🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2 Jul 1998 15:09:40 GMT, dragnet@internalysis.com (Marc
Bissonnette) wrote:

>In article <35a06ec6.39395417@news.alt.net>, dmytrik@syntac.net says...

>However, you have threatened illegal action against the TFN, in a most 
>hyppocritical way, as well, I might add.

No matter how times you repeat it, the that I have done anything
"hypocritical" or "illegal" remains your unsubstantiated opinion, and
by no means explains the gushing spew of insults, invective and
vitriol that you have employed to try and make your "point."

> You are, by your threats, attempting 
>to repress our (Mine, the BoD's and the memberships) right to vote, right to 
>freedom of expression, by saying you will attack every element of the TFN, it's 
>financial resources and volunteers, in order to shut it down.

In my opinion, neither you, the BoD, nor even the membership have the
right to hijack a community service built with public money and make
it into their own little censorious empire.

It is not your "right" to steal what was built with public money and
the volunteer efforts and donations of our community to build your own
renegade kangaroo court.

> You are stating 
>that you will enforce *your own vision* of freedom of expression, 

I am not enforcing "my own vision" I am stating the obvious, that law
enforcement is a matter for the courts, not the Board of a community
service.

>despite the  fact that it tramples on the other 45,000 of us. That is hyppocrasy at it's 
>utmost. 

Oh please, Marc, when pray tell, have you consulted with "45,000 of
us"

I ask you again, in simple terms, please explain how I am behaving
"hypocritically."

>The fact that you would resort to illegal means suggests a level of cowardice 
>not seen in a lot of radical activists in Canada since the FLQ.

Again, that I have done or plan to do anything "illegal" is nothing
more than your biased opinion.

>>The following will result in your account being terminated:
>>
>> 1. Being convicted of using the resources of the TFN in an illegal
>>    manner by a Canadian court of law with the appropriate 
>>    jurisdiction
>>
>> 2. Any attempt to compromise the security of, or to gain unauthorized
>>    access to, any computer connected to the Internet.
>
>Hyppocrasy again

No Marc, just you stretching desperately for another excuse to use
insults in lue of actually having a point.

>. Breaking system security is *ILLEGAL*. 

Breaking system security may or may not be illegal, that is not
relevant since I have already stated that legality is a matter for the
courts to decide.

As a public service, we have *NO*  right to dictate what you *SAY* via
our system, or to determine the legality of that speech.

We do however have a right to control *HOW* our system is used, what
services we make available, and to protect our equipment and
configuration from being damaged.

Anyone that blatantly attempts to compromise our system design is
therefore refusing  to use the system as it was designed to be used,
in which case we are justified in preventing them from using it. 

This has nothing to do with interpreting the law or freedom of speech
Marc and is clearly yet more evidence that you're not really
discussing the issue but just looking for any old thing as a reason to
disagree with me or call me more names.

[remaining red hearings snipped]