🚀 go-pugleaf

Message-ID:   <walt.0esb@orbit.ocunix.on.ca>


        For those who had a 1/2 mind to send the federal mounties after me...
the joke is on you... They are after you now for misleading information.

--Scott Wiper da571@freenet.carleton.ca
                 For those still have those old obsolete PC's
     I am the one who can breath new life into them, or if you need help?
               Down for complete rebuild will let you know

Some asshole walt@orbit.ocunix.on.ca (Walt Sullivan) sayed:

First, I am NOT associated with National Capitol Freenet, Elgin
Computers, "darrob" or Scott Wiper, nor have I seen the Web page in
question. I should probably be clever enough to refrain from posting
this, too, but ...

IANAL

Logically, either Scott Wiper's NCF Web page contained illegal data,
or it did not.

First, let us assume that Scott Wiper's NCF Web page DID contain
illegal data. If so, NCF's legal liability was joined to the legal
liability of Scott Wiper the moment that NCF was informed of the
illegal data on Scott Wiper's NCF Web page. That is, NCF would be as
"bad" as Scott Wiper if they continued providing the illegal data once
they knew about it. Thus, their quick removal of the web page in
question was not only justified, but necessary, in order to shield NCF
from liability.

Second, assuming that Scott Wiper's NCF Web page DID NOT contain
illegal data, NCF's quick removal of the page was still justified and
necessary to avoid the possibility stated above. The NCF did inform
Scott Wiper of what they had done, did they not? At that point, if
Scott Wiper could have shown NCF that the data he had put on the Scott
Wiper NCF Web page was NOT illegal, they should have reinstated the
page, and, perhaps, offered an apology. I don't think that took place.

If Scott Wiper could have proved in a court of law that, by
"arbitrarily" removing his non-illegal Web page from the NCF's
computer, the NCF had caused Scott Wiper actual damage, he might have
been able to recover damages from NCF, depending on the Usage
Agreement between Scott Wiper and the NCF, and the NCF's Acceptable
Use Policy. Perhaps Scott Wiper could have recovered the fees charged
him by the National Capitol FREEnet, perhaps not.

<RANT>
Come, children, can we not reason together, logically? More light,
less heat, please.
</RANT>

IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer

Then shut the fuck up, I have complained to the CRTC and the Fedral Mounted
Police. They will fix NCF and iSTAR for illegal censorship of my webpages

The facts on the National Capital Freene shut down and block;


I would like to first thank some individuals for there comments fro the
peanut gallery.

1. First fact. I f the contents of newseria.html was improper would had
now been in the best interest of the NATIONAL CAPITAL FREENET, to ask me
politely to remove the page? If I was asked I would have pulled it within
hours of there requests. But instaed they acted somelike KNEE BUCKELING
FRENCH COWARDS. (To french Speaking poeple, do not take offence to that
statement. There is no other way to word and stay polite.) I would like
to add if you go to my search page and use any of the search engines and
type the following text. "HACKS_CRACKS_WAREZ" you will get a list of
about ten thousand sites containing material ten times more offencive
then in newseria.html. I have come accross sites that had links to NETWORK
ASSOCIATES (MCAFEE) licenced ftp server. I informed them and the "hole
has been closed." There were no such links on the page newseria.html on
freenet. Just the numbers with the following text on the top. "FOR
EDUCATIONAL AND VIEWING PURPOSES ONLY." That clearly means in the legal
profession it's just entertainment and fun.

2. Second fact. I could sue the NATIONAL CAPITAL FREENET toting the fine
line like they have if this was UNITED STATES. I would win in hours
because I can prove the page was for entertainment and fun.(FOR
EDUCATIONAL AND VIEWING PURPOSES.) The NATIONAL CAPITAL FREENET would
have to publicly apologize for (A) Not informing me of the improper
content of newseria.html (B) They would have to refund my donation. I
would get millions on top of that. As for the BIBLE THUMPING gentleman I
read and re-read the policy concerning this and there is none on this
matter infact there policies don't cover this matter. So the NATIONAL
CAPITAL FREENET is guilty of baligerence towards there users and somewhat
like politicians screwing up and then trying to cover it up.

3. Third fact. When I confonted Miss Natalie Munrow she became beligerent
rude condencending and defencive. She basiclly siad to me (I am now
picking at her words like a lawyer.) 'I know we srewed up when we did'nt
tell you and get the "fuck" out my office because I don't to be bothered
with you.' Most domains will at least ask to pull the page newseria.html
before locking me out. But they are covering up I can still use freenet
but not my WWW directory. Is this not a contradiction in terms of there
policy? Answer that question before calling me an ass. Because "ASSUME"
you make an 'ass out of you and me.' I will be contacting the dean of
public relations at Carleton University to have him straiten out this
matter.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading