🚀 go-pugleaf

admiral@ilos.net (Arthur D. Mira) writes:

>x-no-archive: yes

The "beergut" doesn't like having his words remembered for posterity?
A minor note:  I believe you have to put this particular line in the
*header* of the posting [i.e, before the first blank line] for it to be
recognized by the various USENET archive servers.

Regardless, whats the point?  Anyone can just quote everything you say
and thus into the repository it all goes anyways.  For example:

>If the quotes attributed to the CNN executive, in the story by Lois
>Legge are correct and accurate then there's a bigger problem with
>clear thinking in Nova Scotia, than anything Barbara Amero could
>ever dream up and post.
>
>To have a member of the executive of the Freenet say that the
>termination had nothing to do with content, but are as a result of the
>volume of complaints is hypocritical, vile and offensive.

Yes.  We know that you are of the position that the ISP should serve
as an editor of content.  That this position is void of all rationality
appears to be of no concern to you.  However we can be thankful the world
is run by (somewhat) more enlightened souls.

And when it comes to offensiveness, I can't really think of anything
more disgusting that the mere existance of a bunch of net.blowhards who
apparently don't know how to operate a killfile.

>The freenet has a published TOS/AUP for it's members. To cite the
>*EXCUSE OF EXPEDIENCY* that has been promulgated in the story,
>rather than an application of that same TOS/AUP is hypocritical.

Earth to Mira:  had CCN made a content-based argument, their
liability would have dramatically increased.  I'm not sure what you
are blathering on about not "invoking" the TOS/AUP.  I haven't read
the document in question, but it almost certainly contains the
standard "oh yeah, and we can kick you off on a whim" clause.

>That an executive board would not act, or seemingly be aware
>that there was a problem until it accumulated 'hundreds' of complaints
>is an acknowledgement that they run an organization in blissful
>ignorance. Considering public money is involved to some degree,
>that is vile.

"Vile"?  Really?  About the only bad thing I can say about CCN is
they appear to not know how to use procmail.  This suggests a certain
level of technical incompetance.  In any other environment, the gang
of idiots doing the mailbombing would have been directed to /dev/null;
any other ISP would have realized *it* was now under attack, and not
just one of their clients.

>In dealing with the matter in the way that they have, the executive
>has acted as judge jury and executioner, without recourse, or appeal
>process. In a medium where free speech and freedom of expression is
>it's only saving grace, unilateral censorship is the greatest offense
>that can be foisted on the usenet community.

Ah.  I see.  So when "beergut" and company mailbomb the admins of an ISP,
with the the expressed and implied mission is to "cut off" someone's
voice, this is not in any way a form of "unilateral censorship".  And
furthermore, by posting calls for people to participate in this campaign
they were not acting as "judge, jury and executioner" and that at all
times an "appeal process" was in place.

Poor Mira.  He *knows* that the reason his side "won" this battle was
due to a successful denial-of-service attack against CCN.  He knows
somehow this was wrong, but can't bring himself to admit it.  Hence
his being unaware of the hypocrisy that drips from virtually every
sentence in his missive...

>[... media ...]

Well, what are you waiting for?  Why not a letter campaign to get
the reporter fired?  Or are you all too cheap to afford the $0.50
for a stamp?
--
Matthew Francey | VE3RQX | NAD27: 43o40.6617'N 079o18.5171'W +0116.5m