🚀 go-pugleaf

"Darren S" <whattheshove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v7ZC9.851033$v53.31778842@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> 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

Darren, I don't kill file and I don't complain to ISP's. It's because I
actually BELIEVE in freedom of expression/speech, no matter HOW REPULSIVE.


>
> "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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>