idiots at sexzilla
Lee Jackson Beauregard
zen...@gatecom.com (Michael Zander) wrote:
>
>Who is responsible for the creating (and recreating and recreating
>and recreating booster messages) these damned alt.sexzilla.*,
>alt.www.sexzilla.* and alt.sex.sexzilla.* groups?
>
>Damned cretins.
The newgroup messages all show:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.70.214.20
which reverse-DNR's to ojsimpson.net. The upstream provider is MCI.
WHOIS information for ojsimpson.net:
Intel Telecom Corp (OJSIMPSON3-DOM)
26 Roberts Street
Suite B109-B5
Fargo, ND 58102
US
Domain Name: OJSIMPSON.NET
Domain Status: On Hold
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Gerald, Reynolds W (RWG16) jer...@NETZILLA.NET
701-237-0188
Billing Contact:
Gerald, Reynolds W (RWG16) jer...@NETZILLA.NET
701-237-0188
Record last updated on 11-May-97.
Record created on 11-Feb-97.
Database last updated on 25-May-97 04:56:34 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.NETZILLA.NET 207.70.214.2
NS2.SEXZILLA.COM 207.70.214.9
WHOIS information for 207.70.214.*:
Corporate Communications (NETBLK-CORPCOMM-BLK)
1700 42nd Street SW
Fargo, ND 58103
Netname: CORPCOMM-BLK
Netblock: 207.70.192.0 - 207.70.255.0
Maintainer: CORP
Coordinator:
Kirk, Douglas (DK62) dk...@CORPCOMM.NET
701-277-0011
Domain System inverse mapping provided by:
NS1.CORPCOMM.NET 199.165.217.101
NS2.CORPCOMM.NET 199.165.217.106
Record last updated on 17-Sep-96.
Database last updated on 25-May-97 04:56:34 EDT.
----------
ITC (NETBLK-CORP-INTELCOMM)
PO Box 954
Moorhead, MN 56561
USA
Netname: CORP-INTELCOMM
Netblock: 207.70.214.0 - 207.70.214.255
Coordinator:
Rick, Haider (HR663) ri...@NETZILLA.NET
218-233-5131 (FAX) 218-233-5131
Domain System inverse mapping provided by:
NS1.NETZILLA.NET 207.70.214.2
NS1.SEXZILLA.COM 205.198.56.62
Record last updated on 14-May-97.
Database last updated on 25-May-97 04:56:34 EDT.
--
+------------ Lee Jackson Beauregard, rchason at bigfoot dot com -+---------+
| Opinions expressed here are mine and not those of SmartNet or | Delenda |
| Altopia. And if you don't agree with them, you are racist, | est |
| sexist, elitist, imperialist, Baptist, and possibly even right. | Windoze |
+------ This sig is five lines long to annoy the four-line-sig purists -----+
Lysander Spooner
On 24 May 1997 13:11:32 GMT, zen...@gatecom.com (Michael Zander)
wrote:
>
>Who is responsible for the creating (and recreating and recreating
>and recreating booster messages) these damned alt.sexzilla.*,
>alt.www.sexzilla.* and alt.sex.sexzilla.* groups?
I like 'em. Concentrated crap that can be cancelled without all that
silly mucking about looking for it, or calculating BIs, or reading
it...
>Damned cretins.
CretiN. Singular. His name is Jerry. We're chartering a bus to go
and set his pubic hair on fire. Interested? Bring marshmallows.
-- Rick
-----------
** Did I mention the hot-lead-enema? **
Bring Me The Head Of Sanford Wallace
Animal Rights Activists and the Elders of Zion forced Lee Jackson
Beauregard to say:
# which reverse-DNR's to ojsimpson.net. The upstream provider is MCI.
# WHOIS information for ojsimpson.net:
# Intel Telecom Corp (OJSIMPSON3-DOM)
# 26 Roberts Street
# Suite B109-B5
# Fargo, ND 58102
# US
Directions:
As you come into town on I-94 from Minnesota, take the University Avenue
exit. Go north on University until you get to 13th Avenue South. Turn
right and go to 10th Street, at which point you will want to turn left and
go north. Get into the right-hand lane. Take a right just after the Main
Street underpass, and go down about 3 blocks. Take a left onto Roberts
Street, and you will want to go to the first or second building on
the....left I believe.
