🚀 go-pugleaf

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

>In wpg.general, mdf@vigard.mef.org (Matthew Francey) wrote:
>
>=>The "beergut" doesn't like having his words remembered for
>posterity?
>
><snip of clueless rant>
>
>I'm not beergut, I don't know him other than by reading what
>he posts, and we both have accounts at ILOS.NET which is
>one of the larger ISP in Winnipeg.

Though I am less than convinced, I have no choice now but to
take your word:  my apologies for the mis-identification.

>You don't have to like what I post, you don't have to read it,
>and you sure and fuck don't have to respond to it, especially
>since if clues were shoes you'd be running around barefoot.

I'm sure thats all very interesting to you.  I only wonder why
don't you take your own advice re: my postings ... ?  (Not that
I don't want a response).

>Now read this slowly so you don't get lost...

Oh boy!

>1. I choose to not have my posts archieved. The reasons for
>my preference are mine, and I do not intent to explain them to
>you regardless of whatever stupid inuendo's you may wish to imply.

Had you read my article closely, I only asked a yes/no question.
I really and truly couldn't care less *why* you want to do this.

But I still think it is breathlessly naive on your part.  Anyone
can just respond to your blatherings, quoting every word, and
thus putting your Sacred Words into the archive.  And there is
nothing you can do about this -- short of not posting at all.

But, as you say, it's your life.  If you wish to live in a delusion,
I certainly won't get in your way!

>2. I did not e-mail or phone anyone much less CNN about Barbara
>Amero, nor do I read or reply to every piece of do shit she injects
>into usenet. 

Thanks for the clarification.  Now, how do you feel about the
attack against CCN as a means of censoring Amero?  Good?  Bad?
Don't care?  No comment?

>3. I'm pissed that the CNN executive chose to play games and
>shit can her, without using the legal remedy they had available
>through contract (AUP/TOS) provisions.

Well, no, that wasn't what you said.  You were pissed that they didn't
cancel her account for content related reasons [a position very similar
to one advanced by the *real* beergut back on 1998 Jan 5;  hence my
confusion].  As I correctly pointed out to you, such would have
*dramatically* increased CCN's liability.  Not only in Amero's case, but
for every single client they have now and in the future.  I believe
Prodigy's (and/or Compuserve's) butt was kicked hard for acting like
an editor;  sounds to me that CCN was acting on good advice (or
intuition).

Furthermore, it is almost certain a TOS clause was invoked.  Namely
one that probably reads "we can drop you like a brick whenever we want".

>4. I never attempt to gather a throng to do anything about her,
>her account, or the stupid things she writes. Anything I had to
>say about her was publicly posted, and it was my own opinion.

Too bad no one can verify this claim, since supposedly none of these
"public postings" have been archived.  Let me slip into some
baseless innuendo and snidely comment:  "Gee, how convenient!"

>5. The printed media story was lopsided, sensationalized journalism,
>and just plain sucked. I don't believe everything I see in usenet
>and I don't believe everything I see in the media.

Lopsided?  Sensational?  Things must be *really* boring out Winnipeg
way or something:  the story looked fairly balanced to me.  The reporter
gave equal space to Amero and the CCN guy.   What more do you want?

Anyways, if the story "just plain sucked", then exactly why did you
bother with a response?  After all (paraphrasing your previous
advice to me):

	You don't have to like what [the media prints], you don't have to
	read it, and you sure and fuck don't have to respond to it [...]

>6. You're a pathetic wanker who thinks that attacking me for
>my opinions is going to win you the adoring respect and admirations
>of millions of people. It isn't, because no one gives a fuck least of
>all me what you think.

Hm.  Yeah.  Do keep using that "X-No-Archive".  Having current or
potential employers discover you can't form a rational argument could
spell trouble ...
--
Matthew Francey | VE3RQX | NAD27: 43o40.6617'N 079o18.5171'W +0116.5m