🚀 go-pugleaf

Are you dead? No you're not (too bad really), so the death threat is neither
here nor there.

Did the story contain your name stating that you were the boy in question.
No it didn't, so oops there goes another rubber tree....

Profanity is acceptable up to a point, then the ISP is first obligated to
warn the customer, I should know, because you called Shaw on me for posting
C***sucker after each of your posts. By the way Donnie, just cause you
replace letter in certain words with certain symbols and other letters (LIKE
YOU DO), it is still well known that you are implying profanity, such as
your teensy, weensy minky!
You're running scared Donnie, and you're posting all these things in a lame
attempt to hide your fear. You won't get legal aide, and if a young up and
coming lawyer decides to try to make a name for himself (despite having
written proof that your a net kook) the headlines will read:

EXTRA EXTRA--- Netloon Committed to Psychiatric Ward, Young Lawyer Now
Serving Fries--

Enjoy the padded cell there Psycho Boy!!!

"�-�� taylorchuk ��|I" <taylorchuk@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:zMjH8.39357$Ka.3025961@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> NEWS THAT COULD HAPPEN:
>
> ** POST CONTAINS A SATIRICAL LOOK AT THE NEWS...OR DOES IT? **
>
> A poster who has asked to remain anonymous has apparently settled out of
> court with a major Internet supplier for an amazing $1.5 million.
>
> The claims involved are :
>
> 1. negligence on the part of the Internet provider
> Not providing an adequate level of safety for its customers against users
> online death threats
> Not enforcing their own clearly posted AUP (acceptable usage policies).
> Failing to act upon notification of said death threats and other illicit
> content on the newsgroups which they carried to all customers.
>
> Lawyers brought out evidence that the ISP was repeatedly told about the
> blatant violations of the AUP and was asked to take action on many
> occaisions but no action was taken.
>
> In this precedent setting case, the providers did have to admit their
> negligence and failure to act on behalf of its customers.
>
> The providers always had the ability to remove these controversial local
> groups from their servers but never did so.
>
> Several posts were brought to the court which involved.
>
> 1. direct threats of death made on the public newsgroups by customers who
> could easily be identified
> 2. pornographic content involving a boy and mother
> 3. excessivly offensive profanity on the newsgroup
>
> The ISP has refused further comment but has agreed to the very large out
of
> court settlement.
>
>
>  *** the above post was a satire. ***
>
>