Shell NOT Going Bye-Bye (was Re: Geeks Get Dumped - Shell Going Bye-Bye: 60 Days Left)
Alan Bostick
Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Netcom sales tells me that shell accounts will be no more Jan. 1st.
> Look for announcement Dec. 1, (tommorow).
> --
> using spamgard(tm). To send me email, include the password Lenny in the
> Subject: line.
An authoritative source on the NETCOM staff tells me that this is
completely and utterly false.
This being false, and potentially damaging to NETCOM's reputation among
it's customers, it is surely legally actionable. I wonder what the
over/under is on how long Lenny keeps his account?
--
Alan Bostick | Never trust a man who wears dark glasses indoors.
| "Could you give me a hand," he asks, and you will
mailto:abos...@netcom.com | Learn from experience, he means an arm and a leg.
news:alt.grelb | Stephen Scobie, "The Harder Stuff"
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
R R M Tweek
>
>This being false, and potentially damaging to NETCOM's reputation among
>it's customers, it is surely legally actionable. I wonder what the
>over/under is on how long Lenny keeps his account?
30 days?... perhaps much less?
Lenny better hope Netcom doesn't get as nasty as Procter and Gamble gets
when getting retribution for vicious rumors.
--
tw...@netcom.com tw...@io.com | Net filter software released by the cult
DoD #MCMLX tw...@ccnet.com | of $cientology finds that articles from
sig...@tweekco.ness.com | this account are too dangerous to read.
Mark A. Cochran
In article <fmEZ28m9...@netcom.com>,
Alan Bostick <abos...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <schaferF...@netcom.com>,
>Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Netcom sales tells me that shell accounts will be no more Jan. 1st.
>> Look for announcement Dec. 1, (tommorow).
>> --
>> using spamgard(tm). To send me email, include the password Lenny in the
>> Subject: line.
>
>An authoritative source on the NETCOM staff tells me that this is
>completely and utterly false.
>
>This being false, and potentially damaging to NETCOM's reputation among
>it's customers, it is surely legally actionable. I wonder what the
>over/under is on how long Lenny keeps his account?
>
Given that he has an unbeatable excuse ('I just repeated what I was
told by sales; I don't remember who I talked to') I doubt very much if
this nonsense could be used against him effectively.
[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.
Faith is the quality that enables you to eat blackberry jam on a picnic
without looking to see whether the seeds move.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCVAgUBNmSnxdo7GDsbn4ZNAQHQAgP/aOo3XubFY4JaYyQmSjffGGVRpJI+9f0a
+QQyMKxj8g1vAWqzq/8i2fyDFt+7rSS05do/5o/cPb+FavmZYKJjleWdUSbrHeC8
J5x2rFZYWbRveThPxvKtvsfGe/GPBNfesE1zqwt0FUV75xRr2eleNF+GnYGZ/k80
pHUKLW8pC20=
=KMSE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tom Lane
> Given that he has an unbeatable excuse ('I just repeated what I was
> told by sales; I don't remember who I talked to') I doubt very much if
> this nonsense could be used against him effectively.
Huh? Unless he can get someone on the sales staff to agree that
they'd been giving out such a story, I don't think he'd have much
luck getting a jury to believe that he was doing anything but lying
through his teeth.
Lenny better hope that Netcom is feeling in a forgiving mood this
holiday season. If he's lucky, he won't lose anything but his account.
regards, tom lane
Brett Frankenberger
I Beg to differ. Because Netcom is a public figure with respect to
postings on a group about Netcom hosted by Netcom, they need to show
reckless disregard for the truth. The falseness of the statement is
irrelevant. Since repeating what a saled-droid said, along with the
proper attribution, would certainly not show a reckless disregard for
the truth, an easy defense is exactly as Mark suggests: Say "I was just
repeating what I was told."
Since it would be his word against the word of the sales department
(a sales department known by many clueful people to be completely
clueless and often dead wrong -- people have, for example, been told
that shell accounts aren't offered), I don't think Netcom would have
much chance of prevailing.
As a practical matter, (a) Netcom won't sue because it's not worth it
to them and they know they have no case, but (b) If they do sue, it
could be painful for whoever they sue, because if can be expensive to
defend yourself against a large company, even if the facts support your
case.
--
- Brett (bre...@netcom.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Coming soon to a | Brett Frankenberger
.sig near you ... a Humorous Quote ... | bre...@netcom.com
Tom Lane
> As a practical matter, (a) Netcom won't sue because it's not worth it
> to them and they know they have no case, but (b) If they do sue, it
> could be painful for whoever they sue, because if can be expensive to
> defend yourself against a large company, even if the facts support your
> case.
That's all certainly true, but I'm curious to know exactly which facts
you think support Lenny's case.
So far, the only indisputable fact is that 1 December came and went
without any announcement of the end of shell service.
regards, tom lane
Roy Buchanan
>In article <schaferF...@netcom.com>,
>Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Netcom sales tells me that shell accounts will be no more Jan. 1st.
>> Look for announcement Dec. 1, (tommorow).
