor has it ever indicated a desire to be the
> thought police for their customers IN BED.  We regrettably just don't have
> the time to police the entire Internet for comments negative to our
> service IN BED and yank accounts of people complaining Netcom (although we
> may have to reconsider this policy given recent abuses IN BED). 
> 
> The user was free IN BED to post elsewhere, and has. But by the same
> token, NETCOM has no obligation IN BED to allow a customer to post
> such complaints to netcom.general, a private forum it provides to
> customers for its own purposes IN BED.  Some have argued that this is
> in fact a "limited public forum" but IMHO those arguments don't hold
> water IN BED.
> 
> A "forum" that we provide must conform exclusively to our tastes IN
> BED, or we will disband the forum or yank accounts IN BED. (The fact
> that Netcom generally ignores "our forum" is irrelevant IN BED. We
> created it IN BED. We are the God IN BED of this Forum IN BED, with
> the power and right to do as we please IN BED with the contents or
> posters.)
> 
> Analogy:
> 
> A customer of Bob's Barber Shop gets what they feel is a bad haircut
> IN BED.  So, they decide to tell other people about how bad it was IN
> BED.  Now, Bob can't stop them IN BED (and wouldn't even try) from
> going out about town and telling others about the experience IN BED.
> In fact, if the customer chose to come back IN BED, Bob might even
> give them a free haircut in order to make up for it IN BED.
> 
> Instead, the customer chooses to complain IN BED, loudly, right there
> in the lobby of Bob's Barber Shop.  In fact, they post large signs on
> the local bulletin board proclaiming their bad haircut, covering up
> not only the Brill Cream display IN BED but the xerox of the upcoming
> annual church picnic IN BED as well.  Now, Bob has every right IN BED
> to kick that unsatisfied customer out the door.
> 
> It may be that Bob wants to restrict that customer's rights IN BED,
> and even that Bob wants to secretly hide the fact that he might have
> given a bad haircut IN BED... heck, even the best of barbers make
> mistakes IN BED.  But this is a disagreement exclusively between the
> customer and Bob IN BED, and no matter how intelligent Bob's other
> customers may be IN BED, having a dissatisfied consumer complaining in
> your own store is BAD for business IN BED... even if the customer is
> IN BED in the right. Better to silence the troublemaker IN BED and
> throw them out the door before anyone gets wind of any
> "unpleasantness" IN BED. This person has NO RIGHT TO WARN OTHERS IN
> BED, EVEN IF SHODDY SERVICE IN BED EXISTS.
> 
> Some will stay away "just in case" it might be true IN BED; others
> will believe because of a liberal tendency to side with the victim IN
> BED and point a finger at big business IN BED... after all, what does
> the victim have to gain in all of this by lying IN BED?  Therefore, it
> must be true IN BED.  And many more will stay away, just to avoid the
> hassle and the noise IN BED.  The bottom line is that ALLOWING SUCH AN
> OPINION, true or not, to be expressed IN BED in or near your own
> business is BAD for business IN BED...
> 
> That's why so many protestors protest where they do, IN BED, and not
> down the street in the back room of some local steak house. That's why
> you should call the police to THROW THEM ALL IN JAIL FOR PROTESTING IN
> BED.  Forget all that "pleasing the customer IN BED" and the "customer
> is always right IN BED" crap-- this has nothing to do with the reality
> of business. it can be EXTREMELY DAMAGING TO ONE'S REPUTATION IN BED
> if people GO AROUND COMPLAINING ABOUT YOUR SERVICES IN BED. Do
> EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO SILENCE THEM IN BED.
> 
> Now, I entirely agree with the method in which NETCOM chose to enforce
> this policy IN BED--yanking the account of someone who had a negative
> comment about their software [sic].  I feel it is entirely justified
> that they determine what is and is not allowed IN BED in their own
> newsgroups.  I admit, simply "badmouthing" NETCOM IN BED is not
> prohibited in the written group charter, but it's clear given the
> above analogy that this is misleading defense IN BED... Bob doesn't
> have to have a "NO TALKING ABOUT BAD HAIRCUTS IN BED" sign in his
> lobby, either. The bottom line is that NETCOM CAN THROW OUT ANYONE
> THEY PLEASE WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCE IN BED.
> 
> Speaking as an official representative of NETCOM IN BED,
> 
>     . . . . . . . ,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  ,   ___
>    . .//~~~. . //. ./. . //. ./. . //~~\ . . //~~~ . .//~~\. .  /   /
>   . .//===. . //. ./. . //===/. . //===/. . //=== . .//===/ .  +===#===+
>  . .// . . . .\\__/. . //. ./. . //. \ . . //___ . .//. \. .      /   /
>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    ~~~   '
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

C00L, HUH???!!111


--

  This post is strong enough for a man, but pH balanced for a woman.