🚀 go-pugleaf

It's also interesting that JustLor points out that see filters posters and
does not read certain posts  Says it his/her responsibility to do so
What's wrong with everyone else?  Are they expecting someone to filter
posting for them?  I wish I could pass on that responsibility to someone
else too

"Sharx." <sharx35@nospam.ca> wrote in message
news:YSYC9.24451$0A5.1319826@news0.telusplanet.net...
>
> "JustLor" <just_me*nospam*123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4FXC9.52575$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
> >
> >
>
>