>> --
>> using spamgard(tm). To send me email, include the password Lenny in the
>> Subject: line.
>
>An authoritative source on the NETCOM staff tells me that this is
>completely and utterly false.
>
Hmmm, perhaps. However, this could explain why the shell upgrades,
announced back at the end of July, have yet to materialize(?).
Also keep in mind that ICG has announced plans to sell off
Netcom's dialup and consumer web hosting accounts
(see http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2160983,00.html)
in order to concentrate on business account services. This was
confirmed by ICG spokesman, Lance Thomas and Netcom Senior Marketing
Manager, Pamela Goncalves.
Could it be that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand
is doing? ;-)
Roy Buchanan
buch...@netcomNOSPAM.com
* Remove NOSPAM to reply by email *
Brett Frankenberger
Tom Lane <t...@netcom.com> wrote:
>bre...@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) writes:
>> As a practical matter, (a) Netcom won't sue because it's not worth it
>> to them and they know they have no case, but (b) If they do sue, it
>> could be painful for whoever they sue, because if can be expensive to
>> defend yourself against a large company, even if the facts support your
>> case.
>
>That's all certainly true, but I'm curious to know exactly which facts
>you think support Lenny's case.
None. I don't think shell is going away (at least not in anywhere
close to the timeframe Lenny referred do), and I don't think a Netcom
sales rep told him it was. I think he made it up as a troll.
I just don't think Netcom could prevail in a libel case (assuming a
relatively competent defense attorney).
Mark A. Cochran
In article <uo9pva3...@netcom2.netcom.com>,
Tom Lane <t...@netcom.com> wrote:
>coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>> Given that he has an unbeatable excuse ('I just repeated what I was
>> told by sales; I don't remember who I talked to') I doubt very much if
>> this nonsense could be used against him effectively.
>
>Huh? Unless he can get someone on the sales staff to agree that
>they'd been giving out such a story, I don't think he'd have much
>luck getting a jury to believe that he was doing anything but lying
>through his teeth.
>
Here in America we have this concept that a person is "innocent till
proven guilty'; Lenny doesn't have to prove any such thing. NETCOM
would be responsible for proving that he knew he was posting a lie.
I'm not endorsing what Lenny did; from what I've seen, he's a pathetic
smegma sucking cum bubble, but I don't think *this* incident can be
used to shut off his account.
[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.
"Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCVAgUBNmVE4to7GDsbn4ZNAQFTxQQAkFftuNvhV+njiNB0wk9xirfws8OkQ8ff
eCe8H2BCWjLpWI8kfRZzBysSqd9fqM7YaJR+BlJUWjCPK/ZOGXE6mSKngk115QkP
JZ7LnPVlZ28hIcpFOhgahxksvP9BnA1u+WqaX4DkIJ3d2YP11QfJy9uUghNqfb8p
qaSxJjRWaRU=
=Yv93
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Lesher
>Could it be that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand
>is doing? ;-)
Can you cite any time in the last 5 years when the left hand
DID know what the right was doing????
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Mark A. Cochran
In article <3664dba7...@10.0.2.1>,
Roy Buchanan <buch...@netcomNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>Could it be that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand
>is doing? ;-)
>
In the case of NETCOM, it seems the general case is that the thumb
doesn't know what the index finger is doing.
[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.
I'm prepared for all emergencies but totally unprepared for everyday
life.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCVAgUBNmWTw9o7GDsbn4ZNAQGgqwQAnjqJU0zbxEA/cTDXGYZKwAdRrgaUvbIZ
zD1cMMfr8jFJeN2LGwnJh6pon5j8iSwqMK3aQC+Gi75k6+Dp3P2Y6prMkkMh/OBb
BtyGeX6Sss0pfumNt803dfVQIgiftPiuJ5ouVUOH9MoLi4A3ZxGSry2cpx3dyIac
9b7Mo7NgZuA=
=01Kh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hud Nordin
>Here in America we have this concept that a person is "innocent till
>proven guilty'; Lenny doesn't have to prove any such thing. NETCOM
>would be responsible for proving that he knew he was posting a lie.
Here in America we have this concept that in a civil trial the decision
is tipped by "a preponderence of the evidence". Lenny would have plenty
to prove, once the plaintiff established the basics.
>I'm not endorsing what Lenny did; from what I've seen, he's a pathetic
>smegma sucking cum bubble, but I don't think *this* incident can be
>used to shut off his account.
Netcom can decide not to continue doing business with Lenny for the
slightest perceived violation of contract terms. I think they've got
this one covered, if they want to pursue it [faq terms]:
Netcom reserves the right to discontinue any and all Services to you
at any time, without prior notice or liability, for any conduct which
Netcom, in its sole discretion, determines to violate the Agreement
or is otherwise harmful to Netcom's interests or the interests of
others.
--
Hud Nordin <h...@netcom.com> Silicon Valley
Alan Bostick
coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) wrote:
> Here in America we have this concept that a person is "innocent till
> proven guilty'; Lenny doesn't have to prove any such thing. NETCOM
> would be responsible for proving that he knew he was posting a lie.
