Internet Ventures, Inc. officers http://www.perki.net/corporate/exec.html
rgonnet
Grady Ward wrote:
> http://www.perki.net/corporate/exec.html
>
> contains the names and bios of the officers of Internet Ventures, Inc.
> who is currently conducting a DPO on the Internet.
So, I've sent them this letter:
Dear Sirs,
Did you realize that your co-contractor tidepool has just done a strange
error, due to the fact that it has terminated an account of Mr Grady
WARD, on wrong assertions done by another person (a wgert, some cultie
of the criminal cult of scientology-dianetics").
This will be more and more known if your co-contractor tidepool does not
retract any and all stupidities.
Your shame could become and internationnaly known incident, as have been
most incidents generated by the cult of scientology, the criminal cult.
*Perhaps some person of your "Tidepool" co-contractor is a scientologist
himself. Then beware: if it is the case, you have then an enemy in your
walls.
Don't say i've not informed you if it happens that your repute suffers
far more than predictable from the beginning.
In every past case of the war led by scientologist against Internet, the
"friends" of scientology have lost every penny of credibility they could
have before. Scientology is no child game: it's the most criminally
oriented group after the mafia.
Roger Gonnet
France
>
>
> Do these people realize that Eric Wright and Carol Serve *changed*
> the TOS of tidepool.com the day *after* my account was terminated on October
> 16, 1997 in order to ex post facto (or in comman parlance "cover up") breach
> their contract with me as a subscriber?
>
> Will they take the proper action here or must I file a lawsuit to make
> clear to the Internet Community how this management team bows
> under to scientology pressure, breaching contracts and unlawfully
> covering-up the incompetance of their subsidiary staff in the process?
>
> I doubt these individuals would agree that breaching contracts with customers
> is a proper way of conducting business, but I will wait a few days to see what
> their response is.
>
> --
> Grady Ward gr...@promisecreepers.org +1 707 826 7712
> http://209.66.96.19/g/r/grady/
> C168 0477 7302 C208 F3AC B8D2 33C5 7FCC 0D52 F028
Ron Newman
In article <344cca1d...@news.supernews.com>, gr...@promisecreepers.org
wrote:
> http://www.perki.net/corporate/exec.html
>
> contains the names and bios of the officers of Internet Ventures, Inc.
> who is currently conducting a DPO on the Internet.
>
> Do these people realize that Eric Wright and Carol Serve *changed*
> the TOS of tidepool.com the day *after* my account was terminated on October
> 16, 1997 in order to ex post facto (or in comman parlance "cover up") breach
> their contract with me as a subscriber?
If you have a copy of the old terms of service and the new ones, can
you post both here? Thanks.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
John Nagle
rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) writes:
>In article <344cca1d...@news.supernews.com>, gr...@promisecreepers.org
>wrote:
>> the TOS of tidepool.com the day *after* my account was terminated on October
>> 16, 1997 in order to ex post facto (or in comman parlance "cover up") breach
>> their contract with me as a subscriber?
>If you have a copy of the old terms of service and the new ones, can
>you post both here? Thanks.
It's worth noting that "www.alexa.com" quietly archives the entire
Web every month. The previous content of a URL is usually available
on-line, although it takes a while to get it back from the robotic
tape handlers.
John Nagle
Zane
On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 17:31:22 GMT, actua...@hotmail.com (Actual Code)
wrote:
>I would assume that you are a decent human being (although you are
>so vulgar in some posts that I just can't take you seriously)
What the fuck are you trying to say bub? Vulgar? I gave up trying to
be vulgar a long time ago, I just don't have the talent displayed by
others.
Vulgar? I'll tell you what I find offensive and vulgar:
o El Wrong's legacy of lies and deception.
o Co$'s criminal history.
o The attempt to RMGROUP ars.
o Co$'s outting and attacks on critics, including having
people fired from their jobs.
o A church<spit> that hires PIs to steal photos of grandchildren.
o The sci-fi bullshit served up to the co$'s suckers.
o Wgert, RonsAnima, etc's constantly calling tilman a Nazi.
o The death of Lisa.
o etc
So I guess it's safe to assume that you have a much more difficult
time taking co$ seriously given the stark contrast between my
occasional "fuck off and die" and the co$'s decades of crime and
abuse.
Zane
Actual Code
Not to play the devil's advocate, but I've seen alot said in these
newsgroups about tidepool.com yet I haven't seen something actually
posted from tidepool of Internet Ventures. What I have seen is alot
of people blindly supporting Grady Ward. I am sure that he has left
out details of what has transpired and I think that it would be safe
to assume that there was wrong-doing from both ends (Ward and
tidepool). Aside from the fact that Ward has not been reimbursed for
services not rendered, he really has no case against tidepool. Since
they haven't said anything, they haven't blackened his already soiled
character. Since they are a "service provider" they can discontinue
service at any time. And since Ward did his posting while connected
to tidepool (even though no to a server owned by tidepool) they are in
their place to inforce their TOS (the one that Ward was aware of).
I think that Ward has lost sight of his primary goal - eradication of
Scientology. While I believe that everyone has the right to their own
"religion" everyone also has the right to oppose a said "religion".
Ward is out for money with tidepool, nothing more. I bet that if he
requested a refund he would get it, then he's be done with tidepool
and could focus all his efforts on Scientology.
Grady, I beleive that you are justified in your plight against
Scientology however I don't see how bringing everyone else down will
help you. You must understand that innocent people are affected
whenever you decide to stif up the pot. I would assume that you are a
decent human being (although you are so vulgar in some posts that I
just can't take you seriously) and that you don't want to hurt people
that didn't ask to be involved.
- Actual Code
Actual Code
>Uhhh.huhhh. How about scientology's advocate? That's far worse.
I am not advocating scientology, as a matter of fact, I am not
advocating anything at all, other than attempting to get through your
twisted hype of the situation.
>Blindly? Do you have facts that I or they do not have? Please post them
>for all to see if you do. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.
Yes blindly! Because tidepool has not released a statement, everyone
is going off what YOU (and only you) claim to be true! I am NOT
blowing smoke! Rather I am not blindly believing you in your story
without knowing (or at least hearing) their side of the story too.
>I don't think that is safe to assume that at all unless you are a
>scientologist. I acted completely within the TOS/AUP in effect at the time of
>my termination. nor did I "slander" anyone. My payment for six months was
>current and I was not abusing their computer system in any way. Heck, I wasn't
>even posting to a.r.s from their service!
Were you connected to the net via a ppp connection supplied by
tidepool when you posted whatever pissed them off?
>Sorry. Breach of contract, tortious interference with business, slander,
>libel, unlawful interception of e-mail. And maybe William Gertner comitted
>wire fraud if he said that he was a System Administrator of Supernews.
>A total lie.
For one, they never made a contract that said that they had to keep
your account active, the TOS/AUP simply stated that they had the right
to disable the account. There is no mention of an garuntee that the
account would always remain active. What e-mail did they intercept?!
Once an account is removed, all e-mail is bounced back to the sender!
William Gertner may have committed fraud, and if so, isn't he at the
root of the problem? If so, shouldn't you persue him rather than
tidepool (or are you just in it for the money?).
>But they *did* say to third parties that I had "slandered" (sic) and/or
>had violated the TOS and AUP. Both of these are untrue.
Whom? You are the only one that has made this widely known! They
haven't released a statement so how could they have done anything
publicly (so that you would know about it)? You are causing the stir,
and if you loose (which I am sure you will for your vulgarity and lack
of solid representation).
>Hmmm... I think it is probably safe to say you are a scientologist.
>I miss the cunt-droid "Vera Wallace". Bring her back!!!
You are now just acting dumb. I am, in fact, *not* a scientologist.
As a matter of fact, I don't believe that any religion is "right". If
you'd like to start a lengthy religious debate, fine, but be rest
assured, I am a free thinker.
>I do not have a goal of eradication of scientology. I smell clam.
If you smell something perhaps you should look around you. Ward, in
the past I was on your side. In the beginning when I first heard
about your case (scientology) on the news I believed (and still do)
that you are justified in your complaints. However, your general
vulgarity, lack of expressed intelligence, and twisted claims all work
against you in the public's eye.
>How about a full reinstatement with the admission that I did not violate
>the TOS/AUP? After all, unlike the criminal cult of scientology I do
>not like to litigate all that much; it is not a sacrament to me.
Then why do it? Perhaps a meeting with a tidepool representative
would be in order. Perhaps personally attacking a system
administrator or manager whom you have never met and threatening
litigation in the very first day isn't a good way to prove that you
don't like litigation.
>Bringing everybody else down? I smell clam.
More scents, hmm, check your milk, its probably as sour and fickle as
you are.
>Which innocents am I affecting? Eric Wright? Carol Serve? Tidepool.com?
>Internet Ventures, Inc? The criminal cult of scientology?
As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with scientology. The
fact of the matter is, your ISP (tidepool) believed that you violated
your TOS/AUP and shut your account off. You didn't like it and
threatened litigation. Scientology only comes into play because a
scientologist brought the (alleged) offending material to the
attention of tidepool.
>I just want to send the message that ISP's ought not blindly buckle under
>when the criminal cult of scientology wants to squelch free speech, as they
>have tried to for *years* now on the Internet (without much success).
Then why don't you do it in a constructive way? To me it seems like
you are mad as hell and you want someone to pay (to the tune of
$25,000??). YOU posted vulgar (and arguably offensive) material. YOU
jumped into the litigation process. YOU are the one who keeps this
ball rolling. And it is YOU who look like the irrational, illogical
party here.
I think that tidepool was wrong to disable your account without notice
AND I believe that you have been wrong in how you have attempted to
deal with the error. So what is your next move?
- Actual Code
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <344f85c8...@news.calstate.edu>, Actual Code writes:
>Not to play the devil's advocate, but I've seen alot said in these
>newsgroups about tidepool.com yet I haven't seen something actually
>posted from tidepool of Internet Ventures.
When I looked at this, I thought you were a complete fucking idiot.
Now, I've changed my mind: I think you're fairly transparently
a malicious, anymous representative of CoS for the following reasons..
>What I have seen is alot
>of people blindly supporting Grady Ward. I am sure that he has left
>out details of what has transpired and I think that it would be safe
>to assume that there was wrong-doing from both ends (Ward and
>tidepool).
This **SOUNDS** like sane, normal, English until you actually question
what it might mean. What is implied by all this innuendo. You see,
what Cesspool did requires no extraordinary malice, it just fits
in exactly with the way people act -- weak, stupid people who've
been lied to by a malicious source, who're too arrogant to back down
once they're committed to a mistake. the sort of thing i hope I wouldn't
do on a bad day but not that far from any of us. So what extra is
needed. You think we are missing that Grady buggered the CEO's daughter
/ prize poodle /whatever?? The idea is mad and extraordinary. I don't
see why anything else should be needed, nor what else it could be:
which is mhy I think you're a malicious clam troll.
>Aside from the fact that Ward has not been reimbursed for
>services not rendered, he really has no case against tidepool.
Aside from the cause of action he does have, he has no cause of action;
and they have probably caused him consequent losses as well by now.
>Since
>they haven't said anything, they haven't blackened his already soiled
>character.
No, but Gertie has said a number of things which are libellous. More
to the point he, by misreprentations, ideuced others to commit tortious
acts (which is pronbably an easier cuase of action to pursue).
>Since they are a "service provider" they can discontinue
>service at any time.
Not necessarily true, they operate according to contract
>And since Ward did his posting while connected
>to tidepool (even though no to a server owned by tidepool) they are in
>their place
This does not ncessarily make it an act in their jurisdiction
>to inforce their TOS (the one that Ward was aware of).
>
The one they invented as a lie after they had applied it you mean?
This alone will lose them the case.
>I think that Ward has lost sight of his primary goal - eradication of
>Scientology. While I believe that everyone has the right to their own
>"religion" everyone also has the right to oppose a said "religion".
>Ward is out for money with tidepool, nothing more.
Stupid allegation -- there's not much money in it. A few hundred
dollars, and his costs refunded (which he must first have incurred).
It's much more useful to get discovery of Gertie's connncetion
with CoS, or to tie it in with other RICO atcs, etc.
>I bet that if he
>requested a refund he would get it, then he's be done with tidepool
>and could focus all his efforts on Scientology.
>
Scientology isn't worried about him suing CessPool, then?
>Grady, I beleive that you are justified in your plight against
>Scientology however I don't see how bringing everyone else down will
>help you. You must understand that innocent people a
BWAAAAHAAR. Complete bollocks. You are some cowardly scum posting
in the interest of CoS (or, just possibly, of CessPool), who are
far from innocent in this business. If you are CessPool, please DON'T
knuckle under to a mere decent human being by making a public apology
which can nbe posted all over the 'Net and paying the amount due
plus a reasonable ex gratia payment for apology. The discovery
process against CoS will be far more useul to our couse.
Your appearing here as anonymous OSA scum is proof enough of that.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Keith Henson
Actual Code (actua...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: >Uhhh.huhhh. How about scientology's advocate? That's far worse.
: I am not advocating scientology, as a matter of fact, I am not
: advocating anything at all, other than attempting to get through your
: twisted hype of the situation.
Actual, may I suggest you research this situation a little more? I don't
think you have any idea of the twisted depth of it, or the abuse
scientology has heaped on a number of people, abuse up to the point of
death. Try putting Lisa McPherson in a search engine.
: >Blindly? Do you have facts that I or they do not have? Please post them
: >for all to see if you do. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.
: Yes blindly! Because tidepool has not released a statement, everyone
: is going off what YOU (and only you) claim to be true! I am NOT
: blowing smoke! Rather I am not blindly believing you in your story
: without knowing (or at least hearing) their side of the story too.
Grady has a well deserved reputation for speaking the truth. I suggest
you are never going to see any kind of explaination from tidepool because
their lawyers know they fucked up to the point that there is nothing they
can say which will not make the situation they are in even worse. Also,
a number of people talked with various tidepool reps before tidepool
"clammed up."
If perchance you would like to see the kind of madness we are dealing
with up close, I suggest you might want to join one of the pickets going
on either Nov. 1 in Los Angeles or Dec. 5 in Clearwater. That should
give you quite an eyefull. Keith Henson
Ex Mudder
In article <344fd310...@news.calstate.edu>,
actua...@hotmail.com (Actual Code) wrote:
<snip>
>>Blindly? Do you have facts that I or they do not have? Please post them
>>for all to see if you do. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.
>
>Yes blindly! Because tidepool has not released a statement, everyone
>is going off what YOU (and only you) claim to be true! I am NOT
>blowing smoke! Rather I am not blindly believing you in your story
>without knowing (or at least hearing) their side of the story too.
>
<snip>
>>I do not have a goal of eradication of scientology. I smell clam.
>
>If you smell something perhaps you should look around you. Ward, in
>the past I was on your side. In the beginning when I first heard
>about your case (scientology) on the news I believed (and still do)
>that you are justified in your complaints. However, your general
>vulgarity, lack of expressed intelligence, and twisted claims all work
>against you in the public's eye.
>
are accusing Grady of is a much more accurate description of what you
are doing.
John E. Bredehoft
In article <344fd310...@news.calstate.edu>,
Actual Code <actua...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
>Yes blindly! Because tidepool has not released a statement, everyone
>is going off what YOU (and only you) claim to be true! I am NOT
>blowing smoke! Rather I am not blindly believing you in your story
>without knowing (or at least hearing) their side of the story too.
>Whom? You are the only one that has made this widely known! They
>haven't released a statement so how could they have done anything
>publicly (so that you would know about it)? You are causing the stir,
>and if you loose (which I am sure you will for your vulgarity and lack
>of solid representation).
Several people have e-mailed Tidepool asking them to post their side
of the story in comp.org.eff.talk and other related newsgroups.
You may want to ask them to do the same. Since you have indicated
that you do not necessarily fully support Grady Ward, there is a
chance that they may listen to you.
So far the only person speaking on behalf of Tidepool has been wgert.
--
"Think different," Mr. Jobs:
Stick an Amiga up your nose!
Wear your socks inside out!
Tell potential buyers how your computers will meet their needs!
Andy Collier
[snipt]
> Then why don't you do it in a constructive way? To me it seems like
> you are mad as hell and you want someone to pay (to the tune of
> $25,000??). YOU posted vulgar (and arguably offensive) material. YOU
> jumped into the litigation process. YOU are the one who keeps this
> ball rolling. And it is YOU who look like the irrational, illogical
> party here.
Are you Actually Dense too? As has been repeated found by the courts,
offensive and vlgar speech (and writing) is consitutionally protected
(re: Burrough's Naked Lunch and other such things). There was
nothing illegal or tort-able that Grady did in his posts. I
personally may not like them, but I dont tread on his rights to produce
them either. And, contractually, there was NOTHING in the AUP about
OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE. As a matter of fact, there was no prior reference to
content at all from what I could read. The CONTENT isnt the question
here. Gradys actions are consistent with defending his rights - HE
posted, HE tried to settle things with phone calls, HE offered them the
facts and THEY rebuffed it leaving him with little other recourse.
Put the shoe on the other foot: How would you like it if someone made
false allegations to your ISP and they suspended you because you were to
bellicose in posting your views? Then when you call and offer them the
facts, ,they stone wall you - and libel you by saying you violated the
TOS (which you didnt). What would be your recourse? Other than going
postal on them, the court system is the last resort - to get the court to
force them to honor their contract that they made with you and for
which they took money in advance from you.
It is also debatable that Grady's posts from another service provider
(the SuperNew news service provider) are included from the AUP for his
ISP. After all, Supernews is where the posts show their insertion point
into usenet news. If I follow YOUR reasoning, Tidepool can censor and
suspend people for the contents of email that they send and receive from
POBOX or another email provider. If I follow your reasoning they also
can suspend you for sex-chat using an IRC server that they dont host, and
if they are crazy enough, they must even be responsible for the content
of remote web pages (like GeoCities) not on their site maintined through
a PPP connection to CessPool. Dont you see how poorly your argument
stands when subjected to other views? Didn't you think this throught to
full consequences? Cesspool is like any other ISP, in that they are a
carrier only, and should act as such and be treated as such. Once they
get into content monitoring and editorial decisions as to
"offensiveness", they cease to be a common carrier and become a publisher
and subject to many more restriction and legal liabilities (Ask AOL's
lawyers about this).
And as for the contract, it was prepaid for six months, subject to
cancellation or revocation. I doubt that the UCC allows you to keep
monies paid in advance for services which you aren't rendering due to
termination of the contract. So CessPool at least owes Grady a refund,
which they have refused to do.
> I think that tidepool was wrong to disable your account without notice
> AND I believe that you have been wrong in how you have attempted to
> deal with the error. So what is your next move?
>
> - Actual Code
Why not read further - Grady DID try to talk to these folks, they acted
under false pretense with false testimony provided by wgert.
IMHO:
What compounded the problem is that CessPool refused to admit there had
been a mistke due to them not being in possesion of all the facts,
followed by a quick attempt to cover up by changing thier AUP and
stonewalling the situation. This stonewlling includes rebuffs to all the
faxes, email and phone calls made by Grady as well as a lot of concerned
netizens. AFAIK, they have shown that they will not move unless
threatened with legal action. Much like the mule that needs to be shown
the 2-by-4, Tidepool will talk when they realize they are being
threatened -- not because its the right thing to do (their lawyer appears
to have the morals of a jackal), but because they will get lose money if
they dont (at minimum lawyer time and court costs, plus a possible
judgement, and the loss of GoodWill and reputation which will cost them
in the long run).
Reagrds,
A.C.
Actual Code
Since you people are too hung up on Scientology to notice, I HAVEN'T
COMMENTED A WORD ON SCIENTOLOGY. Sheesh, I merely stated that I think
the way that that Mr. Ward has approached the tidepool issue was not
right and that Mr. Ward could muster more public support if he wasn't
so vulgar in his posts (not to mention he wouldn't get thrown off
ISP's). Mr. Ward has a hard battle against him and he'd be 100% more
productive if he'd take on Scientology without being vulgar and
offensive in the public's eye. The average Joe/Jane Doe out there
won't support him if they see him using extreme language and name
calling. I'm sorry most people don't respect people who talk like
this. I can back this up because I took a number of Mr. Wards posts
and used them in a project that I was working on for my psychology
major, 94% of those polled were offended and "put-off" by Mr. Wards
language.
To Zane and Keith, who seems to think that I need to be reminded of
Lisa, I have read most of the web pages out there and I think that
what those Scientologists did was terrible and that they should pay
(if ever found). I don't doubt that they'll get theirs in the end.
So can you people please stop implying that I am somehow supporting
Scientology!
-Actual Code
Actual Code
>There was nothing illegal or tort-able that Grady did in his posts. I
>personally may not like them, but I dont tread on his rights to produce
>them either. And, contractually, there was NOTHING in the AUP about
>OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE.
Fuck, Shit, Damn, Asshole
There, now do I appear more intelligent because I can swear? I didn't
think so. I never said that Mr. Ward broke the law by being vulgar, I
just commented that he'd do more good if he wasn't so disgusting!
While the AUP doesn't say anything about offensive language it does:
"reserve the right to terminate service without notice." Regardless
of tidepool's reasoning, they reserved this right and chose to enforce
it.
>Then when you call and offer them the facts, ,they stone wall you - and
>libel you by saying you violated the TOS (which you didnt). What would
>be your recourse? Other than going postal on them, the court system is
>the last resort - to get the court to force them to honor their contract that
>they made with you and for which they took money in advance from you.
Tidepool is at fault for not issuing a prompt refund, however
tidepool, I am sure, must watch their rear-end too. I am sure that
they'd rather deal with problems with Mr. Ward rather than with the
Church of Scientology. Litigation was not a last resort for Mr. Ward,
he threatened litigation the very first day! Most ISP's do *NOT* make
contracts with their customers. Being "service providers" they can
refuse service.
>It is also debatable that Grady's posts from another service provider
>(the SuperNew news service provider) are included from the AUP for his
>ISP. After all, Supernews is where the posts show their insertion point
>into usenet news.
We have no way of knowing if Mr. Ward was connected to the net
(ppp/slip connection) with tidepool. I presume that he was. If he
wasn't (and looking through tidepool's logs will show if he was or
not) then tidepool is 100% at fault and should issue an apology,
re-activate the account and issue a reimbursement.
>And as for the contract, it was prepaid for six months, subject to
>cancellation or revocation. I doubt that the UCC allows you to keep
>monies paid in advance for services which you aren't rendering due to
>termination of the contract. So CessPool at least owes Grady a refund,
>which they have refused to do.
I already stated that tidepool hasn't the right to hold monies that
were collected for services not rendered.
>Why not read further - Grady DID try to talk to these folks, they acted
>under false pretense with false testimony provided by wgert.
Regardless, they reserved the right to disable an account regardless.
While Mr. Ward did talk to them I am sure that his account of what
happened (conversations with tidepool representatives) was not 100%
accurate. Rarely does an established company such as tidepool,
northcoast, or internet ventures, have employees who are all rude and
evil , they wouldn't stay in business with staff like that.
>What compounded the problem is that CessPool refused to admit there had
>been a mistke due to them not being in possesion of all the facts,
>followed by a quick attempt to cover up by changing thier AUP and
>stonewalling the situation. This stonewlling includes rebuffs to all the
>faxes, email and phone calls made by Grady as well as a lot of concerned
>netizens. AFAIK, they have shown that they will not move unless
>threatened with legal action. Much like the mule that needs to be shown
>the 2-by-4, Tidepool will talk when they realize they are being
>threatened -- not because its the right thing to do (their lawyer appears
>to have the morals of a jackal), but because they will get lose money if
>they dont (at minimum lawyer time and court costs, plus a possible
>judgement, and the loss of GoodWill and reputation which will cost them
>in the long run).
Perhaps they are sure of their stance, and hence, aren't worried about
Mr. Ward's threat to enter litigation with 2bit self-representation.
-Actual Code
William Barwell
In article <34510f5f...@news.calstate.edu>,
Actual Code <actua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>There was nothing illegal or tort-able that Grady did in his posts. I
>>personally may not like them, but I dont tread on his rights to produce
>>them either. And, contractually, there was NOTHING in the AUP about
>>OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE.
>
>Fuck, Shit, Damn, Asshole
>There, now do I appear more intelligent because I can swear? I didn't
>think so. I never said that Mr. Ward broke the law by being vulgar, I
>just commented that he'd do more good if he wasn't so disgusting!
>
Possibly, but that is his decision not yours. Kill file him
if it bothers you. Use your twit bit.
On the other hand what right does Wgert have to lie on Grady to
get him booted, and what right does Tidepool to change the rules after
booting him, negating a contract they had with him?
And why should anybody do business with an ISP that censors?
Which is what Tidepool has decided they will do.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Donald Janke
This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
I am the President of Internet Ventures (IVI), Inc.; and Northcoast
Internet (NCI), Inc. is part of IVI's family of Internet Service
Providers
(one of seven wholly owned ISP subsidiary corporations). Tidepool
Internet
is a d.b.a. (doing business as) of NCI.
As a long time netizen (I might even be able to say that "I was
Internet
before it was cool" since I've been online since 1988), and as the
leader of
IVI I feel it is my responsibility to participate in the postings.
First, a further clarification of IVI might be in order. IVI is
substantially an employee owned company. We have formed by bringing
together smaller ISPs that want to remain involved in this business
rather
than selling out to big corporations. They joined IVI by exchanging the
stock of their company for stock in IVI. We are not "venture capital"
backed nor backed by any large organizations. All of our cash investors
have purchased stock in small dollar amounts and for the most part are
small business owners in their own right.
In other words we are not in a position to dictate the terms of free
speech on the net; we are just trying to prevent getting run over by it
(thanks Bill for allowing a modified quote).
In reading postings in this newsgroup, and other related newsgroups, it
seems that some posters object to the locking of Grady's account. Other
posters feel the locking had merit. It also appears that some posters
feel
they have not heard enough information about this dispute.
Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and
defamatory
comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed towards another human
being. We became drawn into this posting when we received a formal
complaint regarding his
postings. We had no choice but to terminate his account, under the
original
terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account.
As we all know, the bounds of free speech limits on the Net are
fragmented and unclear. However, there must be some outer limit to free
speech. Exactly where that limit occurs is subject to interpretation.
I have determined, for my life, where
to set my outer limit. Others have certainly set their limits to the
left and right
of my position. Within the IVI family of companies we certainly find
ourselves with
a spectrum of opinions on how far is "out of bounds" for free speech.
However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions
of free
speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must set when they
decide to be
in business. As a company our limit is set when a another netizen
complains that
they were offended by language so strong that a lawsuit could result.
However,
even here the law seems open to interpretation until one stands before a
judge and
says "YOU DECIDE".
Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and
Tidepool) take it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this
dispute be opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue,
and opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum.
In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have
asked the
Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account. This does assume that
while participating in a "court of netizens" Grady will abide by the
original terms which
he agreed to when he opened his Tidepool account.
I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should be
where we are
"on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits of free speech" as
opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is utilized to state opinions
about other topics. Two suggestions are "alt.censorship" and
"comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels
a discussion of "free speech" would be "on topic".
Keith Henson
Actual Code (actua...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: Since you people are too hung up on Scientology to notice, I HAVEN'T
: COMMENTED A WORD ON SCIENTOLOGY. Sheesh, I merely stated that I think
: the way that that Mr. Ward has approached the tidepool issue was not
: right and that Mr. Ward could muster more public support if he wasn't
: so vulgar in his posts (not to mention he wouldn't get thrown off
: ISP's).
I am pleased (from what you mention below) that you know about some of the
background to this massive information war. There is no question that Mr.
Ward is being vulgar in his postings about the (imagined?) sex and toilet
habits of various scientologists leaders and their lawyers and PIs.
But I think you may be missing the point. Mr. Ward is, after all, a past
master in the use of the English language. What he does to the leaders of
scientology is intentional and *very* effective. You would have had to be
at the deposition of David Miscavige to appreciate just *how* effective
Mr. Ward has been in making these people show just how disturbed they are.
How much effort/money/time has Mr. Ward made scientology waste, all by
a few vulgar postings.
: Mr. Ward has a hard battle against him and he'd be 100% more
: productive if he'd take on Scientology without being vulgar and
: offensive in the public's eye. The average Joe/Jane Doe out there
: won't support him if they see him using extreme language and name
: calling.
In spite of postings so vile that few people can read them, Mr. Ward
enjoys a remarkable level of support on the Internet. Knowing him
somewhat, I don't believed that he is concerned about the support or lack
of support from people average or otherwise.
I'm sorry most people don't respect people who talk like
: this. I can back this up because I took a number of Mr. Wards posts
: and used them in a project that I was working on for my psychology
: major, 94% of those polled were offended and "put-off" by Mr. Wards
: language.
If you only got 94% offended by Mr. Wards postings, there must be more
sick people out there than I thought. (I am reminded of one David
Dirmeyer, postal inspector from Memphis, TN who was reported to have been
aroused in court by a "scat flick.") Mr. Ward's vile postings are directed
to particular people, who (obviously) read them over and over.
: To Zane and Keith, who seems to think that I need to be reminded of
: Lisa, I have read most of the web pages out there and I think that
: what those Scientologists did was terrible and that they should pay
: (if ever found).
"If ever found." Don't forget the entire power of scientology is behind
keeping such "negative PR" from being exposed. Even with the Net, it was
a good number of months, and to some extent chance that the death of Lisa
McPherson became widespread knowledge (thanks to Jeff Jacobson). Prior to
the net, Lisa's death would have had as little impact as Susan Meister's.
I don't doubt that they'll get theirs in the end.
If CoS management has to spend Lisa Marie Presley's last dollar to
prevent anyone from being charged or to get them off the hook, they will.
: So can you people please stop implying that I am somehow supporting
: Scientology!
I don't think I implied that. But if you consider "fair game" and the
other nasty things scientology is well known for, a few vulgar words about
them hardly seems over the top. If you want to condem Mr. Ward's info war
methods, that's ok, I just wanted to be sure you had a view of the whole
situation before making such judgments. Keith Henson
Rob Clark
actua...@hotmail.com (Actual Code) wrote:
>this. I can back this up because I took a number of Mr. Wards posts
>and used them in a project that I was working on for my psychology
>major, 94% of those polled were offended and "put-off" by Mr. Wards
>language.
from the use of this reeking 94% bullshit lie line, and my ten years
of experience with humongous whoppers perpetrated upon the usenet
public, i can state with great certainty that you, sir, are a liar.
if you are not, i request you verify this humongous (i did a psych
project) troll and whopper by telling us the psychology class, the
professor, the university at which this project took place, and the
nature of the poll, including the specific questions you used to
ascertain that they were "put-off" as opposed to some other phrasing.
mind you, i'm not leaping to the same "he's a clam" frenzy as others
have, i just have grave doubts about the veracity of this statement,
and wish to give you an opportunity to clarify it. . .
clarify it. . .yeah, right. it is steaming bullshit. you did no such
project. i have seen this "psych project" troll floated so many times
by so many people who have never done anything of the sort that i can
not but mark this as steaming, rank bullshit.
rob
Baba ROM DOS
Donald Janke wrote:
>
> This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
> between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
>
> I am the President of Internet Ventures (IVI), Inc.; and Northcoast
> Internet (NCI), Inc. is part of IVI's family of Internet Service
> Providers (one of seven wholly owned ISP subsidiary corporations).
> Tidepool Internet is a d.b.a. (doing business as) of NCI.
> As a long time netizen (I might even be able to say that "I was
> Internet before it was cool" since I've been online since 1988),
> in the postings.
I, for one, commend you in this. I rather imagine that your
company's lawyers will try to limit your participation, however,
and I will not be surprised if in the end it is not as open and
free-wheeling as many people, yourself included perhaps, might like.
> First, a further clarification of IVI might be in order. IVI is
> substantially an employee owned company. We have formed by bringing
> together smaller ISPs that want to remain involved in this business
> rather than selling out to big corporations. They joined IVI by
> exchanging the stock of their company for stock in IVI. We are not
> "venture capital" backed nor backed by any large organizations.
> All of our cash investors have purchased stock in small dollar
> amounts and for the most part are small business owners in their
> own right. In other words we are not in a position to dictate
> the terms of free speech on the net; we are just trying to prevent
> getting run over by it (thanks Bill for allowing a modified quote).
There has never been a strong argument put forward that IVI has been
trying to dictate the terms of free speech on the net. The complaint
is really that IVI has allowed themselves to be used as a pawn of a
group (the "Church" of Scientology[tm]) bent on doing so. Your
description of IVI's investor base corresponds to exactly the
sort of company that is most vulnerable to this sort of thing.
Professional VCs and corporate investors are less easily intimidated
by the sort of campaign to which IVI has fallen victim.
> In reading postings in this newsgroup, and other related newsgroups,
> it seems that some posters object to the locking of Grady's account.
> Other posters feel the locking had merit. It also appears that some
> posters feel they have not heard enough information about this
> dispute.
I am curious as to how many of the messages you received supporting
your decision to lock Grady's account were substantially identical.
The "Church" of Scientology is well-known for orchestrated
letter-writing campaigns against those they perceive as their enemies.
> Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and
> defamatory comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed
> towards another human being. We became drawn into this posting
> when we received a formal complaint regarding his postings. We
> had no choice but to terminate his account, under the original
> terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account.
This is really the heart of the matter. Grady has posted extensive
evidence that the terms under which he had opened and prepaid his
account are *not* those under which your staff claim to have
terminated it. On the basis of all evidence available to
public netizens, those new terms of service were only established
*after* the termination of his account, as a means of covering up
a breach of contract.
> As we all know, the bounds of free speech limits on the Net are
> fragmented and unclear. However, there must be some outer limit to
> free speech. Exactly where that limit occurs is subject to
> interpretation. I have determined, for my life, where to set my
> outer limit. Others have certainly set their limits to the left
> and right of my position. Within the IVI family of companies we
> certainly find ourselves with a spectrum of opinions on how far
> is "out of bounds" for free speech.
Exactly. And the moment an ISP allows itself to be convinced that
it has a responsiblility for the *content* of the messages that pass
through it, it is lost. There will always be someone with an axe
to grind. The law is not yet 100% clear on this, but it seems to
me that the only rational course for an ISP is to treat itself as a
"common carrier", with an obligation to protect the integrity and
security of communication, but without responsibility for the content.
> However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions
> of free speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must set
> when they decide to be in business. As a company our limit is set
> when a another netizen complains that they were offended by language
> so strong that a lawsuit could result.
By what possible mechanism could a lawsuit against IVI have resulted
from Grady Ward's actions? The offensive message in question WAS NOT
POSTED FROM TIDEPOOL, as can be seen from the news header of the
message in the original complaint from "William Gertner". The sole
link to Tidepool was that Grady Ward's internet address is in the
tidepool domain. If I publish an offensive tract and print
my home address on it, do you think that my landlord is liable?
> However, even here the law seems open to interpretation until one
> stands before a judge and says "YOU DECIDE". Rather than taking
> it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and Tidepool) take
> it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this dispute be
> opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue, and
> opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum.
> In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I
> have asked the Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account.
That's excellent news, whatever the reason.
> This does assume that while participating in a "court of netizens"
> Grady will abide by the original terms which he agreed to when he
> opened his Tidepool account.
Do you mean what you said here, or do you mean that he should abide
by the new terms of service defined after his account was locked?
Not that I think it matters much from the standpoint of Grady's own
participation, but whether IVI can make ex-post-facto changes in
their terms of service is a key element of the debate, and it's not
much of a debate if that is assumed at the outset.