If you come in from the west (read: from inside North Dakota), then get
off of I-94 at the West Acres exit and go East on 13th Avenue South until
you get to 10th Street, at which point you want to follow the directions
as normal.
# Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
# Gerald, Reynolds W (RWG16) jer...@NETZILLA.NET
# 701-237-0188
# Billing Contact:
# Gerald, Reynolds W (RWG16) jer...@NETZILLA.NET
# 701-237-0188
# WHOIS information for 207.70.214.*:
# Corporate Communications (NETBLK-CORPCOMM-BLK)
# 1700 42nd Street SW
# Fargo, ND 58103
Ahhh, South Fargo. Gee, I used to live around near there. *goes to check
something*
This address looks awfully damn familiar. Yep--West Acres Mall. Right
around the side.
Directions: Coming in on I-94, take the West Acres Exit. Get onto 13th
Avenue South going west. Take a left onto 42nd Street SW and go about 4
blocks. Should be on the corner of 17th Avenue South and 42nd Street SW,
on your right.
--Camille. Always happy to help. More to come.
--
"It's not every day you meet a Legend." -- Mike Stackpole
"Good, bad.....I'm the guy with the LART."
Ministry of BattleTech URL: http://www.primenet.com/~capella/mob.html
Meille, teille, vai seinaa vasten?
Bring Me The Head Of Sanford Wallace
Animal Rights Activists and the Elders of Zion forced Lee Jackson
Beauregard to say:
# Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
# Gerald, Reynolds W (RWG16) jer...@NETZILLA.NET
# 701-237-0188
# Billing Contact:
# Gerald, Reynolds W (RWG16) jer...@NETZILLA.NET
# 701-237-0188
This might help some: (701)235-9503
NOTE: I do not condone harrassment, nor is this phone number being placed
here for such purposes.
# Coordinator:
# Kirk, Douglas (DK62) dk...@CORPCOMM.NET
# 701-277-0011
101 23rd Av N #308
Fargo,ND 58102-2026
(701)280-9603
NOTE: I do not condone harrassment, nor have I placed this information
here for this purpose. This information is verified to the best of my
ability, and I assume no responsibility for errors.
# ITC (NETBLK-CORP-INTELCOMM)
# PO Box 954
# Moorhead, MN 56561
# USA
# Netname: CORP-INTELCOMM
# Netblock: 207.70.214.0 - 207.70.214.255
# Coordinator:
# Rick, Haider (HR663) ri...@NETZILLA.NET
# 218-233-5131 (FAX) 218-233-5131
The closest I found was a Rick Haider in Mandan, ND. I am assuming that
that information is old, and that this bloke moved east to Moorhead. I
have people checking on this.
--Camille.
ZORRO2
Lysander Spooner wrote:
>
> CretiN. Singular. His name is Jerry. We're chartering a bus to go
> and set his pubic hair on fire. Interested? Bring marshmallows.
>
> -- Rick
> -----------
> ** Did I mention the hot-lead-enema? **
Count me on. BTW, we can rent a bus really cheap: the one Grubor had
rented to go to Canada and kick Chris Lewis' ass is now available.
Regards,
J.C.
Jeffery J. Leader
You won't like this, certainly. Under http://www.netzilla.net/ there
is an entry labeled 'New" that says:
> Attention "Anti-Spammers"
> Click here to learn why Usenet
> advertising is necessary.
If you click there you get the diatribe whioch I've included below
(seen here and there in various forms before). Some high points:
>A cabal of self-appointed, blacklist wielding, anti-business-advertising techno/edu-nerds has apparently decided for all
>the rest of us Usenet participants[...]