> I'm not endorsing what Lenny did; from what I've seen, he's a pathetic
> smegma sucking cum bubble, but I don't think *this* incident can be
> used to shut off his account.
"Innocent until proven guilty", like "proof beyond reasonable doubt", is
a concept that applies to *criminal* law. Civil torts, on the other
hand, use different standards, which is how we wind up with such legal
peculiarities as O. J. Simpson being found liable for the "wrongful
deaths" of two people of whose murder he was acquitted.
And this incident *can* be used to shut off his account. For good or
ill, they shut off gburnore for less.
Alan Bostick
bre...@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) wrote:
> None. I don't think shell is going away (at least not in anywhere
> close to the timeframe Lenny referred do), and I don't think a Netcom
> sales rep told him it was. I think he made it up as a troll.
>
> I just don't think Netcom could prevail in a libel case (assuming a
> relatively competent defense attorney).
I suppose you're right. After all, to sustain a libel case, doesn't it
have to be shown that one's reputation was damaged? How much of a
reputation worth damaging does NETCOM have among the shell user community? ;-)
(Note to those who pay attention to the barkings and bayings of the animals:
I love my NETCOM shell account, I really do, and I have very little to
complain about.)
Greg Andrews
>abos...@netcom.com (Alan Bostick) wrote:
>
>>In article <schaferF...@netcom.com>,
>>Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Netcom sales tells me that shell accounts will be no more Jan. 1st.
>>> Look for announcement Dec. 1, (tommorow).
>>> --
>>> using spamgard(tm). To send me email, include the password Lenny in the
>>> Subject: line.
>>
>>An authoritative source on the NETCOM staff tells me that this is
>>completely and utterly false.
>>
>
>Hmmm, perhaps. However, this could explain why the shell upgrades,
>announced back at the end of July, have yet to materialize(?).
>
No, the later decision to sell off the dialup parts explains it.
-Greg
--
::::::::::::::::::: Greg Andrews ge...@netcom.com :::::::::::::::::::
ObGuindon: The correct way to bunt with a carp is head first.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Reverend Tweek
>
>Here in America we have this concept that a person is "innocent till
>proven guilty'; Lenny doesn't have to prove any such thing. NETCOM
>would be responsible for proving that he knew he was posting a lie.
>I'm not endorsing what Lenny did; from what I've seen, he's a pathetic
>smegma sucking cum bubble, but I don't think *this* incident can be
>used to shut off his account.
Would a signed affidavit from each and every sales person at Netcom
stating that they never stated any such thing to anyone, suit your
need for proof that what Lenny said was known by him to be a lie at
the time he stated such?
Or are you placing a further burden upon Netcom to supply positive
proof that such an event never occured?
I'm not a lawyer, but I think that all Netcom needs to do in the eyes
of the law, is to state in a court that what Lenny said is not true, and
then the burden falls upon Lenny to prove that a sales tech did so inform
him of such. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies up to the time
such a charge is leveled before the body which decides such innocence or
guilt.
"But your Honor. I'm innocent until proven guilty, therfore
and wherethoughest, they cannot legally accuse me of being
guilty because no court has yet found me guilty of such a
charge, and, ipso facto ego te, I AM THERFORE INNOCENT!
Furthermore, because they have falsely accused me of doing
such, and this has caused a major financial outlay by my
person, I would like to sue THEM for false accusation."
"Sorry, son, but they haven't been found guilty of filing any
false charges against you, and therefore you can not accuse them
of doing such. Remember, they are innocent until proven guilty.
If you want, I can cite where you used the same arguement. If
nothing else, this court at least tries to be fair about things.
I can't justify hearing a case against them and ignore any such
arguement from their side which your side tried to use to weasel
out of such charge of guilty. Ipso se hoc nomine right back to
you, I fine you $1000 for bringing such a senseless arguement
into this court."
"But..."
"$2000 son. Do I hear 4?"
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Had your share of stoopid(tm) people? | |
| View the "Contra Costa Whines" at | [This space for lease] |
| http://www.io.com/~tweek/cocowhine/ | |
Hugh Bonney
: coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) wrote:
: > Here in America we have this concept that a person is "innocent till
: > proven guilty'; Lenny doesn't have to prove any such thing. NETCOM
: > would be responsible for proving that he knew he was posting a lie.
: > I'm not endorsing what Lenny did; from what I've seen, he's a pathetic
: > smegma sucking cum bubble, but I don't think *this* incident can be
: > used to shut off his account.
: a concept that applies to *criminal* law. Civil torts, on the other
: hand, use different standards, which is how we wind up with such legal
: peculiarities as O. J. Simpson being found liable for the "wrongful
: deaths" of two people of whose murder he was acquitted.
Why? The poster told his story in this forum and was told that
it wasn't true, and hopefully it wasn't true. So? I'm not
saying that the poster is a sympathetic character - I never
noticed him before.
: ... For good or
: ill, they shut off gburnore for less.
If gb was shut off, it was for a great deal more.
H.---
Dan
>Sorry, Mark, but you're wrong. "Innocent until proven guilty" is
>a principle of *criminal* law, and doesn't necessarily apply to
>civil law. Libel cases are decided in civil courts.
True as to the phrase belonging in criminal courts. Civil litigation
is a dispute, not a question of guilt or innocence. Not even in tort
cases which deal with alleged wrong and harm.
>With respect to libel in particular, I've been told by more than
>one attorney that the burden is generally upon the accused to
>prove their statements were *not* libel.
In civil litigations, there are plaintiffs and defendants. The
burden of proof is always on the plaintiffs. The Complaint is but an
allegation and unless admitted to in the Answer, the theoretical
alleged libel has to be introduced as evidence, determined to have
taken place and damaged the plaintiff.
I doubt there are great differences between CA and PA laws on that.
Aahz Maruch
Alan Bostick <abos...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>(Note to those who pay attention to the barkings and bayings of the
>animals: I love my NETCOM shell account, I really do, and I have very
>little to complain about.)
Y'know, it's funny, but I actually agree with you at this point in time.
Oh, there are things that could be improved, and I really wish they'd up
the disk quota, but lately Netcom has been reasonably fast and reliable
for both e-mail and netnews -- and there are very few other providers
with shell that give access to clari.*.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> -=> http://www.rahul.net/aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
"I guess I prefer to just have sex with my partners, without bringing my
God into it, except maybe as a sort of omniscient voyeur." --JDO'C
Mark A. Cochran
In article <F3CJF...@moraga.ness.com>,
Reverend Tweek <tw...@netcom-NO.SPAM-com> wrote:
>Mark A. Cochran <coc...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Here in America we have this concept that a person is "innocent till
>>proven guilty'; Lenny doesn't have to prove any such thing. NETCOM
>>would be responsible for proving that he knew he was posting a lie.
>>I'm not endorsing what Lenny did; from what I've seen, he's a pathetic
>>smegma sucking cum bubble, but I don't think *this* incident can be
>>used to shut off his account.
>
>Would a signed affidavit from each and every sales person at Netcom
>stating that they never stated any such thing to anyone, suit your
>need for proof that what Lenny said was known by him to be a lie at
>the time he stated such?
>
Don't be simple-minded; it's not *my* need, it's the need of the U.S.
Constitution.
And of course, given the number of times that NETCOM sales-droids
*have* told people that shell accounts are no longer offered / being
canceled / never existed I'd have to consider the affidavits
worthless, especially since Lenny would no doubt be willing to sign an
equally useful affadavit saying that someone *did* tell him 'any such
thing.'
>Or are you placing a further burden upon Netcom to supply positive
>proof that such an event never occured?
>
I don't, but I'm as certain as a non-lawyer can be that you'll find
that the law does.
>I'm not a lawyer, but I think that all Netcom needs to do in the eyes
>of the law, is to state in a court that what Lenny said is not true, and
>then the burden falls upon Lenny to prove that a sales tech did so inform
>him of such. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies up to the time
>such a charge is leveled before the body which decides such innocence or
>guilt.
>
That's utter nonsense. A person accused does not need to make *any*
defense; it is totally and 100% up to the prosecution/accuser to prove
their case.
[Fantasy deleted]
[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.
Q: How many Martians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: One and a half.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCVAgUBNmX6+do7GDsbn4ZNAQGItgP8DgR999ZpruulqqgTBJ3CK/JXRuyJ9/kA
y3nO5x2C59JPS72//pFUidq2Y7vHSS1ahSaU7VQoPJNsJ8MFDR6wFiyN8OzwyNCD
0KjrG1506nKqbCmsp0EDjFwe1yrVrgC4C5BEelPV0uV4EuA+cG5ScKPTS+Diutyi
uUQ145VYqf0=
=7Xv5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mark A. Cochran
In article <hudF3C...@netcom.com>, Hud Nordin <h...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <cochranF...@netcom.com> coc...@netcom.com (Mark A.
>Cochran) writes:
>>Here in America we have this concept that a person is "innocent till
>>proven guilty'; Lenny doesn't have to prove any such thing. NETCOM
>>would be responsible for proving that he knew he was posting a lie.
>
>Here in America we have this concept that in a civil trial the decision
>is tipped by "a preponderence of the evidence". Lenny would have plenty
>to prove, once the plaintiff established the basics.
>
And what evidence is there that Lenny madeup this lie and/or
propogated it for the purpose of damaging NETCOM?
Go ahead, lay out "the basics" for all to see.
>>I'm not endorsing what Lenny did; from what I've seen, he's a pathetic
>>smegma sucking cum bubble, but I don't think *this* incident can be
>>used to shut off his account.
>
>Netcom can decide not to continue doing business with Lenny for the
>slightest perceived violation of contract terms. I think they've got
>this one covered, if they want to pursue it [faq terms]:
>
True enough, and (as I've said before) I wouldn't shed any tears if he
got booted (I've seen enough to consider him one of the more pathetic
little hemorrhoid munching pimple farmers on the net) but talk of
legal prosecution over this issue is ludicrous.
[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.