> I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should
> be where we are "on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits
> of free speech" as opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is
> utilized to state opinions about other topics. Two suggestions
> are "alt.censorship" and "comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome
> Grady's opinion on where he feels a discussion of "free speech"
> would be "on topic".
I note that you have posted this message to alt.religion.scientology
as well - otherwise I must admit that I would not have seen it.
This incident is very much on-topic in that newsgroup, but I fear
that conducting the debate there will attract more in the way
of flames and hyperbole than you might like.
My own opinions, for what they are worth, are that:
1) Grady Ward's postings are offensive, but not obscene, fall
clearly within the genre of satire, and are protected free speech.
2) Tidepool's termination of his account was unjustified because
a) His posts were protected free speech.
b) His posts did not originate at Tidepool.
c) The terms of service on which the decision was ostensibly
based were not in effect when the decision was taken.
Any one of the above should have sufficed to preclude the
action taken by Tidepool/IVI staff.
3) Tidepool joins a long list of companies and organizations that
have been intimidated and manipulated by the "Church" of
Scientology.
Mr. Janke, if you have not already done so, please spend some
time browsing the web sites documenting the "war" between
Scientology and "the internet".
http://home.sol.no/~spirous/CoS/index2.html is one good place
to start.
Information Security
In comp.org.eff.talk Donald Janke <don...@tidepool.com> wrote:
: This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
: between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
: I am the President of Internet Ventures (IVI), Inc.; and
: Northcoast Internet (NCI), Inc. is part of IVI's family of
: Internet Service Providers (one of seven wholly owned ISP
: subsidiary corporations). Tidepool Internet is a d.b.a.
: (doing business as) of NCI.
Thanks for restoring Grady "Anti-Co$" Ward's account.
: As a long time netizen (I might even be able to say that "I was
: Internet before it was cool" since I've been online since 1988),
Then require anyone claiming defamation or libel to go to
court, if they want to "complain" about someone's speech.
As a long time netizen, you know what flames are.
: In other words we are not in a position to dictate the terms
: of free speech on the net...
Except for that little account-termination deal.
: we are just trying to prevent getting run over by it
You _were_ run over by it when you knocked Ward off the Net.
Just where do you think adult speech is supposed to be
allowed, after the U.S. Supreme Court said that the
government expressly can't censor the Net?
Mind fixing your TOS' to reflect the Supreme Court decision?
You don't "have" to, but, why not?
[Dear idiots, I am not mixing up 1st A. with private business.]
: Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and
: defamatory comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed
: towards another human being.
But not *legally* "abusive or defamatory", right?
Sympathies to you for having Co$' lawyers breathing down
your neck, though.
: We became drawn into this posting when we received a formal
: complaint regarding his postings.
A formal complaint means in writing.
Please post it!!!
: We had no choice but to terminate his account, under the original
: terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account.
No choice? C'mon...
Are you going to answer these posts, as implied when you said
you wanted to have a dialogue? The vast majority of all regular
posters already know what turds Co$ are.
So, it is you we'd like to hear from.
: As a company our limit is set when a another netizen complains
: that they were offended by language so strong that a lawsuit
: could result.
You mean Co$ complained.
They are not "netizens".
Did the complaint not say it was from Co$???
: As we all know, the bounds of free speech limits on the Net are
: fragmented and unclear. However, there must be some outer limit to
: free speech.
:
: Exactly where that limit occurs is subject to interpretation.
:
: However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions
: of free speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must
: set when they decide to be in business.
: However, even here the law seems open to interpretation until
: one stands before a judge and says "YOU DECIDE".
Then, are you going to leave it to a complainer to go to the
court, or are you going to allow lawyers to bully you?
Here's the problem I had with Panix: I talked about mailbombing
someone. ISP Panix said if I said that again, that alone would
be grounds for termination of my account.
Subsequently, they changed their mind, saying people should
take disputes to court if they felt it necessary...that Panix
didn't want to be in the business of determining what was abuse.
Here's the 64 trillion ruble question: if Grady wants to post
something "on the edge" again, can he show it to you to pre-screen
it?
Of course, it also means you have signed off on it as "approved
for posting"...no way around that.
Are you going to provide the service of pre-screening posts
for Grady (when he feels it necessary to post full-flame),
or are you going to adopt a go-to-court position?
---guy at ISP Panix
Keith Henson
Donald Janke (don...@tidepool.com) wrote:
: This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
: between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
: I am the President of Internet Ventures (IVI), Inc.; and Northcoast
: Internet (NCI), Inc. is part of IVI's family of Internet Service
: Providers
Thank you very much for coming on line to discuss this. That takes
real guts.
: (one of seven wholly owned ISP subsidiary corporations). Tidepool
: Internet
: is a d.b.a. (doing business as) of NCI.
: As a long time netizen (I might even be able to say that "I was
: Internet
: before it was cool" since I've been online since 1988), and as the
: leader of
: IVI I feel it is my responsibility to participate in the postings.
<grin> I bet it has been a while. You need to set the margins down
about ten characters for posting.
snip
: Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and
: defamatory
: comments, in a single posting,
That posting was not unusual for what Grady has been posting for a *long*
time.
that Grady directed towards another human
: being.
The target of the posting might well dispute this. If you could get them
to answer honestly, they don't consider themselves humans, but the
spirits of long ago murdered space aliens.
We became drawn into this posting when we received a formal
: complaint regarding his
: postings. We had no choice but to terminate his account, under the
: original
: terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account.
Could you post this document pointing out the specific part you think
Grady violated? I have seen fragments posted, but no pointers by
tidepool to exactly what was the problem.
: As we all know, the bounds of free speech limits on the Net are
: fragmented and unclear. However, there must be some outer limit to free
: speech. Exactly where that limit occurs is subject to interpretation.
: I have determined, for my life, where
: to set my outer limit. Others have certainly set their limits to the
: left and right
: of my position. Within the IVI family of companies we certainly find
: ourselves with
: a spectrum of opinions on how far is "out of bounds" for free speech.
: However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions
: of free
: speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must set when they
: decide to be
: in business. As a company our limit is set when a another netizen
: complains that
: they were offended by language so strong that a lawsuit could result.
: However,
: even here the law seems open to interpretation until one stands before a
: judge and
: says "YOU DECIDE".
The easy way to deal with this kind of a problem is to claim common
carrier status and let the offened person sue the offender.
: Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and
: Tidepool) take it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this
: dispute be opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue,
: and opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum.
: In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have
: asked the
: Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account. This does assume that
: while participating in a "court of netizens" Grady will abide by the
: original terms which
: he agreed to when he opened his Tidepool account.
Again, please post these terms or at least supply a pointer to them.
And, please, post or point to the terms in force when Grady paid for the
service, not the ones posted after his account was "locked."
: I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should be
: where we are
: "on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits of free speech" as
: opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is utilized to state opinions
: about other topics. Two suggestions are "alt.censorship" and
: "comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels
: a discussion of "free speech" would be "on topic".
Those two are fine, and the topic is of great interest to
alt.religion.scientology. Thank you again for coming on line to discuss
this matter. Keith Henson
PS, Since many will make references to these subjects, I suggest you will
want to check out the historical background involved. At least read the
web page http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/lisa.htm. There are far worse
things involved than vulgar language.
Frank Copeland
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Donald Janke <don...@tidepool.com> wrote:
[A lot of sanctimonious drivel deleted]
You really don't get it, do you? It's not Grady that's on trial here. Grady
doesn't need you to unfreeze his account so that he can take part in some
internet kangaroo court. He already has other access arrangements in place,
and since I doubt he is interested in putting any more money in your pockets
unfreezing his account will simply allow him to ease the transition to
another provider with some balls and a bit of backbone. All he needs from
you is for you to keep your side of the bargain you entered into when you
took his money. I see this 'court' you are trying to set up here is a
disgusting attempt to deflect attention away from yourself and blame Grady
for *your* mistakes. I find such cowardice much more vile than anything
Grady has ever written.
I've read your AUP (not the one you hurriedly slapped together after the
event to justify your panic-stricken actions, but the one in force at the
time Grady was canned) and not only was there nothing in it forbidding the
kind of protected free speech Grady was engaging in, but there was a
positive statement to the effect that you would not interfere in the freedom
of expression of your customers. Your moralising about the limits of free
speech is nothing more than a pathetic piece of arse-covering. You claim
that a company has to set limits on how it will do business; as far as I am
concerned you had already done so, and the limits you set were well beyond
the ones you are now seeking to enforce on Grady.
It's clear to me from your justifications that you are motivated by fear of
litigation. First of all it was fear of being sued by $cientology. Now you
are furiously backpeddling out of fear of being sued by Grady. You'll get no
sympathy from me for your plight, for you've brought it on yourself. No-one
with the brains [insert deity of choice] gave a sparrow would have taken
wg...@loop.com's unsubstantiated allegations of libel at face value. Simple
common sense should have prompted a question or two. Who was being libelled?
What business was it of wgert's? Why did they not take it up with Grady
directly? Why should it be any concern of yours? It would have been nothing
more than common decency to contact Grady and ask him for his side of the
story. All this could have been avoided if you had opted for a bit of
dialogue in the first place.
Imagine anyone in any other line of business pulling the plug on a
long-standing customer on the unsupported word of a complete stranger. What
fun your competitors could have. And I bet they are all pissing themselves
right now.
Stop this pathetic attempt to justify yourself. You are simply making things
worse by trying to put Grady on trial. Face up to reality: you've been
conned. wgert managed to put one over you, but it's all been for nothing.
Grady hasn't been silenced, merely enraged along with a lot of other people.
The big loser in all of this is you: you've lost a good customer and put
money into the pockets of a competitor. You've made yourself a laughing
stock, and a public disgrace.
If you have any sense, or decency, you'll apologise to Grady and negotiate a
settlement with him. If you don't, I hope he takes you to the cleaners.
- --
Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/>
Not the Scientology Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/scn/>
Keep it in Usenet. E-mail replies and 'courtesy' copies are not welcome.
If you're selling, I ain't buying.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNFHoeoBOXdsElwbdAQFQ7AP+I0zPQ1oV+mAENC9Eh5pKOzCWPzUaGNNJ
PDI3iO8r0ZwdvM29dUkVWolYhxLUH9zGssD1PElYxUG29loJbkZpsK7hqHat3Zep
mPkVWp5mcXa+rgccDQVyg5lCAbrED8sfptEGdSqoMpYP+Hgn1f68zHEF2v1ZRoKM
zKpomnTCx18=
=ho6j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <34510f5f...@news.calstate.edu>,
>Fuck, Shit, Damn, Asshole
>There, now do I appear more intelligent because I can swear? I didn't
>think so. I never said that Mr. Ward broke the law by being vulgar, I
OK, asshole, a question for you:
by doing what he has, Grady has caused the cult to waste millions on
making monkeys of themselves in a doomed lawsuit where they allege
without a shred of evidence he has committed other torts (because they
could hardly taking him to court for calling Kobrin a "shitvagina 'Ho").
They have generated huge amounts of bad publicity for themselves,
increased everyone's resolve against them, and ensured that the secret
documents they are supposedly protecting are even more widely available.
And it was the dwarf's personal pique against verbal insults that
led them into this folly.
Please post here what more good Grady would have achieved
by *NOT* being vulgar?
\
Your reply goes here: [
]
In article <345105ec...@news.calstate.edu>,
Actual Code <actua...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>Since you people are too hung up on Scientology to notice, I HAVEN'T
>COMMENTED A WORD ON SCIENTOLOGY.
You mean you are merely an idiot? One would have to be stupid or
malicious to say "there must be something else, Grady must have
buggered the CEO's poodle or something....". It makes no sense.
It is perfectly comprehensible why CessPool have acted as they have.
There doesn't need to be any extra factor, I don't see what it would
be if it existed, EVEN CESSPOOL ARE NOT ALLEGING (IN THERE CONVERSATIONS
WITH PEOPLE) THAT THERE IS AN EXTRA FACTOR. Just "we behaved in this
fatheaded and arrogant way because we like being arrogant fatheads
with our reputation shit all over the internet", though they wouldn't
quite phrase it that way.
In article <345220b2...@news.supernews.com>, Grady Ward writes:
>>no one is saying that you did anything. They are very hush about the
>>situation and are not making comments.
>
>Obviously they realize their wrongdoing and don't want to get into deeper
>trouble.
Obviously.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <34513C75...@tidepool.com>,
> I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should be
>where we are
>"on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits of free speech" as
>opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is utilized to state opinions
>about other topics. Two suggestions are "alt.censorship" and
>"comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels
>a discussion of "free speech" would be "on topic".
It is an interesting suggestion.
First of all, you have wronged Grady and he hasn't forgone his right
to sue you. Most of all you acted fraudulently -- you knew you were
wrong so you invented new terms of service which you applied
retrospectively. The complaint was based on a falsehood viz that
Mr Gertler was "an admin of supernews" and spoke with the authority
of that company. For this reason it might be best for Grady to sue,
you to admit liability, and for him to pursue Gertler for "inducing
other to cdommit tortious acts by deception" and get discovery of
his identity, organisational links, who gives him instructions,
etcetera (probably he is employed by the CoS's OSA at Los Angeles).
Second, any discussion whould be crossposted to this newsgroup
because people here on both sides are the main ones interested
and not all of them will move to different group; a crosspost
to the current three newsgroups is fine.
You should take legal advice on this. This is certainly the case
where the information is hosted from the ISP's own machines
such as webpages. The case of UseNet may be even laxer, i.e.
you should possibly not interfere at all but should say
"take it up with the user".
legal advice should be part of the input, and you might want to
include misc.legal for this reason.
The actual terms should be something like:
(1) RECOURSE BY THE I.S.P. for system disruption. The ISP
may limit, suspend, or terminate an account for actions on
UseNet which amount to mis-use of the system, wasting resources
not contracted for, or causing disruption to other systems.
This includes posting "spam" material which exceeds the Briebart
Index, and cancelling of articles without authorisation i.e.
when they not youir own articles or spam articles. The I.S.P.
disclaims all responsibility for the content of articles it
has not written or editted.
(2) RECOURSE BY EXTERNAL COMPLAINANTS. If the content of
material is unlawful, complainiants should take this up
with the user---letters may be forwarded to the user via
the ISP. If they feel the ISP should be prevented from
circulating such articles, the ISP will obey any Temporary
Restraining Order awarded ny the courts. Users will be
approached to show cause why their accounts should not be
suspended if the complainant enloses prima facie evidence
of an offense [e.g. proof of copyright ownership], for a
maximum of thirty days pending court action or the user
conceding, and provided that the complainant undrtakes to
pay damages if their complaint is later found to be malicious
or unreasonable.
William Barwell
In article <34513C75...@tidepool.com>,
Donald Janke <don...@tidepool.com> wrote:
>This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
>between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
>
> I am the President of Internet Ventures (IVI), Inc.; and Northcoast
>Internet (NCI), Inc. is part of IVI's family of Internet Service
>Providers
Thank you for reopening Ward's account. What was doen and how it was
done, was wrong.
>(one of seven wholly owned ISP subsidiary corporations). Tidepool
>Internet
>is a d.b.a. (doing business as) of NCI.
> As a long time netizen (I might even be able to say that "I was
>Internet
>before it was cool" since I've been online since 1988), and as the
>leader of
>IVI I feel it is my responsibility to participate in the postings.
Good. What does freedom of speech mean to you?
> In other words we are not in a position to dictate the terms of free
>speech on the net; we are just trying to prevent getting run over by it
>(thanks Bill for allowing a modified quote).
No, Tidepool did just that. Free speech is the bus, one is on it or one
is not on it. Some ISPs are good about this issue, some are not.
Freedom of speech can easily be lost to numerous little gatekeepers
who all decide that they will decide what freedom of speech is and how
much one can have.
I gave up on BBSs to come to the net and pay for the privledge to
avoid petty dictators. For freedom of speech.
ISPs should be like common carriers. Get out of the way.
do not restrict freedom of speech.
>In reading postings in this newsgroup, and other related newsgroups, it
>seems that some posters object to the locking of Grady's account. Other
>posters feel the locking had merit. It also appears that some posters
>feel
>they have not heard enough information about this dispute.
> Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and
>defamatory
>comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed towards another human
>being. We became drawn into this posting when we received a formal
>complaint regarding his
>postings. We had no choice but to terminate his account, under the
>original
>terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account.
This is not why he was told his account was terminated.
He was "off topic". Not true. Now the excuse shifts.
Not acceptable.
And the TOS was changed on the fly.
Not kosher.
> As we all know, the bounds of free speech limits on the Net are
>fragmented and unclear. However, there must be some outer limit to free
>speech.
Who says? What are the limits? Pluis there is another issue.
Scientolgists have tried to hijack alt.religion.scientology with massive
off topic spamming campaigns. Repeated attempts to stop this purposeful
abuse met with ISP notes that it was policy to give repeated warnings
foirst.
Ward had no such warning. Your ISPs put a lot of power into the hands of
a 20 year old employee and this is not wise. Somebody should have
discussed this with Grady and pointed out specific complainst and examples
of what is beyond the pale alledegdly and the reasons fair, honest and
reasonable and the TOS clear and to the point.
This is not what happened.
Fix that. Free speech is to valuable to allow it to be nibbled to death
by ISPs with poorly thought out policies. I personally place high value
on as much freedom of speech as possible. If Scientology cannot take
flamming, they should not do it to people and harrass them also.
Which is why this whole mess started. They pick fights and use ISPs
as a tool to censor the net.
Understand this. They are not the only people who do so.
That is why three warnings is a good idea.
Exactly where that limit occurs is subject to interpretation.
>I have determined, for my life, where
>to set my outer limit. Others have certainly set their limits to the
>left and right
>of my position. Within the IVI family of companies we certainly find
>ourselves with
>a spectrum of opinions on how far is "out of bounds" for free speech.
Why should you set limits on free speech? Why should ISPs decide they are
the arbiters of free speech. As you say, some different spectrums exist.
THis shows you it is an arbitrary decision. Why should an ISP make that
decison for customers? I find this dangerous as free speech mey end up
being what is allowable by 1001 self appointed censors because we allow
the world to habiutate us to accpeting these limits to free speech.
I find this dangerous. I say, you can't have too much free speech and
flee ISPs that decide they will have to limit it because we can't make it
on our iown out here in the home of the brave and the land of the free.
I hereby seriously suggest we have a netizens bill of rights.
Limiting what is considered reasonable encroachments on free speech
by petty gate keepers. Freedom of speech, fight for it or lose it.
We could see it destroyed nibble by nibble, bite by bite.
> However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions
>of free
>speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must set when they
>decide to be
>in business.
No, this is about arbitrary decisions made by a 20 year old
person operating on misleading information by somebody whose complaints
also contained lies. Wgert claimed falsely for example that Ward's posts
were off topic, no they are not, and that Wgert was a Supernews
administrator, which apparently he is not. First thing, get th eother
side of the story BEFORE you make any decisions, and then DON'T pass it on
to a stinking lawyer with an arrogant bad attitude tio giv eteh final
arbitray nay about things he knew little or nothing about.
That was irritating. And unnacceptable to freedom lovers.
As a company our limit is set when a another netizen
>complains that
>they were offended by language so strong that a lawsuit could result.
Which is unlikely. You probably are aware of the rulings on satoire from
teh supreme court. The Falwell vs Hustler case is very illustrative.
Now, if your lawyer does not understand that, you need a better lawyer.
Freedom of speech is too precious to give it up because an ISP does
not understand freedom of speech and shivers and shakes at the mention
of a lawsuit.
Recently a dumb sunuvabitch tried this on me, because I flamed him
for being clueless and intrusive on a series of threads he had
involved himself. Ron Bobo in sci.skeptic took it to complain to my ISP
and lie about my posts and threaten lawsuits.
I had to dig up the original posts showing he was a liar and a
flame artists who initiated teh attack
My ISP was a problem because teh guy BoBo contacted did NOT
take it on ethemsleves to investigate before they leaned on me!
This is stupid. When ISPs do this sort of stuff, you can bet every flake,
fool and crank WILL threaten lawsuits to get people booted!
Bobo picked this habit off of other cranks such as notorious net kook
Earl G. Curley who polished this stunt to an art.
I have seen this and been atacked this way and this has nothing to do with
as you say, what a company must do to be in business.
What you must do to be in business is compete with the big boys.
And letting cranks manipulate you is a good way to lose out
on business in a very competetive market with the odds against you
as far as resources of large ISPs.
Deciding to be censor is not a good idea.
It didn't exactly work well for Sears/Prodigy, did it?
Censorship and being manipulated by kooks threatening to sue
is not a way to stay in business. If it was, Sears/Progidy
would be buying Compuserve.
>However,
>even here the law seems open to interpretation until one stands before a
>judge and
>says "YOU DECIDE".
SO you say, "Sorry, we are not a court". You will have to take this up
with Mr. Ward, and if he is unwilling to settle this, you will have to
take him to court."
You need a better lawyer. Study Falwell vs Hustler.
Flame wars get rough. Satire is freedom of speech.
Stop being afraid of kooks threatening suits.
Very few suits get filed.
The only suit for libel on the net I am aware of now is James Randi vs,
Earl G. Curley. Gloabl.net, Earl's ISP is not being sued, just Earl.
Fear of lawyers destroys freedom.
Stop it. Don't let kooks yelling "Sue!" sap our freedoms.
Grow a backbone, guys.
If you don't the kooks will bury us in threats.
> Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and
>Tidepool) take it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this
>dispute be opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue,
>and opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum.
We cannot have enough freedom.
Kooks should not be allowed to destroy freedom.
Few lawsuits actually happen and fear of lawyers is unaceptable.
More ISPs have been sued, succsfully, for abusing users than
allowing freedom of speech. Ward would have probably won in court against
Tidepool, such as Ron Newman's abusing ISP was forced to settle out of
court for stunts they pulled shutting down his account.
If lawsuits is what you fear, shutting down accounts arbitrarily
is a good way to get involved in one and lose.
Making an effort to sort out the truth rather than
accepting somebody's word and closing down an account is a good way
to do business.
> In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have
>asked the
>Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account. This does assume that
>while participating in a "court of netizens" Grady will abide by the
>original terms which
>he agreed to when he opened his Tidepool account.
> I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should be
>where we are
>"on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits of free speech" as
>opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is utilized to state opinions
>about other topics. Two suggestions are "alt.censorship" and
>"comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels
>a discussion of "free speech" would be "on topic".
COEF, of course through the miracle of crossposting, this will surely end
up in hald a dozen newsgroups.
Freedom, you cannot have too much of it.
Ron Newman
> This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
> between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
Thanks for coming here. You'll hear quite a lot.
> Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and
> defamatory
> comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed towards another human
> being. We became drawn into this posting when we received a formal
> complaint regarding his postings.
If this complaint was not from the person who was allegedly "defamed",
then it has no merit whatsoever. Even if it was from Helena, then
it's still a judgment call better left to the courts and not
to an ISP.
> We had no choice but to terminate his account, under the
> original terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account.
Grady claims that you **CHANGED** the terms of service **AFTER**
closing his account. Also, your acceptable use policies as
posted on http://www.tidepool.com/html/acceptable_use_policies.html say:
Off-topic or inappropriate postings:
There is no restriction on content, except as defined by each
newsgroup. Continued posting of off-topic articles is prohibited.
and also
Our belief in Free Speech is a firm commitment to our customers.
and also
Tidepool Internet does not censor the content of any newsgroups. We
believe such choices should be left to the individual.
Grady's posting was in no way "off-topic".
> As a company our limit is set when a another netizen
> complains that
> they were offended by language so strong that a lawsuit could result.
The only lawsuit that was threatened against Tidepool or IVI is the
result of your yanking Grady's account.
--
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)
<posted and emailed>
Donald Janke <don...@tidepool.com> wrote:
<snip>
>In reading postings in this newsgroup, and other related newsgroups, it
>seems that some posters object to the locking of Grady's account.
Pretty much everyone except for the Scientologists object.
>Other posters feel the locking had merit.
As far as I can tell, only the Scientologists have objected to Grady's
posts.
>It also appears that some posters feel
>they have not heard enough information about this dispute.
Well, it has been intimated that wg...@loop.com said he was a Supernews
administrator. (Supernews is where Grady actually posts through.) It
was also stated that "threats" were made to Tidepool if Grady's account
was not nuked. How about addressing that?
> Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and
>defamatory comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed towards another human
>being.
He didn't post it through Tidepool. It was posted through Supernews.
Not only that, he's been posting this stuff for months. I don't agree
with him, but that's his tactic for getting back at the litigious cult of
$cientology. It seems to be working just fine; after all, it pushed
their buttons, and now it's got yours pushed too.
>We became drawn into this posting when we received a formal
>complaint regarding his postings. We had no choice but to
>terminate his account, under the original
>terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account.
I read those terms. I disagree. I think that if it came down to a court
of law, I think we could muster enough legal support to prove that
Grady's posts were (a) not defamatory and (b) protected by the First
Amendment.
<snip disquisition on limits of free speech>
> However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions
>of free
>speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must set when they
>decide to be
>in business. As a company our limit is set when a another netizen
>complains that
>they were offended by language so strong that a lawsuit could result.
>However,
>even here the law seems open to interpretation until one stands before a
>judge and
>says "YOU DECIDE".
You're wrong.
> Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and
>Tidepool) take it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this
>dispute be opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue,
>and opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum.
NO. This is unacceptable. Just restore Grady's account.
Why am I being so dogmatic about this? Because Grady's speech is
absolutely protected under the First Amendment. He's got great legal
backup. I suggest you read the CDA case again, as well as the Falwell v.
Hustler case. (In the latter case, Jerry Falwell sued Hustler magazine
for running a parody ad that insinuated very strongly that Falwell's
first sexual experience was incestuous.)
> In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have
>asked the
>Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account. This does assume that
>while participating in a "court of netizens" Grady will abide by the
>original terms which
>he agreed to when he opened his Tidepool account.
Well, he still has the account I gave him on promisecreepers.org. And if
you weasel out again, he will still have that account. Unlike you, I
happen to believe in the First Amendment. And having graduated from law
school and passed the Texas bar, I kind of have an idea of the limits of
protected speech. Grady's speech is way out there, but he's not crossed
the line, I don't think. And given the reaction of the Scientologists to
it, I would state that I think he's been eminently successful in his
quest to yank their chains.
> I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should be
>where we are
>"on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits of free speech" as
>opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is utilized to state opinions
>about other topics. Two suggestions are "alt.censorship" and
>"comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels
>a discussion of "free speech" would be "on topic".
No. Again, I will state, this is not acceptable. The First Amendment is
not up for debate. I think you're trying to weasel out of a bad
decision, but debating what the limits of free speech are on a Usenet
forum is not acceptable. The courts *have* decided what the limits are.
If you read the cases I referenced, what you will find is that Grady's
speech is eminently protected, even if it is disgusting.
The only participation I will have in this so-called "debate" is to (a)
continually assert that Grady's account be permanently reinstated without
conditions on speech and (b) that limits on the First Amendment does not
need debate by a bunch of Netizens, as our highest court has already
issued legal and binding opinions on the issues.
Grady's speech may be vile and disgusting and unpopular (at least to the
Scientologists) but it is protected. In fact, that's *why* we have a
First Amendment, to protect vile, disgusting and unpopular speech.
Therefore, I think this debate is pointless and useless. And in any
case, his promisecreepers.org account stays...and I know FULL well what
he's posting through that account.
Regards, Deana
Deana M. Holmes
alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995
NEW! 4/97 *and* 4/96 Poster Child for Clueless $cientology Litigiousness
mir...@super.zippo.com
Ex Mudder
In article <34513C75...@tidepool.com>, Donald Janke
<don...@tidepool.com> wrote:
<snip>
My news reader would prefer it if you set your margins a little
smaller.
Thank you for coming out into the public to discuss this. I sent a
letter to Eric Wright. I will re-post it and email it to you as well.
It discusses my understanding of some legal issues you are concerned
about:
Dear Mr. Eric Wright. Please be so kind as to read your case law
on the supreme court case of Falwell v. Flint. Grady's accusations
regarding the head of the Scientology cult are no more libelous than
Hustler's claim that Jerry Falwell had his first sexual experience
with his mother in an outhouse. Your canceling of his account based
on a distaste for his speech is censorious and the act of a coward.
The CDA was declared unconstitutional, in case you missed it, and in a
case in San Francisco (Aquino v. "CurioJones" and an ISP) decided that
under the Telecommunications bill, an ISP can not be held liable for
libel or slander by a subscriber (the libel suit against AOL is a
different matter. As I am unaware that you advertise Grady as an
attraction, it should not apply).
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)
<posted and emailed>
Donald Janke <don...@tidepool.com> wrote:
<snip>
>In reading postings in this newsgroup, and other related newsgroups, it
Martin Hunt
> However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions
>of free
>speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must set when they
>decide to be
>in business. As a company our limit is set when a another netizen
>complains that
>they were offended by language so strong that a lawsuit could result.
>However,
>even here the law seems open to interpretation until one stands before a
>judge and
>says "YOU DECIDE".
First off, set your margins or hit "enter" somewhere about the
70th column; your post doesn't inspire confidence in me that
you really are a "long time internet user".
OK; we decide: Grady gets to post whatever he wants to about the
shit vagina whore Helena Kobrin and the gang of 40 thieves who
run the Scientology scam.
But why are you doing this? Why do you not put the onus on the
poster? The cult lawyers came to you, I suppose? Tell them this:
"We are not responsible for what individual posters say on the
internet; we claim common carrier status protection. You may take
your concerns with this user to court." Come on; this should be
SOP by now!
Grady's speech is protected; it's not for you to decide. Run your
business, and leave posters to the wolves: they are responsible
for what they say, not you.
[posted/mailed]
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Use "Xenu" in Subject: line of email.
rgonnet
Ex Mudder wrote:
> In article <34513C75...@tidepool.com>, Donald Janke
> <don...@tidepool.com> wrote:
As far, it could as well apply identically for Postal services: you send a
letter to seomone, and that someone does complain to Postal service
because you are pretending its letter was offensive. Could Postal service
stop accepting your letters to anybody, under the risk of being suited for
transport of "offensive" letters?
Or could the Phone companies be suited concurrently with somebody ,
because that sombody could have insulted some other person on phone ? That
planet is becoming crazy!
We would have lots of excellent translators in every laguage used on the
net, accepting or stopping messages before transmitting them?
Or worse, why could'nt we have to be checked by someone else when speaking
to somebody, in order to be suited in case of "libel" or such stupidities?
Tidepool com had probably no much brains in it.
Roger
Andreas Heldal-Lund
Thanks for finally coming forward.
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:25:25 -0500, Donald Janke <don...@tidepool.com>
wrote to alt.religion.scientology:
> This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
> between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
>
> I am the President of Internet Ventures (IVI), Inc.; and Northcoast
> Internet (NCI), Inc. is part of IVI's family of Internet Service
> Providers
> (one of seven wholly owned ISP subsidiary corporations). Tidepool
> Internet
> is a d.b.a. (doing business as) of NCI.
> As a long time netizen (I might even be able to say that "I was
> Internet
> before it was cool" since I've been online since 1988), and as the
> leader of
> IVI I feel it is my responsibility to participate in the postings.
I expected better from you, and that includes a better respons
to the cancellation of Grady Ward's account. Especially after the
very clear message that has comed from people on the Net. Your
attempt to make the reactions look like they come equaly from
all sides is easily exposed, almost all the reactions I've seen
have been condemming what Tidepool did. And from what I know of
the plans ahead, a _lot_ more will learn what happened.
[SNIP]
> Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and
> defamatory
> comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed towards another human
> being. We became drawn into this posting when we received a formal
> complaint regarding his
> postings. We had no choice but to terminate his account, under the
> original
> terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account.
1 - You changed the terms after cancelling the account, please
quote what in the original agreement he broke.
2 - You don't see any problem in cancelling an account only
based on _one_ complaint from _one_ unknown person _claiming_
to quote _one_ post to Usenet?
3 - Does the fact that Ward did not post this post through you,
make any difference?
4 - Should an ISP be responsible of guarding the language of
adults, even if they are their customers?
5 - Do you see the implication of you taking the role of the
guard of accepted language, that all the stuff you do
_not_ censor could be looked upon as approved by you?
And is that a situation you want? Or do you just want to
be an ISP??
6 - Is it the responsibility of the ISP to watch over the
Intenet and take the role as the sheriff? Evaluating
the possible workload this could give a reasonable big
ISP, is this what you want your employees to do?
7 - You have any idea of what irony is, and how language in
itself is a tool to make a point?
8 - Could you please make a FAQ including good explanations
on all issues, words and speech IVI do not accept their
customers do through their service? This is only a logic
request since you cancel accounts _before_ even giving
customers a chance to explain what they actually did or
are allowed to change their ways!? (as if you still
remember _who_ your actual customer is...)
> As we all know, the bounds of free speech limits on the Net are
> fragmented and unclear. However, there must be some outer limit to free
> speech. Exactly where that limit occurs is subject to interpretation.
> I have determined, for my life, where
> to set my outer limit. Others have certainly set their limits to the
> left and right
> of my position. Within the IVI family of companies we certainly find
> ourselves with
> a spectrum of opinions on how far is "out of bounds" for free speech.
This is not a debate about the limits of free speech, it's
about the ISP Tidepool making a very bad decision based on
biased and poor information served from _one_ Scientologist.
How IVI manages to correct the error is the big issue now,
and that is what they will be remembered for!
The post by Ward you acted upon was _not_ posted through
Tidepool. You made an error and you should as soon as possible
serve a public excuse to Ward and of course re-establish his
account. That includes his home page, which BTW never included
anything illegal or any abusive language.
> However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions
> of free
> speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must set when they
> decide to be
> in business. As a company our limit is set when a another netizen
> complains that
> they were offended by language so strong that a lawsuit could result.
It's enough good utilities out there today to make sure users
are protected from offending language if they so wish. It's
not your responsibility to protect me from Grady Ward or
anybody else.
But this debate is not about what limit you have either, since
the post you acted upon was not posted through Tidepool. And
nobody has questioned if you liked or agreed to what Ward posted
to the net. It is only about the threat to free speech and to the
Net that you and other ISP's (without ability to admit errors)
are. Please get your facts straight. And BTW: the complaint did
not even come from anyone mentioned in the post by Grady Ward.
> However,
> even here the law seems open to interpretation until one stands before a
> judge and
> says "YOU DECIDE".
> Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and
> Tidepool) take it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this
> dispute be opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue,
> and opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum.
You are of course free to engage in any debate regarding
free speech whenever you want, but this looks like a coward
attempt to get the attention away from what you have done to
Grady Ward.
The dispute is open to everybody on the net, thanks to
friends of Grady Ward who made sure people all around the net
was told about what Tidepool did. Only a few Scientologists
(that including the one who complained to you) have said
anything positive about what you did.
As the president of IVI you should be very concerned about
what this means to your company. IMO the smartest thing to
do now would be to cut your losses. Give Ward his account back,
say you are sorry and make sure it looks like you have learned
from this episode. Make a better agreement with your clients,
one more in agreements with the ideals of the Net. If you want
to make money on the Net in the future, you would be smart to
support its valuable possibilities. Remember that by this your
and your companies name will be subject of most search engines
for the forseeable future. On the Net you have to be smart and
truly act as you want to be remembered!
(Of course it would be best if you meant it too, but doing it
is at least half way there.)
It's a simple task to make a search for all customers if IVI,
for example on Usenet, and inform them of my page on the web
about this fight (http://home.sol.no/~spirous/CoS/news/gw1.html).
People are already talkning about it, they do not accept that
they also could be cut of the net because the cult could
harass or lie to their ISP. You want to set an example? You only
harm yourself in this fight if you don't act smart! Make
absolutely sure you are remembered for the right reasons.
I don't think the Cult of Scientology is a very good "bed
companion" ....
> In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have
> asked the
> Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account. This does assume that
> while participating in a "court of netizens" Grady will abide by the
> original terms which
> he agreed to when he opened his Tidepool account.
What do you hope to accomplish with this? Will you have a
vote in the end asking if Ward should be convicted? And will
a judge and a jury be selected?
Aren't you aware of the institution made by society to
assure law and order? If the Scientologist who reported
Ward to you was concerned that any law was broken, then he
of course would report this to the police or bring charges
agains Ward. You must remember they are the most litigious
organisation we know. Either you support freedom of speech
within the laws in your country, or you do not. Tell us
please; what position has IVI choosen to take on this issue,
if any?
> I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should be
> where we are
> "on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits of free speech" as
> opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is utilized to state opinions
> about other topics. Two suggestions are "alt.censorship" and
> "comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels
> a discussion of "free speech" would be "on topic".
There are many discussions going on about these subjects, and
as I said; you are welcomed to join since we have freedom of
speech. In the future, the case Ward vs. IVI may be used
as an example. Especially how you manage to solve the problems
will be important on who will use you as an example. It is of
course your freedom of choice to totally ignored the threat of
being placed beside the mentioned cult.
Do your part not to become one of the loosers always refered to
when people remember how users of the Net fought the Cult of
Scientology. This cult is hurting big-time because of the Net,
and you may one day be in a situation where you thank such
people for daring to stand up, against all odds. You can't
protect your family and friends all alone, you have to depend on
others doing their part in society too. Grady Ward and many
others have in the fight against this cult sacrifice more than
most to prevent more inocent people becoming victims. If you ever
get the time to investigate the facts behind this fight, I
believe you will understand what I mean.
Posted and mailed.
Yours faithfully, Andreas Heldal-Lund - Adm. TOXE CXI
_______________________________________________________
OPERATION CLAMBAKE --> http://home.sol.no/~spirous/CoS/
S T O P T H E C U L T O F S C I E N T O L O G Y
Bill Stewart-Cole
> This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
> between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
>
> I am the President of Internet Ventures (IVI), Inc.; and Northcoast
> Internet (NCI), Inc. is part of IVI's family of Internet Service
> Providers
> (one of seven wholly owned ISP subsidiary corporations). Tidepool
> Internet
> is a d.b.a. (doing business as) of NCI.
You are being very brave sticking your head up here.
Note that a lot of the replies you have gotten from
alt.religion.scientology users are very much from a 'war' perspective,
where there is no neutral ground and no well-meaning mistake possible.
There is some basis for this somewhat paranoid attitude, but it can be
very disorienting and dangerous to stumble upon people who are acting like
soldiers when you don't even know there is a war going on.
Because you are getting enough of the war propagandacritique of your
actions, I'll give you a perspective which might be a bit easier to relate
to. I have run a small commercial online service, and if I didn't hate
competing with huge companies who happily burn money to be price leaders,
I'd be running an ISP today. I've dealt directly with policy and legal
issues and have been faced with lawyers complaining to me about how their
client was treated by one of my customers. Thankfully, I never actually
had to deal with a real lawsuit. I hope you are as lucky. I am not
speaking from any particular legal expertise, but simply from my personal
experience. Obviously you should discuss anything regarding legal matters
with a lawyer who is specifically familiar with communications law, and
not take anything I say here as legal advice. I disclaim any liability
beyond what you have paid me for the advice :)
Quoting from your statement:
> In other words we are not in a position to dictate the terms of free
> speech on the net; we are just trying to prevent getting run over by it
> (thanks Bill for allowing a modified quote).
A good goal. The best way to avoid being run over by it is to get out of
the way. I suggest that you direct your legal counsel to Cubby v.
Compuserve and to a more recent case involving Prodigy. I would also
suggest that any lawyer looking at content policies of online services
read the 1989 article on these issues in the Connecticut Law Review by
Lofty Becker, a law professor and longtime forum manager on CompuServe.
While these are not definitive law, the arguments and outcomes of the
cases all point in a common direction: the less you actually claim to
control or try to control, the safer you are from legal liability.
Maintaining that safety may equate to exposing your users to the legal
consequences of their own actions, but that is a natural consequence of
free speech.
In simple terms: if a user wants to expose himself to a defamation suit,
don't put yourself in between the suing party and the user. If you
terminate ONE user for profane criticism, and then modify your policy to
legitimize your actions, you will be expected to do the same in all cases
in the future and you will likely end up faced with your own actions used
in court as evidence that you failed to act up to your own rules in some
later incident. Don't fall into that trap. There are few places to draw
sustainable lines in this, but it seems to me that Grady's case is well
into the steep part of the slippery slope. Stick to legally defined bad
content (i.e. *criminal* content such as kiddie porn and commercial
software) and you will have a much easier time standing in one place,
which you must do to be legally safe.
> In reading postings in this newsgroup, and other related newsgroups, it
> seems that some posters object to the locking of Grady's account. Other
> posters feel the locking had merit. It also appears that some posters
> feel
> they have not heard enough information about this dispute.
I think this implies something very dangerous. Free speech and corporate
policies that impact liability are both matters which should not be
subject to public referenda.
I don't suggest that you reverse the NCI decision to terminate Grady's
account because it is an affront to free speech or because most a.r.s
readers think it stinks, but because it is very dangerous to your future
liability for not doing the same thing in similar cases.
> Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and
> defamatory
> comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed towards another human
> being. We became drawn into this posting when we received a formal
> complaint regarding his
> postings.
You should note that Grady has been making very similar posts since before
he was a Tidepool user.
The 'other human being' in question is in fact a lawyer for the "Church"
of Scientology who is already very much involved in a lawsuit regarding
Grady's postings, although as far as I know none of the profane critiques
of Ms. Kobrin are formally part of any suit. Note that NCI and IVI have
never been brought into that case, even though Grady posted a large number
of the posts which ARE part of the suit via Tidepool.
> We had no choice but to terminate his account, under the
> original
> terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account.
Having read those terms, I don't see how you can make this argument.
The NEW terms clearly make the termination valid, but I suspect that given
the manner in which he apparently set up his account and the timing of the
change in terms, you would have a very hard time legally supporting the
application of the new terms to his account and its termination.
> As we all know, the bounds of free speech limits on the Net are
> fragmented and unclear. However, there must be some outer limit to free
> speech. Exactly where that limit occurs is subject to interpretation.
You need to recognize 2 different sets of bounds.
The law is fairly clear on what the government can do, and it is currently
no more and no less than they can do in regards to print. IVI is not the
government however, so you can safely ignore much of that. Thanks to the
failure of the CDA, ISP's like your subsidiaries are NOT responsible for
enforcing vague content rules.
The powers of ISP's are much less well-defined, but the case law is all
consistent with a model where you can define whatever limits you want on
your users, but you must then accept the responsibility for applying those
limits consistently.
For your own good, you are likely to be best off adopting a very hands-off
policy. There are a lot of good content-neutral rules you can institute
which have side-effects on content because the worst kooks generally not
only post garbage, but post it to dozens of groups, or with forged
headers, or in some other way that steps over *technical* lines.
> However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions
> of free
> speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must set when they
> decide to be
> in business. As a company our limit is set when a another netizen
> complains that
> they were offended by language so strong that a lawsuit could result.
That's MUCH too far into the gray.
Lawsuits against providers have been brought without any such 'strong
language' involved. You really want to avoid being a part of such a suit.
If you say "We will not permit defamation" and fail to catch the calmly
worded defamation and fail to terminate the poster when you get e-mail
claiming it to be defamatory, you will, have dug your own hole.
Determining whether speech is defamatory *legally* is a matter for a court
of law. Ironically, the case law supports the argument that if you take
defamation to a ludicrously profane extreme, it passes out of the realm of
actionable defamation and becomes legally protected parody. See Falwell v.
Flynt. Simply put, calling the general counsel for Scientology a
"shit-vagina whore" and describing her engaging in actions which are
nauseatingly obscene is probably so far out on the edge that Grady (and
his ISP) is immune to being sued for it. He might be in more trouble if he
was much less profane and said something like "Helena Kobrin is sexually
involved with some of her co-workers and has a bad gynecological
infection." Reiterating a point from above; he has been doing this
parodical profanity for quite a while and is being sued for *other* posts
by the CoS but there has been no suit regarding defamation. (he is being
sued for posts soliciting research materials, an act which the CoS
considers an attempt at copyright violation)
> However,
> even here the law seems open to interpretation until one stands before a
> judge and
> says "YOU DECIDE".
Exactly. The determination of what constitutes protected satire and what
constitutes defamation is a matter for the courts, and it always has been
and always will be. If an ISP *tries* to make that determination and act
on it, the ISP will be called in to court to justify its decision every
time someone disagrees with it. It is no accident that Prodigy and
CompuServe have been sued for defmation by users, while the traditional
ISP's who generally do not attempt to control such speech have not.
> Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and
> Tidepool) take it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this
> dispute be opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue,
> and opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum.
> In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have
> asked the
> Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account. This does assume that
> while participating in a "court of netizens" Grady will abide by the
> original terms which
> he agreed to when he opened his Tidepool account.
Which do not seem to speak to profanity or even defamation at all.
I think the *original* terms were just fine. They delineate unacceptable
use in an objective manner. There isn't much room for debating
definitions.
The new terms are dangerous. You do not protect your business by adopting
fuzzy terms, you merely assure that you will someday be asking a judge to
define them for you.
> I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should be
> where we are
> "on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits of free speech" as
> opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is utilized to state opinions
> about other topics. Two suggestions are "alt.censorship" and
> "comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels
> a discussion of "free speech" would be "on topic".
--
Bill Stewart-Cole bi...@scconsult.com
Andreas Heldal-Lund
On Sat, 25 Oct 1997 20:31:35 GMT, hel...@NOSPAMonline.no (Andreas
Heldal-Lund) wrote:
> Thanks for finally coming forward.
[SNIP]
> Posted and mailed.
And of course webbed at:
http://home.sol.no/~spirous/CoS/news/gw1.html
Spread the URL so that others can make up their opinion!
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <34513C75...@tidepool.com>,
>This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
I will email you an improved version of what I suggested earlier.
I don't think you should be guided by a debate, but by what the
law actually says. Bill Stewart-Cole's article is probably the best
guide to this. That is, that you put technical restrictions on
system mis-use and keep your hands off content altogether.
So, "the ISP reserves the right to limit, suspend, or terminate
service if it is used in a manner outside that specified, which
causes a waste of resources at this or other systems [which the
ISP may sue to recover] or causes denial of service to others
or is disruptive to the technical running of the Internet generally.
This includes multi-posting of articles which exceeds the Briebart
Index ("spam"), the cancelling of articles without authority, the
forging of address headers, or the sending on "mail-bombs".
"The ISP disclaims all responsibility for content not written
or edited by it. Complainants with a greivance about content
are invited to sue the user, and correspondence will be passed
to the user for this purpose. Complainants who beleive we
have a duty to cease service to a user are invited to obtain a
court order to that effect.
Complainants who believe our service may be make us liable as
contributory to unlawful acts by a user are invited to submit a
complaint: (a) signed, on paper, and by traceable means from
their attorneys, (b) enclosing a prima facie case in law [e.g.
with proof of copyright ownership] showing why the *ISP* has a duty
in law to act, and (c) guaranteeing to pay the user $100 per day plus
consequent losses if in our opinion it is subsequently found to have
been made in bad faith; our attorneys will then advise us whether or
not we ought to comply."
This is more or less equivalent to telling frivolous complainants
to f**k off, and is much the wisest policy: do not make yourself
party to any dispute involving your users, but stay well out of it.
I do not know what the state of negotiations is between you
and Mr Ward. Since you are wrong in law and acted deceptively,
I would not be very inclined to forgive. My advice would be to
admit you have wronged him, with an apology and ex gratia payment;
and to co-operate in any case against Mr Gertler for having
induced others, by deception, to carry out tortious acts.
Regards,
--
Dave[XEMU] ________________(....=^æ´µ^=______ ---<,,">
Number 3
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 21:18:23 GMT, in message
<34510f5f...@news.calstate.edu>, actua...@hotmail.com (Actual Code)
wrote:
[clip]
>
>Fuck, Shit, Damn, Asshole
>There, now do I appear more intelligent because I can swear?
you do appear more human.
>
>Tidepool is at fault for not issuing a prompt refund, however
>tidepool, I am sure, must watch their rear-end too. I am sure that
>they'd rather deal with problems with Mr. Ward rather than with the
>Church of Scientology.
you don't want to be on the wrong side of the law, no
matter who you're dealing with. and there's nothing that
makes a jury pull out the checkbook faster than someone
who wrongs a little guy, then tries to cover it up.
>Litigation was not a last resort for Mr. Ward,
>he threatened litigation the very first day! Most ISP's do *NOT* make
>contracts with their customers.
you don't understand much about the real world,
do you? in the real world, *nothing* is done with
a contract.
[clip]
>
>Perhaps they are sure of their stance, and hence, aren't worried about
>Mr. Ward's threat to enter litigation with 2bit self-representation.
>
they should be worried. they are way out on the wrong end
of the law, and potentially liable for severe penalties.
-- see...@ix.netcom.com (Number 3)
Friends of Dennis Erlich Club (www.netcom.com/~seekon/friends.html)
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[Posted and e-mauled. Please be sure to also read the response from
Deana Holmes (mir...@xmission.com). Line length reformatted to better
fit most newsreaders.]
In article <34513C75...@tidepool.com>,
Donald Janke <don...@tidepool.com> wrote:
>This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
>between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
Aloha. You have failed to pgp-sign this message, so I am taking your
word (and the fact that nobody else has said anything) that you are
actually whom you claim to be.
[Don is president of IVI, etc etc.]
>As a long time netizen (I might even be able to say that "I was
>Internet before it was cool" since I've been online since 1988), and as
>the leader of IVI I feel it is my responsibility to participate in the
>postings.
Why? Your company fucked up. Admit it, correct your mistake, and move
on.
[IVI is just this little teeny-tiny company, with little teeny-tiny
investers...]
>In other words we are not in a position to dictate the terms of free
>speech on the net; we are just trying to prevent getting run over by it
>(thanks Bill for allowing a modified quote).
Sorry, but thanks for playing. You _are_ trying to dictate the terms
of free speech on the net, specifically, you are trying to dictate
what original text Grady Ward may or may not post.
This is not about "copyright infringement", or "trade secret
misappropriation", or anything of the sort. This is about the content
of Grady's posts.
>In reading postings in this newsgroup, and other related newsgroups, it
>seems that some posters object to the locking of Grady's account. Other
>posters feel the locking had merit. It also appears that some posters
>feel they have not heard enough information about this dispute.
I've seen one (1) person claim the locking of Grady's account had merit;
wg...@loop.com, the person who whined to tidepool.
>Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and defamatory
>comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed towards another human
>being. We became drawn into this posting when we received a formal
>complaint regarding his postings. We had no choice but to terminate his
>account, under the original terms he himself agreed to upon opening his
>Tidepool account.
Don't lie, it hurts your case.
>As we all know, the bounds of free speech limits on the Net are
>fragmented and unclear. However, there must be some outer limit to free
>speech. Exactly where that limit occurs is subject to interpretation.
>I have determined, for my life, where to set my outer limit. Others have
>certainly set their limits to the left and right of my position. Within
>the IVI family of companies we certainly find ourselves with a spectrum
>of opinions on how far is "out of bounds" for free speech.
Contigent upon the next paragraph, of course.
>However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions of free
>speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must set when they
>decide to be in business. As a company our limit is set when a another
>netizen complains that they were offended by language so strong that a
>lawsuit could result.
Compuserve and AOL have both acted in this fashion. They really shouldn't
have, because it opens them (and now, tidepool) to lawsuits because you
have shown that you are engaging in "editorial control" over the content
of your user's posts. Doing this is a BadThing[tm], because when somebody
does actually get around to posting something libelous, you will be dragged
into the lawsuit.
>However, even here the law seems open to interpretation until one stands
>before a judge and says "YOU DECIDE".
Judges are supposed to interpret the law. That's their job. It's not
your job, it's not tidepool's, it's not even wgert's job. If wgert
(or little Davie) thinks they've been slandered, libeled, or held up
for public humilitation by somebody's posts, they are free to seek
redress via the courts.
>Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that
you know more than the US Supreme Court? Read up on Jerry Falwell vs
Hustler Magazine, Inc, please. For that matter read up on their decision
in the case of the parody of "Pretty Woman".
[Snip - "please let's hold a big flame war".]
>In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have
>asked the Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account.
As I'm sure you know, Grady already has another account. If this is
your method of "greasing the squeaky wheel", or attempting to show that
you are "acting in good faith", you've failed. Acting responsibly would
have been to never lock Grady's account, and acting in Good Faith would
have been to not throw together another TOS and attempt to apply it
to Grady ex-post facto.
[Yaddah yaddah yaddah. What's the matter, Donald? Afraid Grady might
use some naughty words?]
>I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should be
>where we are "on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits of free
>speech" as opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is utilized to state
>opinions about other topics. Two suggestions are "alt.censorship" and
>"comp.org.eff.talk".
ars is the perfect place. Just make sure you start threads with "TOS:"
or something so people can kill/read as they want to.
>I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels a discussion of "free
>speech" would be "on topic".
I doubt you want to hear Grady's opinion on where you should stick this
dicussion. I really do. :]
-- .sig and PGP Block follow. Visit http://www.dimensional.com/~janda/
^L
"[scientology] is less evil than the Aum cult, and thus to the extent it
keeps people out of some even worse cult, that is a positive feature of
scientology." H. Keith Henson in <hkhensonE...@netcom.com>
finger -l ja...@dimensional.com for my PGP public key block.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNFKk+G2jF2vR4ZtNAQF+6gP+JOlM5a5Z5dR6Z1/OaKtLHN+ztAnNhHzG
H6EXWgBQTvxngPNFom+pfSAVTGGjNsPy6nU2OnOSr+FDp7cMD+omemqV037/I4Oo
flnuuqufRle/jyE8AUqxLn9CJC2JIuuyNqTZv+m/EceIHvf8ajssuu+Wo4MxDY96
tCLlMwp/nis=
=Jzos
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ron Newman
> Dear Mr. Eric Wright. Please be so kind as to read your case law
> on the supreme court case of Falwell v. Flint. Grady's accusations
> regarding the head of the Scientology cult are no more libelous than
> Hustler's claim that Jerry Falwell had his first sexual experience
> with his mother in an outhouse.
And even if they were, whose business is it except that of the
person allegedly libelled (who most certainly was NOT William
Gert[nl]er, wg...@loop.com) ?
Zane
Thanks for coming out in the open to discuss this issue. Now that the
smiles and handshakes are behind us let's get on with it. <g>
>In other words we are not in a position to dictate the terms of free
>speech on the net; we are just trying to prevent getting run over by it
>(thanks Bill for allowing a modified quote). ...
That seems like a wise position to take. Unfortunately it's exactly
the opposite of what tidepool actually did.
I happened to be on the scene early on the day Grady's account was
yanked and so was, afaik, the first person other than Grady to talk to
tidepool about the situation. As we spoke I took notes and read the
TOS at tidepool. Immediately after hanging up I wrote up the
conversation, as seen from my perspective. You can read what I wrote
at http://home.sol.no/~spirous/CoS/news/gw-v4.txt. Please do so.
My conversation with Jim at tidepool made it abundantly clear to me
that tidepool was struggling to find some way to justify canceling
Grady's account, and not having much success at it. The first tack
taken was that Grady's posts were "off topic". Anyone who has
followed ars for more than a couple days would know how absurd that
statement is. Next Jim tried to tell me that Grady's account was
cancelled because he was causing trouble for tidepool and that he had
slandered[sic] someone.
Now we have a new rationale to discuss: not getting run over by free
speech.
You claim that your actions were "necessitated by abusive and
defamatory comments" made by Grady. If Grady had been e-mailing such
stuff to the Ho, and had refused to stop when asked, then that would
clearly be abusive. That isn't what happened. Also I'd like to point
out that when I spoke with Tim McGrath he mentioned "abusive e-mail"
and I had to explain to him the difference between newsgroups and
e-mail. Where the incorrect assertion that Grady was e-mailing
instead of posting crept in is anybody's guess. It could be that
wgert created that impression, or that Eric did as things began to
heat up, or perhaps Tim just doesn't know the difference between
posting to a newsgroup and sending e-mail to someone.
As far as defamation goes, that's hardly something I'd think it wise
for you to insert your company into. Court cases I recall from the
past indicate to me that the more an ISP involves itself in defining
the content of posts the more likely it is to get caught up in libel
suits. I believe the smart thing to do in order to avoid getting run
over is to stay off the street and quit trying to act like a traffic
cop.
>In reading postings in this newsgroup, and other related newsgroups, it
>seems that some posters object to the locking of Grady's account.
Yes, the vast majority of posters expressed outrage.
>Other posters feel the locking had merit.
Yes wgert and perhaps one or two other scientologists, maybe Garry
Scarff too.
>It also appears that some posters feel they have not heard enough
>information about this dispute.
I recall two such posters, one of which e-mailed tidepool more than
once asking them to step up and explain their position - something I
also did more than once.
>We had no choice but to terminate his account, under the
>original terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account.
I don't believe that's true, not even close. Like I said before I
discussed the original terms with Jim and gave him every opportunity
to tell me exactly what term(s) had been violated. He couldn't, and
the fact that tidepool changed their terms that afternoon leaves no
question in my mind that they acted outside of their agreement with
Grady - and know it.
>As we all know, the bounds of free speech limits on the Net are
>fragmented and unclear. However, there must be some outer limit to free
>speech.
If you really want to avoid getting run over then your best strategy
is to remove yourself from that process. In the long run I don't see
how you can possibly win. Either you're going to improperly terminate
someone's account, and pay for it in court, or you're going to fail to
act even-handedly when it comes to dealing with complaints and you're
going to find yourself caught up in a libel case.
I see that Bill Stewart-Cole has dealt what that issue in detail. I
hope you heed his advice.
Also I fail to see what "outer limit" there should be to free speech
on the net. There is no equivalent to shouting fire in a theater,
noone is going to get trampled as netizens around the world jump up
from their systems and run screaming out the door. There are limits,
however, when it comes to libel. Grady has been saying the same sort
of stuff about the shit-vagina Ho for months. If she thought she had
a good case, or even one that wouldn't be thrown out immediately, then
I would think that she is perfectly capable of filing a suit to
protect her "good name".
>However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions
>of free speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must
>set when they decide to be in business. As a company our limit is
>set when a another netizen complains that they were offended by
>language so strong that a lawsuit could result.
As far as I know strong language, in and of itself, will never result
in a lawsuit that has any merit. Libel might, but you don't want to
get caught in the trap of being responsible for the contents of your
users posts, that would be a really big mistake.
Further, some people are easily offended and have differing ideas on
what constitutes "strong language". I know people who are offended if
you say damn! in their presence. Do you really want to be in the
business of responding to each and every person on usenet who's
offended by something they read?
There are inumerable expressions of opinion that I might find
offensive while not containing any "strong language". For instance,
one of your users might post an entirely offensive screed on why
blacks are inferior, or jews evil, or whatever without a single fuck
or whore. What do you propose to do in those cases? Are you going to
try to get in the business of determining what ideas are offensive
too?
Words are used to express ideas and emotions. Grady uses certain
words, other people might use other words. It's not up to you or me
to dictate what words others use to express their ideas and emotions.
If wgert is so sensitive to bad language that he really was offended
by Grady's post then perhaps he should just quit reading
alt.religion.scientology. Noone is e-mailing Grady's posts to him, he
doesn't need to read them, and the truth of the matter is that he
simply sought to get Grady kicked off the net because he doesn't like
the contents of Grady's posts. Tidepool was made the pawn of wgert's
personal animosity. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has
been a service provider for any length of time would have failed to
see through wgert's scheme. But perhaps Eric's age and inexperience
make that a moot point.
>Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and
>Tidepool) take it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this
>dispute be opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue,
>and opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum.
That's mighty generous of you. But we did this last week and the
overwhelming majority of netizens say tidepool made a mistake.
Zane
rgonnet
Donald Janke wrote:
> This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
> between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
>
> I am the President of Internet Ventures (IVI), Inc.; and Northcoast
> Internet (NCI), Inc. is part of IVI's family of Internet Service
> Providers
> (one of seven wholly owned ISP subsidiary corporations). Tidepool
> Internet
> is a d.b.a. (doing business as) of NCI.
> As a long time netizen (I might even be able to say that "I was
> Internet
> before it was cool" since I've been online since 1988), and as the
> leader of
> IVI I feel it is my responsibility to participate in the postings.
> First, a further clarification of IVI might be in order. IVI is
> substantially an employee owned company. We have formed by bringing
> together smaller ISPs that want to remain involved in this business
> rather
> than selling out to big corporations. They joined IVI by exchanging the
> stock of their company for stock in IVI. We are not "venture capital"
> backed nor backed by any large organizations. All of our cash investors
> have purchased stock in small dollar amounts and for the most part are
> small business owners in their own right.
> In other words we are not in a position to dictate the terms of free
> speech on the net; we are just trying to prevent getting run over by it
> (thanks Bill for allowing a modified quote).
> In reading postings in this newsgroup, and other related newsgroups, it
> seems that some posters object to the locking of Grady's account. Other
> posters feel the locking had merit. It also appears that some posters
> feel
> they have not heard enough information about this dispute.
> Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and
> defamatory
> comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed towards another human
> being. We became drawn into this posting when we received a formal
> complaint regarding his
> postings. We had no choice but to terminate his account, under the
> original
> terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account.
> As we all know, the bounds of free speech limits on the Net are
> fragmented and unclear. However, there must be some outer limit to free
> speech. Exactly where that limit occurs is subject to interpretation.
> I have determined, for my life, where
> to set my outer limit. Others have certainly set their limits to the
> left and right
> of my position. Within the IVI family of companies we certainly find
> ourselves with
> a spectrum of opinions on how far is "out of bounds" for free speech.
> However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions
> of free
> speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must set when they
> decide to be
> in business. As a company our limit is set when a another netizen
> complains that
> they were offended by language so strong that a lawsuit could result.
> However,
> even here the law seems open to interpretation until one stands before a
> judge and
> says "YOU DECIDE".
> Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and
> Tidepool) take it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this
> dispute be opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue,
> and opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum.
> In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have
> asked the
> Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account. This does assume that
> while participating in a "court of netizens" Grady will abide by the
> original terms which
> he agreed to when he opened his Tidepool account.
> I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should be
> where we are
> "on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits of free speech" as
> opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is utilized to state opinions
> about other topics. Two suggestions are "alt.censorship" and
> "comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels
> a discussion of "free speech" would be "on topic".
Mister,
Either you are not the real President of Tidepool; a thing I am unable to
control, either your response here looks a bit under the line.
You forgot more than one aspect in that thing.
Perhaps would you well inspired to re-read your own rules rather than trying
making M. Ward partly responsible of a situation your staffs created some
days ago by "interpreting" your rules.
Better re-study the folder. You don't pass the test.
Roger Gonnet, from France
pli...@rocketmail.com
In article <34513C75...@tidepool.com>, Donald says...
>This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
>between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
> I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should be
>where we are "on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits of free
>speech" as opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is utilized to state
>opinions about other topics. Two suggestions are "alt.censorship" and
>"comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels
>a discussion of "free speech" would be "on topic".
Dear Mr. Janke,
At this writing there are 17 responses from different accounts all of which are
ARS "regulars" and most of which belong to the 'nonexistent' coven known as
ARSCC.
If the discussion continues to draw almost exclusively from this specious group
it will prove that no one else is interested enough to comment or that they just
aren't in the mood to be flamed to a crisp with vicious attacks. And further
that the incident was nothing more than a forum for Grady Ward and his
confidants to forward a malicious agenda against the Church of Scientology and
anyone perceived to support it.
So far 25% of your respondents to this thread have openly and intentionally
infringed upon copyrights of the Church. This vigilante action of theirs is
normally accompanied by the pretext of some fancied divine right notwithstanding
the fact these respondents include atheists.
The decision to terminate his account is not a constitutional issue but a
business decision. Tidepool is not an agency of the government. If Grady wants
to push the envelope on free speech he can take his soapbox to South Central LA
and vow to fight to the death for David Duke's right to express his views.
Sincerely,
Patrick Light
posted and mailed
Tilman Hausherr
In <34513C75...@tidepool.com>, Donald Janke <don...@tidepool.com>
wrote:
> However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions of free
>speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must set when they decide to be
>in business. As a company our limit is set when a another netizen complains that
>they were offended by language so strong that a lawsuit could result. However,
>even here the law seems open to interpretation until one stands before a
>judge and says "YOU DECIDE".
Helena Kobrin or David Miscavige or Thomas Hogan never ever complained
to Grady's ISP, and Judge Whyte never told Grady to stop it (altough
everyone involved, even Grady, agree that it is disgusting). "wgert" has
no reason to complain. Besides, his own texts are even more disgusting,
as they are not a "parody", some of his texts are libel, pure and
simple. That he hasn't been sued is because the victims of this libel do
not have the deep pockets of the "Church" of scientology.
Tilman
(posted and mailed)
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site with "Xenu's Link Sleuth":
http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Phillip Zadarnowski
actua...@hotmail.com (Actual Code) wrote:
>>There was nothing illegal or tort-able that Grady did in his posts. I
>>personally may not like them, but I dont tread on his rights to produce
>>them either. And, contractually, there was NOTHING in the AUP about
>>OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE.
>
>Fuck, Shit, Damn, Asshole
==== ==== ==== =======
| | | |
| | | > Derogatory, Actual orifice
| | > Consign to clutches of Evil
| > Action, Undesirable material
> Action, Pleasurable (usually), Damage
>There, now do I appear more intelligent because I can swear?
Only if you know what they mean, not neccessarily as I noted.
> I didn't think so.
No, quoting a few words at random doesn't make you appear
more intelligent. If you'd have thought about it for two
minutes, you might of realised it.
> I never said that Mr. Ward broke the law by being vulgar, I
> just commented that he'd do more good if he wasn't so disgusting!
But really, who's to say what good he does isn't as well achieved
by using less acceptable wordings? Grady's net persona isn't his
actual persona - and it shows the power of the written word. He
writes, you write, I write - each of us to his own style and
opinion. On the outside, it appears gross. The words used
could equally apply to politicians as a description of how
powerless they might be in the face of their daily problems.
Don't like it? Don't read it. Equally and to all, the choice to
read is the same as the choice to not to. This is why I come
out of the newsagency with New Scientist instead of Playboy.
Even New Scientist has at times contained the four words you
led off your posting with.
But its not the words, is it? It's the meaning conveyed, the
picture portrayed. And while Grady writes it for fun, there
are people all around us actually *doing* those things, under
the very freedoms strained for over the past decades.
Grady does a fine job of showing us how far free speech can
cut top to bottom in a situation where it even has nothing do
with the very point in question.
[...]
>Perhaps they are sure of their stance, and hence, aren't worried about
>Mr. Ward's threat to enter litigation with 2bit self-representation.
Probably. And the biggest mistake anyone can make is to imagine that
the law is only best practiced by lawyers. It takes someone who can
read and understand the law, as written, and make it work.
Phillip Zadarnowski
actua...@hotmail.com (Actual Code) wrote:
>I can back this up because I took a number of Mr. Wards posts
>and used them in a project that I was working on for my psychology
>major, 94% of those polled were offended and "put-off" by Mr. Wards
>language.
How many were polled? And were they all from a girl's school?
Ex Mudder
In article <62ujpr$s...@drn.zippo.com>, pli...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>In article <34513C75...@tidepool.com>, Donald says...
>> I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should be
>>where we are "on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits of free
>>speech" as opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is utilized to state
>>opinions about other topics. Two suggestions are "alt.censorship" and
>>"comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels
>>a discussion of "free speech" would be "on topic".
>
>Dear Mr. Janke,
>
>At this writing there are 17 responses from different accounts most of which are
There are only 17 people who make all the postings to a.r.s., right?
>ARS "regulars" and many of which belong to the 'nonexistent' coven known as
>ARSCC.
The ARSCC is a coven? Damnit! where the hell are my invitations
to the black rites?
>
>If the discussion continues to draw almost exclusively from this specious group
>it will prove that no one else is interested enough to comment or that they just
>aren't in the mood to be flamed to a crisp with vicious attacks. And further
Silly clam can't read Xposts. The original post to this thread was
sent to comp.org.eff.talk and alt.censorship (and some followups to
misc.legal). OurClam snipped them.
>that the incident was nothing more than a forum for Grady Ward and his
>confidants to forward a malicious agenda against the Church of Scientology or
>anyone perceived to support it.
Actually, Scientology is involved in a malicious agenda against
anyone they dislike. The eventual goal of this is to "abruptly
delete" 20% of the population, send them in for reeducation,
isolation, or relocation, and then to "dispose of quietly and without
sorrow" 2.5% of the population - 6.5 million Americans.
See www.best.com/~dkeith/exterm.htm
>
>So far 25% of your respondents to this thread have openly and intentionally
>infringed upon copyrights of the Church.
I piss on the copyrights the cult stole from their statutory
owners.
>This vigilante action of theirs is
>normally accompanied by the pretext of some fancied divine right notwithstanding
>the fact these respondents include atheists.
What does that have to do with anything?
The relevant sections are the free exercise and establishment
clauses of the US constitution, and the misapplication of copyright
laws in opposition to their constitutional basis.
>
>The decision to terminate his account is not a constitutional issue but a
>business decision.
Agreed. A really stupid business decision.
>Tidepool is not an agency of the government. If Grady wants
>to push the envelope on free speech he can take his soapbox to South Central LA
>and vow to fight to the death for David Duke's right to express his views.
>
And Scientology's racist attitudes come to the fore.
>Sincerely,
>Patrick Light
>
Whining sniveling cowardly clam
>posted and mailed
pli...@rocketmail.com
In article <6305fi$9f6$1...@news2.xs4all.nl>, si...@msh.xs4all.nl says...
On 26 Oct 1997 19:25:38 GMT, si...@msh.xs4all.nl wrote:
>In article <62upub$j...@drn.zippo.com>, <pli...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>In article <34513C75...@tidepool.com>, Donald says...
>>
>>>This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
>>>between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
>>
<snip>
>>Dear Mr. Janke,
>>
>>At this writing there are 17 responses from different accounts all of which
>>are ARS "regulars" and most of which belong to the 'nonexistent' coven
>>known as ARSCC.
>
>[rest deleted for brevity]
>
>Quick question: why did purposely you leave out alt.religion.scientology
>from the Newsgroup header line?
>
>CU, Sico.
Just to demonstrate the point that all of the "net-furor" directed at Tidepool
is coming from a small, noisy troupe who hang around ars like gang members on a
street corner.
Patrick
Andy Collier
In article <34513C75...@tidepool.com>, don...@tidepool.com says...
> This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
> were necessitated by abusive and defamatory comments, in a single
> posting, that Grady directed towards another human being. We became
> drawn into this posting when we received a formal complaint regarding his
> postings. We had no choice but to terminate his account, under the
> original terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account.
