🚀 go-pugleaf

Originating thread in austin.internet --

In article <6ipv60$msk$1@news12.ispnews.com>, "Albert Nurick"
<albert@data.net> wrote:
> 
> Star, one thing I've noticed recently; your tone has turned very hostile.
> In
> the past, I'd often disagreed with you, but you maintained a civil tone and
> were capable of rational discussion, until you invited that net.kook buddy
> of yours to further trash the *.internet groups in Texas.
> 

I looked over that previous posting that I did -- and I couldn't find what
I would consider to be more hostile. Believe me, I've seen "hostile"
around here and I haven't gotten anywhere near that.

Now, then again, perhaps the "ideas" themselves are "hostile" ideas to
ISPs who want to cheat and rob consumers. That could very well be the
case. However, I don't think that simple illustrations quite qualify as
hostile. I will say, however, I am generally hostile to ISPs cheating and
scamming people.



> Why'd this happen?  Are you trying to impress Boursy?

Are you worried? Is he reading these?


> 
> 
> Golly, if you don't like the contract a business gives you, DON'T DO
> BUSINESS WITH THEM.  Kinda like how you suggest that if someone doesn't
> like what someone says, killfile 'em.

If certain contracts are ludicrous and cannot not be enforced, in all
their terms, in a court of law -- then certainly one way to deal with it
is simply to go to another ISP. That works for individuals who want to do
that. But, still, it leaves in place the ISPs who engage in crooked
business practices to continually prey upon other unsuspecting users.

So, one perspective you present is good for the one individual -- just
leave and leave that ISP alone. The other viewpoint is that you simply
leave the criminal and rogue ISP in place to scam and take advantage of
other unsuspecting consumers. The question is -- is that legitimate to
leave that rogue ISP in place and still preying upon consumers?



> 
> If your fellow pseudocivillibertarians are plentiful enough, this will
> result in these "evil" ISPs losing business.
> 

Well, we could hope. But, it certainly won't happen unless others are
warned about it.



> But I know you'll never follow that strategy, because most folks simply
> don't care about your issues; to get support for your failing cause,
> you've got to embrace the likes of RSJ, MackDaddy, and Boursy.
> 

It's not so much that I've got to get support from anyone in particular --
as much as it's that anyone who is for free speech and against crooked and
scamming ISPs is certainly someone I welcome. I don't care what their
religion is, their color of skin is, whether they are male or female, or
whether they believe in UFOs or not.

It's free and unfettered speech and against scamming and crooked ISPs,
along with "due process" for anyone in a court of law (a very American
tradition). It's consumerism at its best. Anyone who wants to join, feel
free to do so.



> >On the consumer side, it's a bunch of rules that many times are vague,
> >uneforceable and very sporadically enforced -- depending on who you are,
> >what you say and whether you're liked or not. That's about the size of it
> >in real life and practice.
> 
> 
> So find an ISP that meets your critera.

I have so far. My speaking about it, is simply an outgrowth of my
experience and my perceptions and how I've found the best ISPs. I'm "free
speeching" my ideas.



> 
> >And going further, along that line, even the ISPs cannot agree amongst
> >themselves about any "common set of rules." There are big disagreements
> >there and you can even see ISPs and other Internet entities arguing loudly
> >about it.
> 
> 
> The established rules of Usenet ettiquite are easy to find; they're posted
> repeatedly to the news.announce.newusers newsgroup.  We're not talking about
> fine points that may be in dispute, but common courtesy that needs to exist
> for *any* sort of community to work.
> 

"Conventions" and "etiquette" are one thing. I understand how they
"smooth" the way for groups to work together. But, requirements and legal
issues are, yet again, another matter -- and those are not framed in the
sense of "smoothing community relations."

In other words, "conventions" and "etiquette" are totally **non-binding**
upon anyone. They are not "rules" to be necessarily followed. They are
only "recommendations" that *may* be adhered to or not. It's the person's
own choice to do so.

On the other hand, free speech is a foundational principle of this country
and it **may not** be abridged at all. Now that's an argument that is
currently being fought over and battled in the highest of venues and in
the largest legislative bodies that we have. It's already been subject to
Supreme Court decisions (affecting the net) and it will continue for years
to come. These "decisions" -- which will come -- are not "etiquette"
decisions but binding to the point of putting someone in jail or taking
away their property.

You've got to separate "etiquette" from laws. Too many "Internet thugs"
want to make "their etiquette" [another method for control] a "law" to be
followed by other users. To that, I say baloney -- and "ignore the rules"
of etiquette -- but follow the laws of the land (which are determined
played out in a court room).



> >So, anyone who tries to tell you to abide by the "rules" -- you can say
> >which set of 2,567 rules are you talking about? And how many are invalid
> >and have never been tested in a court of law.
> 
> What's your fascination with the court system?  Usenet does fine without
> legal intervention, until those who think they're lawyers start bleating
> about free speech and ignore common sense.

My fascination is that is "where the rubber meets the road." That "court
system" is where you will be told what you can do and cannot do. You
should be "fascinated" with any system that can put you in jail and tell
you what you can and cannot do.