>Name calling, however, is abusive everywhere but the Usenet, it seems, where advertisers are called "spammers,"
>"losers," and other assorted negative labels, as though they are evil scum[...]
>Without advertising, you wouldn't own 9/10's of everything you have. And there are forms of free
>advertising in every community (real estate "for sale" signs, posters, flyers, etc.), which cost only for the raw materials and
>distribution, and not for renting space on a temporary basis in any particular media that is owned by someone else.[...]
>Room must also be made for free real advertising on Usenet, since no one person, group, institution or organization has
>the right to monopolize or control this media that we all own individually.[...]
>The techno/edu-nerds have been screaming, crying and throwing temper-tantrums when they should have acted maturely[...]
>[antispammers should have] worked on creating a tool by which all Usenet participants can automatically recognize and remove ads from
>their own personal newsgroup lists or menus, if they so desire.[...]
>[Advertisers] are a mostly unheard from, silent majority of the truly oppressed (economically, socially and even physically)
>whose health and families suffer because they have failed to pierce the thick shells of suspicion, resistance and cynicism[...]
>Legitimate advertising, yes even the seemingly hyped-up variety, is far better than some of the content found on the
>Internet for many years now[...]
>Advertising is the eyes and ears of a society. Without it we are mostly blind and dumb, misperceiving and reacting
>inappropriately to our environment. It comes in many subtle forms, usually mistaken for editorial or news content[...]
>In fact, since available storage space seems to be the hue and cry and the most standard form of objection against
>advertising in newsgroups, rather than duplicate ads being left in each individual newsgroup server, each should contain a
>pointer, set to on as a default--unless modified according to category, type or preference, or deactivated, by the
>individual newsgroup participant--which automatically accesses a central free-net advertisers database, maintained by
>one or several public spirited administrators, who could set a cancel-bot to automatically delete expired ads.[...]
>Programmers are to blame for the present impasse. Those who are able and so inclined should get busy and solve this
>problem in a sane, rational way to everyone's benefit[...]
>Whoever believes that such access to advertisers must not be free, open and available to all, are ignorant of the fact that
>most netvertisers are also already paying to advertise in many other media[...]
>Netvertizers will continue to post ads to newsgroups on Usenet simply because they are the only real form of public
>advertising available on the Internet outside of expensive, limited exposure Worldwide Web Malls, highly regulated online
>services, and a few other resources that are even more expensive or limited in much needed exposure. And also because,
>though the critics of netvertising on Usenet are loathe to admit it, this form of advertising is actually an effective and
>productive source of much needed business for both the advertisers and also for their clients or customers[...]
>Usenet netvertising is better than mass "junk" Email postings, though even these can be a beneficial and effective means of
>netvertising. Again, this should be regulated individually with the help of a similar netvertizing option for Email[...]
>It should only be considered "bad netiquette" for netvertisers who ignore or try to bypass this proper means of
>distributing their netvertisements. Such postings or mailings are only "junk" if the recipient doesn't want or need them [but]
>so-called "junk" Email may be necessary and useful
>to many who receive it as well. Their rights to receive such notices or mail postings should not be infringed or abandoned
>to suit the whims of those who don't wish to receive them, or vice versa.
(Sorry for the lengthy and duplicative quoting, but I just couldn't
resist bringing out some of the real gems from this bozo's screed.
The whole thing is below.)
> The Case For Advertising on Usenet
>
>
>
>
>
> By Richard Scott
>
>
>A cabal of self-appointed, blacklist wielding, anti-business-advertising techno/edu-nerds has apparently decided for all
>the rest of us Usenet participants that advertising--getting a message out in such a way that it reaches people who were
>not already aware of or specifically seeking out that advertiser or his product or service--is so-called "net abuse" or "bad
>netiquette."