This subject is somewhat debatable as far as exactly what the terms of
service mean. And if you were to close every account that received
complaints, espcially on basis of "flames" posted to the net, it would be
far too easy to eliminate accounts under your service through a
relatively easy process of forging a usenet post, then lodging the
"formal complaint".
Grady Wards posts all came from Supernews usenet service, which claims no
responsibility for the content of posts originating there. As a common
carrier, you have no responsibility for the content posted by your users,
since the service is wholly owned and operated by a different company.
Ex: you don't hold the telephone company legally or morally responsible
for the content of 976-sex lines, although they do provide them access.
Likewise your cable company for providing "adult" entertainment (or even
those strange public access channels in cities like NY). And the same
for ISPs - most net folks hold Grady responsible for his own words and
consider you to be somone merely supplying the wire. Rather than face
Grady, the individual concerned has tried to silence him - as has his
Church with numerous other critics in the past - you may want to contact
Andrew Burt (ab...@nyx.net) at Nyx in Colorado for information on a
massive mess from a couple of years ago caused by posts from Nyx by
"henri" and the involvement of Scientology's private investigator Eugene
Ingram (who has oustanding warrants in several states). It will serve as
an example of how far these folks will go to suppress the ability of
percieved enemies to "speak." - or you can address numerous law suits
filed by Scientology in attempts to suppress the speech of its former
members and critics.
On another point though you may want to clarify your position insofar as
being a publisher rather than a common carrier (i.e concerned with
content on other services accessed from your ISP). If you, however,
claim responsibility and authority for posts from supernews (as seperate
service provider) of a subscriber who uses you only for access and email,
you may be biting off more than you think - and assuming editorial and
publishing responsibilites, which then in turn make you a liable party to
libel. (See the AOL case). Here's a "thought experiment" - suppose
someone were to put up a very vulgar and offensive web page denigrating a
minority group on another service (say, GeoCities) but giving his address
at tidepool as a point of contact. Do you deem your company to be
responsible for the content of that web page (of which you have no
control) under the TOS? This is after all, a bery similar situation.
I will admit that I find Gradys scatological posts offensive at times,
and qyuite vulagr. But as long as Grady wards posts do not interfere
with the technical functions of your service, and do not break the law,
in my opinion you should not be concerned with the content, no matter how
offensive and vulgar it may be. After all, to quote Shakespeare, its
"...words, just words." (Obviously explicit illegalities such as child
pornography would be sufficient cause). To do so would be to expose your
compnay to far too much risk, as well as the redicule and scorn of the
netizens (as Im sure you have seen from the flame mail coming your way).
The loss of credibility and standing would likely hurt your company's
reputation in a business that is very much differentiated on reputation
after cost considerations.
> Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and
> Tidepool) take it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this
> dispute be opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue,
> and opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum.
> In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have
> asked the Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account. This does
> assume that while participating in a "court of netizens" Grady will
> abide by the original terms which he agreed to when he opened his
> Tidepool account.
> I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should be
> where we are "on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits of free
> speech" as opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is utilized to
> state opinions about other topics. Two suggestions are "alt.censorship"
> and "comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels
> a discussion of "free speech" would be "on topic".
I do congratulate you on your forthrightness and openness in handling
this issue. It took a lot of guts to do this after your employess
attempted an *apparent* stonewall and coverup. It would behoove you to
check all the facts before acting in the future - but thanks for acting
openly and in good faith in fron of the eyes of the net. You might want
to teach your lawyer a thing or two about the way things work out here on
the net - he didnt seem to have much of a clue of the firestorm his hard-
nosed attitude would bring. Maybe have him read Covey's seven habits on
Win-Win negotiating - its a start. Good luck - its sure to be an
interesting discussion.
Regards,
A.C.
Andrew Conway
[This followup was posted to alt.religion.scientology, comp.org.eff.talk,
alt.censorship and a copy was sent to the cited author.]
In article <34513C75...@tidepool.com>, Donald Janke
<don...@tidepool.com> says...
> This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
> between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
>
> I am the President of Internet Ventures (IVI), Inc.; [...]
Thank you for restoring Grady's account, and for being willing to discuss
this in public. Please read the responses to your post carefully,
especially those coming from people with legal knowledge and
qualifications. Though you may not wish to admit it, I think you will
come to recognise that it was a big mistake to cancel Grady's account in
the first place. However, I'm sure you will find that the net does not
bear grudges against those who are willing to fix their mistakes and move
on.
May I politely suggest that in future you make no restrictions on the
postings of your subscribers other than those required by the rulings of
the US Supreme Court, and those required to prevent gross net abuse such
as spamming and illegal cancels. The interests of both yourself and your
customers would be best served by this policy.
Andrew
BigBeard
>This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
>between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
>
> I am the President of Internet Ventures (IVI), Inc.; and Northcoast
>Internet (NCI), Inc. is part of IVI's family of Internet Service
>Providers
>(one of seven wholly owned ISP subsidiary corporations). Tidepool
>Internet
>is a d.b.a. (doing business as) of NCI.
> As a long time netizen (I might even be able to say that "I was
>Internet
>before it was cool" since I've been online since 1988), and as the
>leader of
>IVI I feel it is my responsibility to participate in the postings.
> First, a further clarification of IVI might be in order. IVI is
>substantially an employee owned company. We have formed by bringing
>together smaller ISPs that want to remain involved in this business
>rather
>than selling out to big corporations. They joined IVI by exchanging the
>stock of their company for stock in IVI. We are not "venture capital"
>backed nor backed by any large organizations. All of our cash investors
>have purchased stock in small dollar amounts and for the most part are
>small business owners in their own right.
<snip dba stuff>
> In other words we are not in a position to dictate the terms of free
>speech on the net; we are just trying to prevent getting run over by it
>(thanks Bill for allowing a modified quote).
Then cease and desist in yanking accounts with no warning just because
one jerk makes a complaint. Jeez, even when Netcom was wrapped
into the Erlich case they at least gave a warning when Cof$ lawyers
made complaints so you could at least get your side of the facts on
record. And usually, as in my case, prove lies were being made and
keep the account.
>In reading postings in this newsgroup, and other related newsgroups, it
>seems that some posters object to the locking of Grady's account. Other
>posters feel the locking had merit. It also appears that some posters
>feel they have not heard enough information about this dispute.
From what I've seen all but one non-$cientologist on this group have
objected, with good cause. That one exception was the one person
who was looking for more info. All of those for what Tidepool did
were $cientologists.
> Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and
>defamatory comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed towards
> another human being.
> We became drawn into this posting when we received a formal
>complaint regarding his postings. We had no choice but to terminate
>his account, under the original terms he himself agreed to upon opening
> his Tidepool account.
Bullshit! There were lots of other choices that could have been made
when this complaint was received. Finding out what, if any,
relationship the complainer had with the person being talked about by
Grady would have been a good start. If none, as in the case, he should
have bee told to FOAD after stuffing his complaint where the sun don't
shine..
> As we all know, the bounds of free speech limits on the Net are
>fragmented and unclear.
Bullshit again. The bounds of free speech on the Net are wide open
since the Supreme Court killed the CDA. And there is no equivalent to
shouting "Fire" in a theater on the net.
> However, there must be some outer limit to free speech.
Friend, you are beginning to try my patience. I did not spend 20 years
of my life, and at times putting my life on the line, to "Defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic" so a piss-ant ISP could decide what the 'outer limit of free
speech' on, or off, the Net is.
> Exactly where that limit occurs is subject to interpretation.
Nope. Supreme Court has set the limits at virtually none when it
killed the CDA. The next case may change it some, but until then the
decision stands.
>I have determined, for my life, where to set my outer limit. Others have
>certainly set their limits to the left and right of my position.
Personal opinion is personal opinion. Apply yours to yourself all you
want. Just don't apply your personal limit to me, or Grady, or any
other Netizen if we are in compliance with the law and AUP.
> Within the IVI family of companies we certainly find
>ourselves with a spectrum of opinions on how far is "out of bounds"
>for free speech.
>However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions
>of free speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must set
>when they decide to be in business. As a company our limit is set
>when a another netizen complains that they were offended by
>language so strong that a lawsuit could result.
More bullshit. Tidepool's limit was set by the AUP agreed to by Grady
when he signed up for service. There is nothing there about another
netizen complaining that they were offend by strong language. And the
offending post wasn't even made through Tidepool, so even if that
limit existed, which it didn't, Tidepool has no business pulling
Grady's account the way they did.
>However, even here the law seems open to interpretation until one
> stands before a judge and says "YOU DECIDE".
Damn right. These things are for judges to decide, not ISPs. If
Tidepool was going to get involved at all, it should have been to tell
wgert, "Sue him if you think you can make it stick. We don't edit for
content."
> Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and
>Tidepool) take it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this
>dispute be opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue,
>and opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum.
There's no dispute to be argued. wgert made a complaint, for which he
had no standing and in which he lied, to Tidepool, Tidepool stepped on
it's corporate 'dick' in the way it handled the complaint. And now
you're trying to shift the focus away from Tidepool and onto Grady. It
doesn't wash.
> In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have
>asked the Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account.
How magnaminous, to give back what shouldn't have been taken away to
begin with.
>This does assume that while participating in a "court of netizens" Grady
>will abide by the original terms which he agreed to when he opened his
>Tidepool account.
Grady has no need, or obligation, to participate in a "court of
netizens". The Netizens who know what Grady is doing, and why, have
already overwhelmingly spoken, and their response has been clear and
unmistakable: TIDEPOOL WAS WRONG TO PULL GRADY'S ACCOUNT.
AND THEY SHOULD GIVE IT BACK, ALONG WITH AN APOLOGY ASAP.
> I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should be
>where we are "on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits of free speech"
>as opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is utilized to state opinions
>about other topics. Two suggestions are "alt.censorship" and
>"comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels
>a discussion of "free speech" would be "on topic".
Any discussion involving Grady's account, wgert's dispicable actions
to get it pulled, and Tidepool's after the fact juggling of the
TOS/AUP to justify limiting Grady's free speech is very much on-topic
here on alt.religion.scientology.
And be very clear on this - a.r.s. is an unmoderated usenet news group
and, as much as they'd like to, wgert, MikeSmith3, and the assorted
other Cof$ goons that hang our here do NOT decide what is, or is not,
on-topic around here.
Posted & Mailed
Len "BigBeard" Nieman
0111 1110
Katana ko chi, SPsoo(p), and occasional Santa fill in.
Free Xenu!
Ex Mudder
In article <630oqu$8...@drn.zippo.com>, pli...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>In article <6305fi$9f6$1...@news2.xs4all.nl>, si...@msh.xs4all.nl says...
>On 26 Oct 1997 19:25:38 GMT, si...@msh.xs4all.nl wrote:
>>Quick question: why did purposely you leave out alt.religion.scientology
>>from the Newsgroup header line?
>>
>>CU, Sico.
>
>Just to demonstrate the point that all of the "net-furor" directed at Tidepool
>is coming from a small, noisy troupe who hang around ars like gang members on a
>street corner.
>
beat up passer-bys? is that what you are trying to say?
John E. Bredehoft
In article <34513C75...@tidepool.com>,
Donald Janke <don...@tidepool.com> wrote:
>This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
>between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
>In reading postings in this newsgroup, and other related newsgroups, it
>seems that some posters object to the locking of Grady's account. Other
>posters feel the locking had merit. It also appears that some posters
>feel
>they have not heard enough information about this dispute.
> Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and
>defamatory
>comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed towards another human
>being. We became drawn into this posting when we received a formal
>complaint regarding his
>postings. We had no choice but to terminate his account, under the
>original
>terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account.
Under which term was his account terminated?
> As we all know, the bounds of free speech limits on the Net are
>fragmented and unclear. However, there must be some outer limit to free
>speech. Exactly where that limit occurs is subject to interpretation.
>I have determined, for my life, where
>to set my outer limit. Others have certainly set their limits to the
>left and right
>of my position. Within the IVI family of companies we certainly find
>ourselves with
>a spectrum of opinions on how far is "out of bounds" for free speech.
> However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions
>of free
>speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must set when they
>decide to be
>in business. As a company our limit is set when a another netizen
>complains that
>they were offended by language so strong that a lawsuit could result.
This is a rather low threshold, inasmuch as frivolous lawsuits occur
all the time. It's troubling to think that Grady may have only received
his account back because of *his* threat to sue.
>However,
>even here the law seems open to interpretation until one stands before a
>judge and
>says "YOU DECIDE".
> Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and
>Tidepool) take it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this
>dispute be opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue,
>and opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum.
> In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have
>asked the
>Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account. This does assume that
>while participating in a "court of netizens" Grady will abide by the
>original terms which
>he agreed to when he opened his Tidepool account.
Again, it would be interesting to see which particular term could be
potentially violated.
> I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should be
>where we are
>"on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits of free speech" as
>opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is utilized to state opinions
>about other topics. Two suggestions are "alt.censorship" and
>"comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels
>a discussion of "free speech" would be "on topic".
So, in your opinion, this discussion would not be on-topic in
alt.religion.scientology? Or misc.legal?
--
"Think different," Mr. Jobs:
Stick an Amiga up your nose!
Wear your socks inside out!
Tell potential buyers how your computers will meet their needs!
Keith Henson
Actual Code (actua...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:00:05 GMT, fan...@nilspam.iinet.com.au (Phillip
: Zadarnowski) wrote:
: >How many were polled? And were they all from a girl's school?
: 167 people of random age, race, sex in Arcata, CA
I have a few questions: Why did you pick Arcata? You are aware of the
way that community would bias your results, I presume. Will you post the
form of the questions you asked and the methodology you used to pick
people? 167 calls is a substantial effort. Did you do it yourself or did
you have help? If you had help, were they paid? Who ultimately funded
this study? This number I remember from statistics, and roughly what
error bounds it provides. Can you cite the error bounds on your figure of
90 something percent?
: Your gender stereotype is both disturbing to me and horridly
: reflective of the type of person that you probably are....
I fear such a statement reflects on you more than the original writter.
Keith Henson
Keith Henson
Actual Code (actua...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: On Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:24:21 +0100, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
: <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
snip
: >Please post here what more good Grady would have achieved
: >by *NOT* being vulgar?
: Perhaps he wouldn't need to flop from ISP to ISP.
Grady had the tidepool account for well over a year.
In addition, his
: reputation (especially on a local - Humboldt County - level) and the
: reputation of his family would be better.
Grady seems to be well respected by the locals.
In Humboldt there are
: literally thousands of bred activists just itching for a worthy cause,
: and, I believe, Mr. Ward could reach those people if he adopted a more
: rational approach.
Arcada is a *long* way from any serious concentration of scientologists.
I seriously doubt more than the few net.geeks give a hoot about the whole
funny cyberspace battle.
: Your reply goes here:
: [ Restating the obvious doesn't reflect weel on your intelligence.
: That good enough for you? - Actual]
I would be very much interested in your background Actual. Do you teach
psychology in the local college? Keith Henson
t.r.mcloughlin
This has *got* to be a troll.
Donald Janke wrote:
>
> This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
> between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
>
> I am the President of Internet Ventures (IVI), Inc.; and Northcoast
> Internet (NCI), Inc. is part of IVI's family of Internet Service Providers
[snip]
> First, a further clarification of IVI might be in order. IVI is
> substantially an employee owned company.
So?
[snip]
> Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and defamatory
> comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed towards another human
> being. We became drawn into this posting when we received a formal
> complaint regarding his postings. We had no choice but to terminate his
> account, under the original terms he himself agreed to upon opening his
> Tidepool account.
And these original tems were what? Post them and point to the
part that allows you to lock an account for posts made through
another service, and to slander the owner of the locked
account.
[snip self-aggrandizement, oh I'm so enlightened]
> Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and
> Tidepool) take it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this
> dispute be opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue,
> and opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum.
Why? It will not change the facts of the case, nor rectify your company's
ankle-grabbing tendencies. (rectify...that's rich)
> In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have
> asked the
> Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account. This does assume that
> while participating in a "court of netizens" Grady will abide by the
> original terms which
> he agreed to when he opened his Tidepool account.
What were these terms? Start by posting *your* uinderstanding of
the terms that demand that cesspool.com lock an account for posts
through another source, and then slander the customer.
This has *got* to be a troll.
trm
icartist
Donald Janke wrote:
>
> This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
> between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
>
> I am the President of Internet Ventures (IVI), Inc.; and Northcoast
> Internet (NCI), Inc. is part of IVI's family of Internet Service
> Providers
> Internet
> is a d.b.a. (doing business as) of NCI.
> As a long time netizen (I might even be able to say that "I was
> Internet
> before it was cool" since I've been online since 1988), and as the
> leader of
> IVI I feel it is my responsibility to participate in the postings.
[erased marketing talk]
> In other words we are not in a position to dictate the terms of free
> speech on the net; we are just trying to prevent getting run over by it
> (thanks Bill for allowing a modified quote).
If you're "not in the position to dictate the terms of free
speech on the net", then what are you doing pulling the account
of Mr. Ward without notice because of a spurious complaint
about libel? And why does Tidepool keep changing their story
about this incident?
> In reading postings in this newsgroup, and other related newsgroups, it
> seems that some posters object to the locking of Grady's account. Other
> posters feel the locking had merit. It also appears that some posters
> feel
> they have not heard enough information about this dispute.
Obviously you haven't read too many postings here. You haven't
investigated the history of the "church" of scientology vs.
Mr. Ward, Mr. Henson, Rev. Erlich and others because if you
had, you'd understand the passionate postings concerning the
abusive and coercive tactics of the "church" of scientology.
> Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and
> defamatory
> comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed towards another human
> being. We became drawn into this posting when we received a formal
> complaint regarding his
> postings. We had no choice but to terminate his account, under the
> original
> terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account.
Formal complaint? And Eric, your 20 year old admin, doesn't
know how to verify the identity of the complainant? Gee, even
I could look up Whois, find the phone number for SuperNews and
call them up! In fact, I'd be suspicious of an admin who
wanted me to close an account when
1. All the postings came from the site the admin was complaining
from.