> 
> That's what it's all about... common sense.  Realizing that your particular
> crusade isn't the only thing in other people's lives.  Understanding that
> people read a specific newsgroup for a specific reason (usually explained
> in the charter) and that if you're not there for that purpose, you're not
> a welcome part of that community.
> 

In one sense, the free speech issues are a by-product discussion of the
fact that in these ISP groups -- others are trying to "shut up" my
comments about ISPs (by whatever means at their disposal). So, in that
sense, it came up as a "side-issue". Once someone accepts my right to free
speech and doesn't always oppose it -- then I'll get back on track about
the crooked and illegal business practices of Texas.Net (because they are
a prime example of it).



> I'm sure there are newsgroups devoted to whining about injustice; perhaps
> RSJ should have taken his Texas.Net rants to alt.angst or someplace
> like that.  But his incessant droning about Texas.Net has abused this
> newsgroup for *months*, and most of the folks here are simply sick of it,
> and his disregard for Usenet ettiquite.
> 

Again, UseNet etiquette is not a "law" but only a "recommendation" and it
is **not binding** (legally) upon anyone. So, if someone choose to ignore
a "recommendation" it is fine. If they ignore a law -- they better be
prepared for either jail time or a lot of money spent in the legal system.
There's the difference.

[It's kind of like the wording "Donation requested" when you go into an
event. Most will give something. But, when someone says, "No thank you."
to the requested donation -- then they had better not be denied admission.
If so, then the wording is obviously a "lie."]



> >And how many would be so
> >vague to be totally unenforceable. It goes on and on. The only thing these
> >rules accomplish is totally confuse any new user and put all the "cards"
> >into the hands of "net-nazis" to say -- "Oh, you broke the rules." There
> >are so many "competing" rules (where one thing disagrees with another),
> >that you might as well say you have "no rules" at all. And if someone
> >tries to "enforce" the rules -- all it really comes down to is not
> >"enforcing the rules" -- but trying to "pull your plug" -- and get you
> >canned from your ISP.
> 
> 
> Hogwash.  RSJ won't listen to anyone here; I hoped he'd listen to his ISP
> when they inform him of the TOS under which his internet access was granted.
> Obviously, they take his bizarre behavior a bit more seriously than I do,
> since they terminated him.
> 

Bottom line with Rsj -- if he does something illegal -- throw him in jail.
If you just don't like what he's saying "There's nothing you're going to
be able to do about it." That about sums it up for the whole discussion.

Good enough?



> >This deal about "rules" is the biggest fraud and sham there is on the
> >Internet. There are laws in this country -- and if those are broken, then
> >you call the authorities. But, if anyone tries to tell you there are
> >"rules" on the Internet -- well just "roll on the floor laughing" because
> >that's about all it's worth.
> 
> 
> Honestly, with this kind of disregard for the informal standards that make
> a community work, how do you get along at work, or in organizations?  I
> could
> just see RSJ deciding to pontificate about Texas.Net during the silent
> portion
> of a religious ceremony... he's exercising his right to "free speech", yet
> any
> sane person would know that his behavior would be grossly inappropriate.
> 

Simple. I choose to "get along" as far as I want to "get along." And
secondly, personal and individual freedoms hold a higher priority over
"getting along."



> >For an "example" of the "rules" -- just look at the "copyright flap" about
> >including e-mail addresses in a posting. "There are no rules on the
> >Internet (really damn few; a very few though). But there are laws in this
> >country and they are dealt with by the authorities.
> 
> 
> I do think the copyright issue is silly.  IANAL, but I doubt that something
> as short as an e-mail address can be copyrighted.  It *could* be
> trademarked,
> but that's not being discussed here.
> 
> The real issue on the posting of others' e-mail addresses at the end of your
> message is simple:  it's an invitation for abuse by e-mail harvesters, and
> an
> attempt to harass.  It reminds me of second-graders finding out that
> something
> annoys someone, and doing it repeatedly.
> 

As a "personal choice" (only) I choose to post certain addresses as it
pertains particularly to what I'm saying at the moment. That's my personal
choice of action on the matter. I have no desire to cause any more trouble
than what my statements are going into at the time.

In the case of Chris Edmonson, he's a total idiot and he simply wastes
time and effort and he's continually posting. So, he deserves an on-going
explanation as to why I'm not responding. Hence, I guess he's
immortalized, here in my postings, for all posterity.

Other than that (and anyone else who becomes subject to this same method),
I have no desire to cause anyone else trouble with their e-mail addresses.
I'll only do so as I see fit at that time (publish the addresses).

I do think it's silly and nonsense to post addresses indiscriminately --
which some are prone to do. But, that is their choice. If they want to
look like the idiots that they are -- I guess every post is showing
themselves to be an idiot repeatedly.

----------

Your comment of --

<< Newsgroups trimmed, again >>

Feel free to talk to the groups you want and I'll feel free to talk to the
groups that I choose. It's your posting.


                   the original, one & only
                    --> Star Traveler <--
                    aldeberan@hotmail.com

-- 
If your name is below -- you are either an idiot, liar, useless,
troublemaker or deserve no response -- and as such will get no
further response -- preventing the "flooding" of the newsgroups.

Chris Edmonson <lostsoul@mail.com> [the fool I'm ignoring]
Star Traveler Too <star_traveler@inorbit.com>
[actually Chris Edmonson in drag; desperately imitating me]