>
>They've resorted to what should be thought of as bad manners and offensive conduct in any group or community. They
>assume evil intent of all or most would-be Usenet advertisers, and name call (i.e. "make money fast losers"), concerning
>things they don't, or evidently won't, understand (such as blindly assuming that all multi-level or network marketing
>programs are dishonest "pyramid schemes," even though our courts have judged otherwise), that all businesses are big
>evil corporate giants trying to squash everyone under a burden of debt and unwanted, unneeded products or services
>(paranoia and rumor-mongering), and all advertising for services, products or whatever, to anyone not already interested
>or aware of them--especially without cost on Usenet--is supposedly "off topic," "evil," "bad" behavior that must be
>ridiculed, attacked, harassed and stopped.
>
>They don't realize that their ridicule, harassment and other forms of real abuse--such as canceling all ads, before many
>can notice them, blacklisting advertisers, and campaigning and haranguing to get them kicked off the Internet, are very
>real forms of rotten behavior that shouldn't be tolerated by anyone at any time.
>
>Sure, many Usenet participants "support" these self-appointed "guardians" of the Internet, simply because until now theirs
>has been the predominant voice on the subject, and because they've managed to convince enough newbies that they are
>the only or best "authorities" on what should and shouldn't exist on Usenet, about how it must be run and what all the rest
>of us should think about all this.
>
>Name calling, however, is abusive everywhere but the Usenet, it seems, where advertisers are called "spammers,"
>"losers," and other assorted negative labels, as though they are evil scum invading our homes and mercilessly torturing us
>with unwanted and unneeded garbage.
>
>Who says so? Without advertising, you wouldn't own 9/10's of everything you have. And there are forms of free
>advertising in every community (real estate "for sale" signs, posters, flyers, etc.), which cost only for the raw materials and
>distribution, and not for renting space on a temporary basis in any particular media that is owned by someone else.
>
>Room must also be made for free real advertising on Usenet, since no one person, group, institution or organization has
>the right to monopolize or control this media that we all own individually.
>
>
>
>An Alternative Solution
>
>
>The techno/edu-nerds have been screaming, crying and throwing temper-tantrums when they should have acted maturely
>and realized that instead of trying to disinherit, restrict or control an important and growing segment of Internet users, they
>need instead to see to it that their access does not infringe unnecessarily on those who, for their own reasons, don't want
>to be bombarded with advertising, while leaving ads and advertising free, open and available for the vast majority of the
>rest of us.
>
>Instead of "cancel-bots" (programs that cancel so-called "objectionable" advertising on newsgroups) or cancel-bot
>operators taking it upon themselves to go gunning, in Old West fashion, for any and all advertising, shooting them down
>mercilessly and then informing on the "culprits" to various watchdog boards interested mainly in limiting or eliminating the
>free speech of all advertisers on Usenet, someone should have gotten a little attack of intelligence, put on their thinking
>caps, and worked on creating a tool by which all Usenet participants can automatically recognize and remove ads from
>their own personal newsgroup lists or menus, if they so desire.
>
>This might be a plug-in or a standard feature on popular Internet access programs such as Netscape Navigator, that
>should have a category for advertising purposes which sets a flag so that others can recognize and delete ads (even
>without seeing them first), while leaving the ads available for a limited time (such as a week, fortnight, or month) on its
>host server, which could use the same flag to automatically delete all expired ads each day.
>
>
>
>Who are Advertisers, Really?
>
>
>Not all businesses are corporate conglomerates. Most are small operations and many are being run out of homes by
>enterprising people whose creative sources of commerce have kept our communities vital, growing and productive.
>
>When starting out especially, most of these businesses are cash poor, with little or no financing other than their own
>personal savings or loans from family members, and desperately need access to effective, free advertising sources in
>order for them to attract and win the new customers they need to stay actively in business.
>
>Without this, most such businesses (more than 90%) wither and die an impoverished death within a single year, taking
>with them the hopes, dreams and savings of the hard-working, enterprising owners who have slaved but failed to make
>their goals an enduring reality.