2. The person making the request is not the person being allegedly
libeled.
But then, I'm not 20 years old anymore.
> As we all know, the bounds of free speech limits on the Net are
> fragmented and unclear. However, there must be some outer limit to free
> speech. Exactly where that limit occurs is subject to interpretation.
> I have determined, for my life, where
> to set my outer limit. Others have certainly set their limits to the
> left and right
> of my position. Within the IVI family of companies we certainly find
> ourselves with
> a spectrum of opinions on how far is "out of bounds" for free speech.
[erased]
> Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and
> Tidepool) take it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this
> dispute be opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue,
> and opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum.
> In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have
> asked the
> Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account. This does assume that
> while participating in a "court of netizens" Grady will abide by the
> original terms which
*ORIGINAL* TOS! You mean the one where Tidepool doesn't worry about
content because they are merely a access provider, not a
publisher??? Like the telephone company?
> he agreed to when he opened his Tidepool account.
> I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should be
> where we are
> "on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits of free speech" as
> opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is utilized to state opinions
> about other topics. Two suggestions are "alt.censorship" and
> "comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels
> a discussion of "free speech" would be "on topic".
I have been reading Mr. Ward's postings for the past year.
They are always on topic. I've read a few that I thought were
superb prose, irregardless of the scatological content. Perhaps
he shows his superior command of language precisely because he is
able to write such scandalous, provocative and visually disturbing
prose.
Ms. Kobrin and the other lawyers representing RTC et. al.
set themselves up as public figures on the net when they attempted
to RMGROUP a.r.s. Ms. Kobrin even recieved the KOTM
Award. (If you have been online for as many years as you claim,
you will know what *that* means.)
And I suspect that you'd rather deal with the net rather than
"the judge" because you know that you would lose in court.
Katy "can we say First Amendment"
Fast
> This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute
> between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet.
<snip>
> Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and
> Tidepool) take it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this
> dispute be opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue,
> and opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum.
Please state your complaint clearly, and contrast that with the
contract or Terms of Service in effect at the time. I don't know
exactly why you took the action you did, and would appreciate more
details. On the surface, it seems to be a case of getting yourselves
involved in a flame war between other parties.
- Fast
Rod Keller
DAnderson'sson wrote:
: Dear Mr. Janke,
: Thank you for asking people what we think about the
: cancellation of Mr. Ward's account because of his gross
: posting. <yick, fffffft>
Now they stoop to impersonating children. How low can they go?
--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club
The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Kha Khan countdown: 9 to go
Killer Rod / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
alec
Actual Code wrote in message <3454edb3....@news.calstate.edu>...
>On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:00:05 GMT, fan...@nilspam.iinet.com.au (Phillip
>Zadarnowski) wrote:
>
>>How many were polled? And were they all from a girl's school?
>
>167 people of random age, race, sex in Arcata, CA
>
>Your gender stereotype is both disturbing to me and horridly
>reflective of the type of person that you probably are....
>
>-Actual
Actual,
I've been defending you. Grady points out the possible damages in your
action of polling his neighbors in Arcata, CA, by polling them about
statements that can be defamatory to him. Whether or not you used Grady's
name in your poll, they likely recognized him from previous slanders COS has
made among his townspeople.
Do you care to identify yourself, or give any reasons why Arcata would be an
unbiased test market? I can't really see any reason for your anonymity if
you are truly not sided with COS.
Since you are in the neighborhood, could you at least visit or call Grady
and convince him of your sincerity, and he could satisfy us of your
intentions--without revealing your identity?
Yours very truly,
David Alexander
Zane
On 29 Oct 1997 14:28:19 -0800, D Anderson's son wrote:
>My Dad says Mr. Ward destroys the net for kids.
Your dad's a fucking idiot, or that was a pretty funny post, or you
clams are really dumb. The third option is generally know to be true,
my money's on the troll option.
Zane
alec
Keith Henson wrote in message ...
>Actual Code (actua...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>: On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:00:05 GMT, fan...@nilspam.iinet.com.au (Phillip
>: Zadarnowski) wrote:
>
>: >How many were polled? And were they all from a girl's school?
>
>: 167 people of random age, race, sex in Arcata, CA
>: Your gender stereotype is both disturbing to me and horridly
>: reflective of the type of person that you probably are....
>
>I fear such a statement reflects on you more than the original writter.
>
>Keith Henson
Keith, I think Phillip Zadarnowski can be observed to be making the
"pouncing" type of remark (although it was pretty mild jabbing) that we tend
to make too many of, here on A.R.S. I for one honestly feel we could back
off a little from chicaning comments. "Actual Code" is a psych major so
obviously he is not siding with COS. He is, in reality, the kind of
observation we need to invite more of--scientific tabulation of the reality
of COS destructive demeanor.
It seems to be universal around the world that people, in their efforts to
dogpile enemies of mankind, go beyond reasonable disdain in condemning these
enemies. Although COS is potentially the worst enemy mankind will ever have
we need to be careful lest we feel that justifies our uncivil actions.
Yours,
David Alexander
Phillip Zadarnowski
pli...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>Just to demonstrate the point that all of the "net-furor" directed at
>Tidepool is coming from a small, noisy troupe who hang around ars like
>gang members on a street corner.
There are a few of us in the ARSCC who don't hop on every
bandwagon that arises so frequently where Scientology is concerned.
And there are plenty who aren't who can make very good points
about Grady's little 'hiccup' with Tidepool.
You want to be careful, Patrick, that you don't fit the
precise mold of the 'Attacking Scientologist' as per
policy. Needless to say, we saw you coming before you
even got an internet account.
Typically, a Scientologist lied and misrepresented
himself in yet another attempt to silence critics.
This is getting commonplace.
Phillip Zadarnowski
actua...@hotmail.com (Actual Code) wrote:
>I can back this up because I took a number of Mr. Wards posts
>and used them in a project that I was working on for my psychology
>major, 94% of those polled were offended and "put-off" by Mr. Wards
>language.
Whereupon I asked:
>How many were polled? And were they all from a girl's school?
And he said somewhere (quoted from Grady's reply):
>167 people of random age, race, sex in Arcata, CA
So, all but 10 found offence and were put off? Sorry, but
if you did this for a psychology project, then as your
course supervisor, I'd have to say your heart isn't in it
and you should start backing up your claims with more than
one result and one population.
I also doubt you you could've had the time to question
167 people with "a number of posts", requiring a good
3 minutes of interaction with each person to (presumably)
get an indication of 1 to 5 on the Offensive Scale.
Plus another 5 minutes per to prospect (where?) for
people willing to read and respond, plus a 1 in 3 failure
rate - geez, that comes to about 33 hours worth of
hard work! That's a *week* of work, boyo.
As I said, which Girls School? Arcata doesn't rate on
my scale of specifics (like a shopping centre, school,
university, park) and *further more*, where is the
index of exposure, ie, how many were Internet users,
read playboy etc? In fact, it *should* have been an
internet survey...
I don't think you can find 96 in 100 puritans in one
small survey. We'd like to be convinced about your
methods and sources - please. The ARSCC has more
stringent standards than some would have you believe.
Rob Clark
On 29 Oct 1997 14:28:19 -0800, D Anderson's son wrote:
>Dad doesn't want me using DejaNews anymore for
>homework research because Mr. Ward has made a lot
>of comments about Ms. Kobrin that are not nice.
>Dad showed me and my brother one little comment
>Mr. Ward made about Ms. Kobrin and asked us if we would
>like to see someone say that about Mom. I thought
>it was awful and if Mr. Ward said that about my Mom,
>I would be very, very mad. My brother got so
>angry and upset that he cried and said he would "punch"
>Mr. Ward in the nose if he saw him. He thought the post
>was stupid. [My brother's only 10 so that's pretty mean
>talk for him.] Anyway, I think you were right to
>cancel Mr. Ward's account. He should have
>to go to his room for 3 days, too.
>Sent for D Anderson's son
what a complete liar you are! first you say your dad is shoving grady ward
postings in your face, then that he's not allowing you to use dejanews, yet
here you are, posting to this very newsgroup, and even concealing your
identity, while using the zippo news reader.
imagine this scene:
DAD: hi children! here, look at this obscene posting i found on the net! how
would you like it if someone said that about mom?
this is as real a picture as those commercials where some woman says to a
co-worker that she has that "not so fresh" feeling.
now get out of my face with this pathetic bullshit, you loser.
rob
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)
D Anderson's son wrote:
>Dear Mr. Janke,
>Thank you for asking people what we think about the
>cancellation of Mr. Ward's account because of his gross
>posting. <yick, fffffft>
>
>My Dad says Mr. Ward destroys the net for kids.
Where is your father now, child?
Methinks that your Dad should be watching you a bit more closely.
Alt.religion.scientology is not someplace kids should be hanging out
unsupervised. After all, we do talk about death at the hands of
supposedly religious people, about supposedly religious people who
incarcerate (go word-clear that) others in the RPF, and about religious
people who harass and abuse others in the name of their religion. And
your father lets you hang out here?
Folx, this is Yet Another Example of how parents should be involved in
what their child sees on the Net, rather than just letting the kid run
rampant....Why parents expect everyone else to police their children for
them is beyond comprehension. It must be laziness.
Deana
Deana M. Holmes
alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995
NEW! 4/97 *and* 4/96 Poster Child for Clueless $cientology Litigiousness
mir...@super.zippo.com
alec
si...@msh.xs4all.nl wrote in message <63aiel$mf4$2...@news2.xs4all.nl>...
>In article <345c9ea5...@news.supernews.com>,
>Grady Ward <gr...@promisecreepers.org> wrote:
>
>>>Yours,
>>>David Alexander
>>
>>You may be completely right, Alec.
>>
>>But I am Grady Ward and you are David Alexander.
>>
>>Feel free to think differently. That's what it is all about.
That's my take too. I wouldn't ask you to refrain from what you believe is
your best action. I was just making some points from my viewpoint.
>Exactly. And to avoid having to read what we don't like, we've got
>killfiles. Problem solved!
>CU, Sico.
I only killfile to prevent others from wrenching me emotionally. I have a
killfile full of COS Apologists. They seek to enturbulate, and sometimes
succeed.
I don't need to killfile Grady. I know his viewpoints, and I know that he
does not intend enturbulation--to me anyway.
---Alec
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <638da3$5...@drn.zippo.com>,
>Dear Mr. Janke,
>Thank you for asking people what we think about the
>cancellation of Mr. Ward's account because of his gross
>posting. <yick, fffffft>
>
>My Dad says Mr. Ward destroys the net for kids.
Diddums. The 'Net is not dedicated for kids,to the extent
that adults must be treated as seven year olds.
I think this is a rather stupid troll.
How can I look up your other posts from <?.?> on dejanews, please....
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Joe Harrington
Rob Clark wrote:
>
> gr...@promisecreepers.org (Grady Ward) wrote:
>
> >Yeah, sure.
> >When you see your dad again, that he can stick
> >your silly dead-agenting up his ass along with the
> >schlong of Eugene Martin Ingram. (If he doesn't
> >know what "schlong" is, ask your mom!)
>
> considering who she is married to, it may be a subject of which she
> has little experience.
>
> rob
Perhaps this youngster's father needs to star-rate his on Hubbard's Sex
and Pain HCOB. :-)
Joe
alec
si...@msh.xs4all.nl wrote in message <63btn4$olk$1...@news2.xs4all.nl>...
>In article <63aq49$h2v$1...@excalibur.flash.net>, alec <al...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>>si...@msh.xs4all.nl wrote in message <63aiel$mf4$2...@news2.xs4all.nl>...
>>>In article <345c9ea5...@news.supernews.com>,
>>>Grady Ward <gr...@promisecreepers.org> wrote:
[Alec wrote:]
>>>>>Yours,
>>>>>David Alexander
[Grady wrote:]
>>>>You may be completely right, Alec.
>>>>
>>>>But I am Grady Ward and you are David Alexander.
>>>>
>>>>Feel free to think differently. That's what it is all about.
[Alec wrote:]
>>That's my take too. I wouldn't ask you to refrain from what you believe
is
>>your best action. I was just making some points from my viewpoint.
[CU,Sico wrote:]
>>>Exactly. And to avoid having to read what we don't like, we've got
>>>killfiles. Problem solved!
>>
>>>CU, Sico.
[Alec wrote:]
>>I only killfile to prevent others from wrenching me emotionally. I have a
>>killfile full of COS Apologists. They seek to enturbulate, and sometimes
>>succeed.
>>
>>I don't need to killfile Grady. I know his viewpoints, and I know that he
>>does not intend enturbulation--to me anyway.
[CU,Sico wrote:]
>Sure. If I wasn't sufficiently clear, my point is that nobody needs to get
>offended by Usenet posts, since nobody is forced to read anything.
>
>
>
>CU, Sico.
[Now Alec writes:]
That's easy for you to say. I'm a little squeamish about my two teen-age
daughters stumbling across a newsgroup post that I received on my computer
about some Scientology hag masturbating with a turd--as I remember reading
in someone's post on ARS. I want to stay in touch with Grady's posts, and
it's not fail-proof to try to hide everything on my computer--at least not
for me to do that.
Out of curiosity, what is your age, CU?
--David
alec
Ex Mudder
Is it just me, or does this remind anyone else of the episode of
Fraiser where he fires his agent?
In article <638da3$5...@drn.zippo.com>, D Anderson's son wrote:
>Dear Mr. Janke,
>Thank you for asking people what we think about the
>cancellation of Mr. Ward's account because of his gross
>posting. <yick, fffffft>
>
>My Dad says Mr. Ward destroys the net for kids.
>
Geoffrey Burling
On 29 Oct 1997 14:28:19 -0800, D Anderson's son saith:
>Dad showed me and my brother one little comment
>Mr. Ward made about Ms. Kobrin and asked us if we would
>like to see someone say that about Mom. I thought
>it was awful and if Mr. Ward said that about my Mom,
>I would be very, very mad.
So why is your father showing you adult-oriented material?
When I was your age (jeez, I can't believe I just typed that ;), I had
a copy of the magazine _Galaxy_ that had part of a novel by Robert
Silverberg serialized in it. This portion had an illustratin of a
partially nude woman, wherein it showed one of her breasts. When my
parents learned about this illustration, they prohibited me from
buying any other copies of this magazine.
Parents don't go around exposing their children to this kind of shit.
Unless they are truly twisted, & I would hope that the county/state
they live in would get them out of such a damaging environment. There
are enough sicko individuals out there.
Geoff
Olympic-Class Busybody
Return address altered to foil spambots. Change ``cyberpromo"
to``agora", & your email will reach me.
Leonardo Serni
D Anderson's son wrote:
>Dear Mr. Janke,
>Thank you for asking people what we think about the
>cancellation of Mr. Ward's account because of his gross
>posting. <yick, fffffft>
If I may say so, 'gross' is a bit out-of-character term. I would have
used 'impolite'. The behaviour of the father-character is also what I
would term 'beyond credibility' - unless it's a real, if ill, person,
since it's a known fact that reality often outsmarts fantasy.
Anyway, sampling the posts tagged "NNTP-Posting-Host: *.newsdawg.com"
I have to admit this post is a remarkable and welcome improvement.
I believe the correct addressing is, "Keep up the good work!".
Leonardo
".signature": bad command or file name
Phillip Zadarnowski
actua...@hotmail.com (Actual Code) wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:00:05 GMT, fan...@nilspam.iinet.com.au (Phillip
>Zadarnowski) wrote:
>
>>How many were polled? And were they all from a girl's school?
>
>167 people of random age, race, sex in Arcata, CA
>
>Your gender stereotype is both disturbing to me and horridly
>reflective of the type of person that you probably are....
Your data-evaluation is both disturbing to me and horridly
reflective of the type of person that you probably are....
Happy now? So cough up some serious facts about your so-called
grade-making psychology-project survey. Right now, you have
an F. Speak some statistical wisdom and method, and I'll
re-think your mark.
Hell, you telling me you found 157 language shocked people
out of 167 tells me in return you weren't very spread with your
sample. Still sounds like a girls school to me, and hey,
if you are *shocked* by the assertion that a girls
school population *might* be upset by Grady's posts, I
think you have no future at all in psychology.
Phillip Zadarnowski
"alec" <al...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>Keith Henson wrote in message ...
>>Actual Code (actua...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>>: On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:00:05 GMT, fan...@nilspam.iinet.com.au (Phillip
>>: Zadarnowski) wrote:
>>
>>: >How many were polled? And were they all from a girl's school?
>>
>>: 167 people of random age, race, sex in Arcata, CA
>
>>: Your gender stereotype is both disturbing to me and horridly
>>: reflective of the type of person that you probably are....
>>
>>I fear such a statement reflects on you more than the original writter.
>>
>>Keith Henson
>
>
>Keith, I think Phillip Zadarnowski can be observed to be making the
>"pouncing" type of remark (although it was pretty mild jabbing) that we tend
>to make too many of, here on A.R.S. I for one honestly feel we could back
>off a little from chicaning comments. "Actual Code" is a psych major so
>obviously he is not siding with COS. He is, in reality, the kind of
>observation we need to invite more of--scientific tabulation of the reality
>of COS destructive demeanor.
Sorry, David, but this guy is a statistical lout and offers only
as much as he thinks he can get away with to support *his* viewpoint.
A summary like that doesn't even address his conviction.
Rob Clark
>Hell, you telling me you found 157 language shocked people
>out of 167 tells me in return you weren't very spread with your
>sample. Still sounds like a girls school to me, and hey,
>if you are *shocked* by the assertion that a girls
>school population *might* be upset by Grady's posts, I
>think you have no future at all in psychology.
i believe it to be complete bullshit lies, as is any such supposed
"psychological test" i've ever seen some lout float in a pitiful attempt to
salvage a dying argument.
rob
Phillip Zadarnowski
xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
I agree. I could've faked better figures without lifting a finger
off the keyboard...