🚀 go-pugleaf

"JustLor" <just_me*nospam*123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4FXC9.52575$ka.1494100@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Thank you Walter for your insight.
>
> Shaw has finally addressed the economic concerns of their customers and
> shareholders.  Once example that Internet access is not a right, but a
> privilege.
>
> One can only imagine how many complaints, man hours, investigations, loss
of
> accounts, organizations and other groups not or removing any affiliation
> with Shaw because of this persons actions and conducts.
>
> Immoral comments about breast cancer, cancer patients, people who have
aids,
> the way women are verbally treated, and users stalked, provoked, and above
> all threats to have their accounts cancelled because of some head trip.
>
> I have never complained to Shaw about this user, and if I did not want to
> read the posts from this person, it is my responsibility to filter this
> person out. That is my choice.
>
> I for one believe that my provider Shaw has made a correct and accurate
> economically moral decision.
>
> Just me 2 cents

Give me a f***ing break! Exactly HOW did Shaw suffer one bloody red penny
loss because of his actions? I'm not aware of anyone cancelling their
accounts with Shaw over anything DB said or did. EVERY organization has to
have a Help Desk--the expense of having Customer Relations staff is of no
relevance to the actions of any individuals--it's a standard business
expense.


>
> JustLor
>
> "Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc.ca> wrote in message
> news:arfi0q$2a5$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> > In article <66ae96c0.0211191010.5f8e4db@posting.google.com>,
> > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=F4-#=AC_tayl=F2rchuk_=B3=AE|I?= <db2639@netzero.com>
> wrote:
> > :Yes we should all be very worried about the actions that Shaw has
> > :taken.
> >
> > :They chose to cancel my account despite the facts that:
> >
> > :1. I did not violate their AUP
> > :2. I am a paid up customer
> >
> > :They sent a cancelation email and failed to identify ANY violations of
> > :their AUP but simply said..
> >
> > :"it is no longer economically feasible for us to continue to provide
> > :you with Internet services:.
> >
> > "Freedom of Expression" in Canada has never EVER meant that a
> > communications provider is required to provide a medium of expression
> > to everyone. The closest you get to that in Canadian law is that
> > vendors that offer service to the public must not avoid all of the
> > prohibited grounds of descrimination; they could not, for example,
> > refuse you an account -just- because you are male [unless they had
> > some very good reasons for doing so!]
> >
> > When there are established economic grounds *specific* to you, or any
> > other grounds that fall outside the Charter, then a company is free to
> > tell you that your patrongage is not desired. If you were to go into a
> > restaurant and someone come over and pushed you around; and this were
> > to happen on several different occasions, then even if in every case
> > you'd just been "minding your own business", the establishment would
> > have every right to say, "We're sorry, but trouble seems to follow you
> > and it's upsetting our customers and is bad for our business, so we
> > don't you to come back."
> >
> > The police understand this voluntary refusal of service well:  it's the
> > tactic the Winnipeg police have *requested* Winnipeg bars and
> > restaurants use with regards to known gang members (e.g., Hells
> > Angels).  The police passed around a list of names and pictures and
> > asked owners not to serve those people: even if those particular people
> > had never been in before, and weren't planning to give a hint of
> > trouble, the police want the owners to employ their right to refuse
> > service to -individuals-.
> >
> > I am absolutely NOT suggesting that you have even the slightest linkage
> > to the Angels or similar: I'm showing that even the local peace and
> > justice people think it is perfectly fine for vendors to refuse service
> > to people even when those people have not violated any "contract
> > terms".
> >
> > Vendors are not obligated to continue providing you service until you
> > break some obvious house rule: unless you have a contract with them
> > that says otherwise, they have wide lattitude about asking people to
> > take their business elsewhere. "I'm sorry, you remind our waitress
> > strongly of her brother who was killed by a mugger right in front of
> > her, and she gets badly shaken up every time you are in. She's a
> > valuable employee to us, and we don't want to lose her, so we ask that
> > you not come back." You don't have to have done anything "wrong": when
> > the vendor says "please just leave", then that's something the vendor
has
> a
> > right to do, and you have no recourse other than to recommend to
> > others that they avoid the vendor.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To address a possible objection to my "never EVER", above:
> > yes, it is true to some extent that "The Press" has a level
> > of obligation to present balancing views. This is more at the level
> > of a Code of Ethics than any kind of law with respect to newspapers,
> > because you are always free to start your own competing newspaper
> > and to try to convince people to listen to you.
> >
> > Radio is different under law because radio is a restricted medium with
> > a license offering exclusive access to a limited public resource and
> > unlicensed broadcasts being illegal outside of narrow bands.  But again
> > it isn't a matter of Charter Rights or the Human Rights Act:  instead
> > it's just that the government via the CRTC has made *regulations* (not
> > laws!) that it feels are in the best interest of the public.
> >
> > Under the Code of Ethics of the Newspaper Council of Canada
> > [a voluntary organization that many smaller newspapers do not belong
to!],
> > if you feel that someone is publishing inaccurate informations
> > or harmful viewpoints, the obligation of the publisher is really only
> > to provide you with just enough space in the Letters To The Editor
> > section to get across the bare bones of your contrary view. You could,
> > I suppose, interpret that as a requirement to carry your viewpoint
> > for "free", but notice that it is NOT a "right"; and notice
> > that they are allowed to edit the material provided the meaning is not
> > substantially changed; and notice that it is at best a one-time deal:
> > you get to say your piece *once* and after that you can be ignored
> > with respect to those arguments. So at most you get a little bit
> > of space to rebut what someone else has said, and that's the end of
> > the matter.
> >
> > Usenet newsgroups are by no means a "limited public resource", so if
> > someone posts something you disagree with, then the most that the
> > vendor is obliged to do is to not block off the last *possible*
> > mechanism for you to post a short rebutal. If there are lots of other
> > vendors that can provide you with access to the same newsgroup, then
> > the vendor has no further obligation other than under any termination
> > clauses *specifically* set forth in their contract with you. When there
> > are multiple public vendors of the same "publication" resource then it
> > is well established that your Charter rights are in no way violated if
> > a particular vendor refuses service. Lawsuits against a vendor
> > on Rights grounds, with regards to lost communications opportunities,
> > just won't stick unless perhaps there is a monopoly situation.
> >
> >
> > What we are left with, legally, is a plain contract dispute.  And that
> > contract is (was) between *you* and the vendor, so except to the extent
> > that might be -specifically- stated in the contract, anything that the
> > vendor might or might not do with regards to other customers (who might
> > have the same or different contracts) has no relevance to your
> > dispute.  If the vendor choses to employ a contract term to terminate
> > the contract, and did not choose to employ the same contract term to
> > terminate the contracts of other customers, then you have no actionable
> > case with regards to the vendor treating you differently than it treats
> > others. [No actionable case, that is, unless you want to claim
> > discrimination on grounds prohibitted under the Charter, in which case
> > showing that they treated others differently would become fair
> > evidence.]
> >
> > Basically, your contract with the vendor said "We can terminate your
> > contract for nearly any reason we feel like, and the decision is
> > *completely* up to us." And that's a perfectly valid contract term [in
> > the absence of an effective monopoly.] Under contract case law, the
> > time to object to such a clause was *before* starting the contract: you
> > could have asked the vendor to have those clauses modified or stricken
> > from the contract, and you were free to seek service with a competing
> > vendor if the first vendor would not agree to the modified terms. I
> > know for sure that some of the competition was willing to negotiate
> > with respect to similar contract terms, as I made a point of
> > investigating these kind of contract terms and was successful in having
> > several vendors modify their terms.
> >
> > That's how contract law works: you have to pay attention to what you
> > are asked to sign, and if you don't like it, then you negotiate for
> > different terms. And if you read a contract and don't understand it,
> > then you are supposed to *ask* about it or consult to your legal
> > council BEFORE signing. "Let the buyer beware".
> >
> > You signed a contract that gave full discretion to the other party, and
> > you got surprised when they then used that discretion. Likely you
> > should now treat what happened as a "Learning Experience" and move on.
> > --
> >    I wrote a hack in microcode,
> >    with a goto on each line,
> >    it runs as fast as Superman,
> >    but not quite every time!                 -- Dave Touretzky and Don
> Libes
>
>