If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are
headed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCVAgUBNmX8JNo7GDsbn4ZNAQHNvgP/RJUHASqE4dvLuqsrkI1OlZGxOUtPR5dY
b8e94BWpYCMPlHGMB9wPNX21ERgiYkTM34qO/U0ExB8PLiCjVp9QfBu0W9jnUFrn
B3MYM5A9nfDv6W72K6XFiAjLXEFgrU7aLeZ6ZQtgokIqOPWCmUYUOPU6hiOujdH+
a0fZmxG25KY=
=887L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mark A. Cochran
In article <gergF3D...@netcom.com>, Greg Andrews <ge...@netcom.com> wrote:
>coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <uo9pva3...@netcom2.netcom.com>,
>>Tom Lane <t...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>> Given that he has an unbeatable excuse ('I just repeated what I was
>>>> told by sales; I don't remember who I talked to') I doubt very much if
>>>> this nonsense could be used against him effectively.
>>>
>>>Huh? Unless he can get someone on the sales staff to agree that
>>>they'd been giving out such a story, I don't think he'd have much
>>>luck getting a jury to believe that he was doing anything but lying
>>>through his teeth.
>>>
>>Here in America we have this concept that a person is "innocent till
>>proven guilty'; Lenny doesn't have to prove any such thing. NETCOM
>>would be responsible for proving that he knew he was posting a lie.
>
>Sorry, Mark, but you're wrong.
It's possible, but there certainly doesn't seem to be any reason to
believe so this time.
>"Innocent until proven guilty" is
>a principle of *criminal* law, and doesn't necessarily apply to
>civil law.
Nonsense. It applies in *all* cases, although it is true that criminal
cases require proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and civil cases merely
'by a preponderance of the evidence.' But it remains true that the
defendant is assumed to be innocent. If I were to be accused of
malpractice (it's never happened, but anything is possible) I would
*not* be under any obligation to prove my innocence. My accuser would
be obligated to prove my guilt. Thats why the accuser goes first; then
the defendant can refute whatever evidence is presented and present
further evidence if they wish. But they don't *have* to. It's 100%
certain in any case, legal or civil, that if the prosecution rests
without presenting evidence, the case will be dismissed. The defense,
however, *can* decline to present one iota of evidence if they feel
the prosecutions case is so weak as to need no refutation.
>Libel cases are decided in civil courts.
>
Generally, perhaps, but I think that it may also be a criminal charge.
Perhaps one of the various lawyers who read this group would care to
chime in?
>With respect to libel in particular, I've been told by more than
>one attorney that the burden is generally upon the accused to
>prove their statements were *not* libel.
>
Been accused of libel a lot have you? (That's a joke, put the
flame-thrower down!)
>>I'm not endorsing what Lenny did; from what I've seen, he's a pathetic
>>smegma sucking cum bubble, but I don't think *this* incident can be
>>used to shut off his account.
>
>If I understand the circumstances correctly, Gary Burnore's account
>was shut off after a similar incident. By itself, the incident wasn't
>bad enough to close the account, but it was the straw that broke the
>camel's back as far as the Abuse Dept. was concerned.
>
And as another poster pointed out, NETCOM *can* close Lennys account
over this; on that I was certainly wrong (and not sorry to be so,
either). That does not make it any less ludicrous to talk of legal
retaliation over this nonsense.
[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.
You don't sew with a fork, so I see no reason to eat with knitting
needles.
-- Miss Piggy, on eating Chinese Food
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCVAgUBNmX+bto7GDsbn4ZNAQG4TwQAjpuTbyOeoPZZR3Kw7u33EDvR5uV8ZxBF
DHV1tEZ5VFXjb0US7mbc9Lyq9shZiWg+WdR9KFm8QCeHxqgrBEigZ7uU5zBXzh+L
vsNfY7pwT7Rt82jgonDI1uPsRZU95zFPzHiefms2VtdKKvqRxCJLGKiXcStcOJXe
Ya8LQaIhwME=
=Mgt+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bill Neisius
: Can you cite any time in the last 5 years when the left hand
: DID know what the right was doing????
True... I don't think my left hand is even aware that I HAVE a right hand...
...and when I do bring them together, they just sort of sit there,
interlocked... Wonder what they're up to?
Brett Frankenberger
>coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>Here in America we have this concept that a person is "innocent till
>>proven guilty'; Lenny doesn't have to prove any such thing. NETCOM
>>would be responsible for proving that he knew he was posting a lie.
>
>a principle of *criminal* law, and doesn't necessarily apply to
Technically, you're right. Civil courts do not find anyone guilty --
if someone sues for libel and wins, the defendant may be ordered to give
the plaintiff money, but there will never be a finding of guilt.
But the principle is still there -- the plantiff still has to "win" --
that is, they have to prove their case (as opposed to the defendant
having to prove that they have no case). It's just the standard that
is different -- in criminal cases, it is generally "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt", and in civil cases (such as libel), it is generally
"preponderance of the evidence".
>With respect to libel in particular, I've been told by more than
>one attorney that the burden is generally upon the accused to
>prove their statements were *not* libel.
It's considerably more complex than that. One important point, which
you seem to allude to, is that the victim (plaintiff) *never* has to
prove that the statements were false. (Otherwise, there would be no
point to libel laws. I could accuse someone of being a child molester,
and since they would never be able to prove that they never molested
any child, they wouldn't be able to prevail, no matter how baseless my
claim was. On the other hand, if the defendant can prove the
statements are true, that is good defense against the libel claim -- in
the above example, if I could produce one child and prove that they did
molest that child, I would prevail.)
IANAL, but I did have occasion a few years ago to look into
slander/libel law:
First, you have to determine if the victim of the libel was a "public
figure" in the forum the libel occurred in. Since this was a post
about Netcom, in a forum about Netcom, that is run by Netcom, and in
which Netcom has been known to officially post, the answer is almost
certainly that Netcom is a public figure here. This means that, before
Lenny would have to do anything, Netcom has to prove:
(1) That the statement is defamatory. That is, that it damages their
reputation. (Truth is irrelevant. For example, if I accuse a child
molester of being a child molester, I have defamed him. But it won't
end up being libel, because of other criteria). The statement in
question probably was defamatory, although the theory that someone else
posted about it not being possible for Netcom to have any lower of a
reputation was interesting (but probably not legally useful).
(2) That Lenny made it with reckless disregard for the truth. This
would be hard. As I said before, I think he made the statement up, and
that would certainly show a reckless disregard for the truth. But he
claimed to be quoting someone, and that class of someones (Netcom
salesdroids) are known to routinely spout false information. It would
end up as two people, neither with a lot of credibility, contradicting
each other. Since the burden of proof here is on Netcom, Netcom would
likely lose.
So, if Netcom proves those two things (and I don't think they could),
then Lenny will lose unless he can offer a viable defense. One defense
is truth (that is, if I just make something up with reckless disregard
for its veracity, and then publish it, I can still wil the ensuing
libel lawsuit if it turns out that what I said was true). There are
others also. (But at this point, the burden of proof is on the
defendant). If it got to this point, Lenny would lose, since I doubt
he could provide a viable defense.
So, in short: if the defendant intends to use "truth" as his defense,
then, yes, he will have the burden of proof. But the plaintiff shall
has to prove some things before the defendant even needs to offer a
defense. The best defense here, I think, would be to fight Netcom's
attempt to prove reckless disregard.
(BTW, if the libel victim is not a public figure in the forum that
libel occurred in, then the standard of proff the plaintiff has to meet
is considerably easier -- in particular, the requirement to prove
reckless disregard goes away.)
>If I understand the circumstances correctly, Gary Burnore's account
>was shut off after a similar incident. By itself, the incident wasn't
>bad enough to close the account, but it was the straw that broke the
>camel's back as far as the Abuse Dept. was concerned.
Gary was held to a different standard than everyone else.
The terms, as written, though, would certainly give Netcom the
authority to terminate Lenny's account for this. It's not clear to me
whether or not the relevant provisions would actually be upheld in
court, though. (Probably they would -- I can't image a judge ordering
Netcom to give someone an account. If the cancellation caused economic
impact to the accountholder, though, he might have a viable action
against Netcom.)
rmt...@netcom.com
Reverend Tweek <tw...@netcom-NO.SPAM-com> wrote:
>Mark A. Cochran <coc...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>proven guilty'; Lenny doesn't have to prove any such thing. NETCOM
>>would be responsible for proving that he knew he was posting a lie.
>>smegma sucking cum bubble, but I don't think *this* incident can be
>>used to shut off his account.
>
>stating that they never stated any such thing to anyone, suit your
>need for proof that what Lenny said was known by him to be a lie at
>the time he stated such?
No. The defense would provide affidavits from customers past and present
citing misinformation Netcom has spewed in the past. This would be to
cause doubt.
>Or are you placing a further burden upon Netcom to supply positive
>proof that such an event never occured?
>
>I'm not a lawyer, but I think that all Netcom needs to do in the eyes
>of the law, is to state in a court that what Lenny said is not true, and
>then the burden falls upon Lenny to prove that a sales tech did so inform
>him of such. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies up to the time
>such a charge is leveled before the body which decides such innocence or
>guilt.
Netcom has to prove damages, I believe. X number of people quit Netcom
because... Or Netcom lost or did not get a contract because this rumor
caused...
William J. Evans; mail protected by spamgard{tm}
=== Nothing above this line is part of the message. ===
coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) wrote about Lenny:
: I've seen enough to consider him one of the more pathetic
:little hemorrhoid munching pimple farmers on the net
I hadn't seen any of that before the current issue came before us.
But I must say that my respect for Lenny has dropped tremendously since these things happened:
1. He took his potshot at Netcom.
2. December 1 came and went.
3. We haven't heard a single word from him since, either about the
original predicted December 1 announcement or any of the ensuing
discussion.
Signatures Follow. (tm)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNmZdUu7FqQNEGv6lAQEOyQP9HJUdbPywbKYr9II2pL1+YfQngw21M7Xp
BnejZPwdFepwe3bpkNpvwqGwVt6gXaz52c0hd1SE5Be7NTHtppA1+8aOYjVHpwXe
rVyj36s81pqh4Sy0kKrwRxE4pe0ro8F8nSKxZaE+qKWIuYb4fG7WUiueqJ3W19Am
TO2ztcrcQiU=
=m4Y6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- It is now safe to turn off your computer.
Bill Evans/Box 4829/Irvine, California 92616/(949)551-2766 _ /| ACK!
Email-To: w...@acm.org -- PGP encrypted mail preferred. -- \`o_O' /
Finger w...@netcom.com for public key. Key #: 441AFEA5 =( )=
PGPprint: FB D0 1C 1D EF DC 26 BA B3 9E 84 0B 40 D6 59 9C U
Brett Frankenberger
>bre...@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) writes:
>>In article <gergF3D...@netcom.com>, Greg Andrews <ge...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>If I understand the circumstances correctly, Gary Burnore's account
>>>was shut off after a similar incident. By itself, the incident wasn't
>>>bad enough to close the account, but it was the straw that broke the
>>>camel's back as far as the Abuse Dept. was concerned.
>>
>>Gary was held to a different standard than everyone else.
>
>Netcom customers, or a lower one?
He was kicked off for actions which would have been tolerated from
other people.
Brett "Does it have to be either or" Frankenberger
Aahz Maruch
Speaking of which, BS(W) is still as annoying as ever. See DejaNews for
recent postings in rec.arts.sf.composition if you're a masochist.
Roy Buchanan
>buch...@netcomNOSPAM.com (Roy Buchanan) writes:
>>abos...@netcom.com (Alan Bostick) wrote:
>>
<snipped Lenny>
>>>An authoritative source on the NETCOM staff tells me that this is
>>>completely and utterly false.
>>Hmmm, perhaps. However, this could explain why the shell upgrades,
>>announced back at the end of July, have yet to materialize(?).
>>
>
>No, the later decision to sell off the dialup parts explains it.
>
> -Greg
Understood and thanks for the clarification.
Roy Buchanan
buch...@netcomNOSPAM.com
Brett Frankenberger
>
>Except that for years he *wasn't* kicked off for actions that
>weren't tolerated from other people.
Cite, please? Do you have any specific examples of users who got
tossed for being an asshole?
>Gary was abusive toward other Netcom users, and continued to be
>after he was asked to stop. (I'm talking about the times I asked
>him to stop while I was the shell news admin)
But no one ever got tossed, AFAIK, for that. Spam got you tossed.
Blatently off-charter trolls could get you tossed. Insulting people
never got anyone tossed (which is fortunate, because otherwise you and
I would both be gone).
And I don't buy the suggestion that it was somehow appropriate to toss
Gary for bashing Netcom simply because he had commited other tossable
offenses in the past (assuming, for the purposes of this paragraph,
that he had in fact done so).
>Gary earned his kick off. The only unusual thing about his
>situation was that Netcom let him slide for so long.
He was tossed for bashing Netcom. Bashing of Netcom has always been
specifically allowed in this group.
Ken Bogucki
: >Gary earned his kick off. The only unusual thing about his
: >situation was that Netcom let him slide for so long.
: He was tossed for bashing Netcom. Bashing of Netcom has always been
: specifically allowed in this group.
I suspect he was tossed for a lot of reasons...not the least of which was
sending email to ab...@netcom.com everytime someone sneezed in a manner
he found offensive. I also suspect his sins were committed in newsgroups
outside the netcom groups...and netcom just got tired of the complaints....
ken
Hugh Bonney
: In article <gergF3F...@netcom.com>, Greg Andrews <ge...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >Except that for years he *wasn't* kicked off for actions that
: >weren't tolerated from other people.
: Cite, please? Do you have any specific examples of users who got
: tossed for being an asshole?
: >Gary was abusive toward other Netcom users, and continued to be
: >after he was asked to stop. (I'm talking about the times I asked
: >him to stop while I was the shell news admin)
: But no one ever got tossed, AFAIK, for that. Spam got you tossed.
: Blatently off-charter trolls could get you tossed. Insulting people
: never got anyone tossed (which is fortunate, because otherwise you and
: I would both be gone).
: And I don't buy the suggestion that it was somehow appropriate to toss
: Gary for bashing Netcom simply because he had commited other tossable
: offenses in the past (assuming, for the purposes of this paragraph,
: that he had in fact done so).
: >Gary earned his kick off. The only unusual thing about his
: >situation was that Netcom let him slide for so long.
: He was tossed for bashing Netcom. Bashing of Netcom has always been
: specifically allowed in this group.
A problem in dealing with the Burnore phenmenon is that he
seems to have been, IMHO only, ill. He was smart enough to
do praiseworthy work for NUGLOPS, but most of his postings
here had no content apart from something like a general
extreme anger and Tourette's syndrome. I recall a time (when
shell service was adding users) when GB attacked with obscene
diatribes nearly every poster and reduced traffic to the ng
to nearly zero. Why would Netcom tolerate that? Actually he
was suspended for a while at that point, if memory serves.
It didn't do him any good to indulge his conduct at all -
he needed to be shut down and ostracised when he lost control
and treated in a friendly way when he was civil. And if it
didn't work, he needed to be kicked out. There isn't a question
of his knocking Netcom or being somewhat ill-tempered or
negative - Netcom shouldn't complain about that. But GB's
postings most often had no intelligible content at all, they
were raving.
H.---
Jeffrey Hurwit
coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In article <gergF3D...@netcom.com>, Greg Andrews <ge...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Libel cases are decided in civil courts.
>>
>Generally, perhaps, but I think that it may also be a criminal charge.
>Perhaps one of the various lawyers who read this group would care to
>chime in?
I'm not a lawyer but, AFAIK libel is a criminal charge only in
specific situations that're codified as such. For example, a friend
turned up a law that makes a criminal offence (at some level) of
slander or libel against a bank (and perhaps other similar financial
institutions) if it results in the institution becoming insolvent.
Slander/libel against other businesses with similar results would
not be a criminal offence unless they were similarly protected.
--
jhu...@netcom.com Jeffrey Hurwit
"Sometimes, I just can't help myself!" --Babs Bunny
Jeffrey Hurwit
>In article <gergF3F...@netcom.com>, Greg Andrews <ge...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Gary earned his kick off. The only unusual thing about his
>>situation was that Netcom let him slide for so long.
>
>He was tossed for bashing Netcom. Bashing of Netcom has always been
>specifically allowed in this group.
Besides reasons cited in other follow-ups, didn't Gary earn Netcom's
ire by taking it upon himself to cancel certain kinds of postings
(x-posts into netcom.* from outside Netcom, etc.)?
rmt...@netcom.com
Jeffrey Hurwit <jhu...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <brettfF3...@netcom.com>,
>bre...@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) wrote:
>
>>In article <gergF3F...@netcom.com>, Greg Andrews <ge...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Gary earned his kick off. The only unusual thing about his
>>>situation was that Netcom let him slide for so long.
>>
>>He was tossed for bashing Netcom. Bashing of Netcom has always been
>>specifically allowed in this group.
>
> Besides reasons cited in other follow-ups, didn't Gary earn Netcom's
> ire by taking it upon himself to cancel certain kinds of postings
> (x-posts into netcom.* from outside Netcom, etc.)?
A few other posts got killed other than crossposts. Gary reported
those mistakes to abuse. I think Netcom just wanted to stop a potential
cancel war and thus asked him to stop and altered the TOS to match. To
my knowledge, he immediately ceased the activity. If my memory serves,
Mark Hittinger implemented some code to prevent/reduce crossposts with
non-netcom newsgroups.
Brett Frankenberger
Jeffrey Hurwit <jhu...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <brettfF3...@netcom.com>,
>bre...@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) wrote:
>
>>In article <gergF3F...@netcom.com>, Greg Andrews <ge...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Gary earned his kick off. The only unusual thing about his
>>>situation was that Netcom let him slide for so long.
>>
>>He was tossed for bashing Netcom. Bashing of Netcom has always been
>>specifically allowed in this group.
>
> Besides reasons cited in other follow-ups, didn't Gary earn Netcom's
> ire by taking it upon himself to cancel certain kinds of postings
> (x-posts into netcom.* from outside Netcom, etc.)?
Yes. He threatened to engage in such cancellations, then carried out
his threat. Netcon declared it to be a violation of the TOS[1] and
ordered him to stop. He did. He was later tossed for Netcom bashing,
not for anything related to his cancels.
[1] Alternatively, Hittenger didn't like being shown up by Gary's doing
something Mark had already declared to be impossible, and persuaded
Netcom to change / re-interpret the terms to make Gary stop.
Hugh Bonney
: In article <8ybZ28m9...@netcom.com>,
: Alan Bostick <abos...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >
: >(Note to those who pay attention to the barkings and bayings of the
: >animals: I love my NETCOM shell account, I really do, and I have very
: >little to complain about.)
: Y'know, it's funny, but I actually agree with you at this point in time.
: Oh, there are things that could be improved, and I really wish they'd up
: the disk quota, but lately Netcom has been reasonably fast and reliable
: for both e-mail and netnews -- and there are very few other providers
: with shell that give access to clari.*.
: --
This is true. Mail, clarinews, an occasional command line
development environment for a Sparc system, and occasional use
of an ftp directory have been valuable to me and now one can
use it conveniently on the road as well.
There is clearly a problem with the economics of it - shell
service isn't likely making any money and is now over-provisioned.
That can only last so long - personally I would pay more for it
but I don't know how many of the 10,000 users would. Just keeping
the same email address has some value. So I hope things can
work out in some way. We might remember that many business
types today have no principles at all except avoiding actual
prosecution. And they've been taught in business school that
this is the way things should, and must, be. By that I mean that
instead of a couple of weeks notice to pull files and so on,
the service might just evaporate. I guess we shall see.
H.---