>
>These are a mostly unheard from, silent majority of the truly oppressed (economically, socially and even physically)
>whose health and families suffer because they have failed to pierce the thick shells of suspicion, resistance and cynicism
>so prevalent among our so-called "civilized" societies today.
>
>When these businesses perish, they take along with them the hopes, dreams and incomes of many employees and
>potential employees, who are the "meat and bones" of our societies, as small businesses are the financial "backbone," and
>a barometer of health, in the overall economy.
>
>Without a new and vital Internet advertising resource our societies continue to suffer from economic "osteoporosis" and
>"anemia" (the "blood" produced by the marrow of these "bones" is the capital flowing throughout our communities,
>without which no commerce, business or personal economic growth, and very little else, can take place).
>
>
>
>Why We Need Netvertising
>
>
>Newsgroups, newsgroup moderators or founders, and system or server administrators need to quit acting like offended
>capitalists themselves, whose monopoly has been invaded by mom and pop competitors, and learn to let their
>marketplace decide what it does and doesn't want, instead of trying to squash advertisers like the little annoying "evil
>bugs" they falsely perceive them to be.
>
>Instead, they should embrace their "enemy" and, without losing total control over their individual domains, they should
>accept the fact that staying "on topic" is a lot like trying to find your first job without experience (which you can usually
>only get by having a job first)!
>
>If everyone is expected to believe that advertisements are always "off topic," they're deceiving themselves, and anybody
>who listens to and believes all the silly ranting and raving about the supposed evil nature and purpose of advertisements
>and advertisers on Usenet, is indeed foolish.
>
>Those techno/edu-nerds who do this should grow up and get a real life. They should come out of the confined spaces
>between their ears and interlinked computers and meet the real world. If they get to know reality better, they might finally
>realize that most of their fears are self-created, self-actualizing, self-justifying and just plain selfish!
>
>Legitimate advertising, yes even the seemingly hyped-up variety, is far better than some of the content found on the
>Internet for many years now, and many of the critics of advertisers have tolerated this really abusive behavior on the
>Internet with barely a whisper or whimper of outrage, opposition or indignation (such as pornography and child
>pandering, to name just a couple).
>
>It is also obvious, from the content of many newsgroups, that the would-be teachers of so-called "netiquette" don't even
>live up to their own professed standards when it comes to newbies or even each other. We don't really need a "law" laid
>down for some, while hypocritically abused by the "law-givers," particularly concerning manners and anti-individual
>writing styles and modes of expression; especially when we should each individually already know how to conduct
>ourselves civilly with other people, regardless of the forum or method of communication used.
>
>Considering this abysmal situation, do those responsible for tolerating, or perhaps even condoning or promoting such
>irresponsible activities and behavior really expect to demand the attention, respect and concern of all Internet users in
>their infantile campaign against advertising on Usenet, for example?
>
>Advertising is the eyes and ears of a society. Without it we are mostly blind and dumb, misperceiving and reacting
>inappropriately to our environment. It comes in many subtle forms, usually mistaken for editorial or news content, and is
>sometimes as simple as a positive rumor, personal referral or recommendation (also called "word of mouth advertising").
>
>Sometimes it is loud and ostentatious, in order to get our attention and excite us to action. Whatever it is, or however it is
>presented to us, its main purpose is always to grab your attention to its message in a positive way, and to inform you, and
>then encourage, prompt or even excite you to act and try the product, service or resource advertised.
>
>Good advertisers know that effective advertising is only the beginning of responsibility to their customers, and that they
>must also deliver realistically priced, good quality products and/or services, live up to their claims, and satisfy their
>customers, if they hope to stay in business long.
>
>What the anti-advertising bigots fail to realize is that most ads don't make money for their advertisers (though they can
>cost plenty), since to overcome buyer apathy and cynicism advertisers must often give away or sell their initial product or
>service at a loss, or for just enough to cover costs.
>
>They hope to make any profit they will see from their advertising with future business from satisfied, repeat customers,
>which are called "back-end" offers (so-called, because these are only made to customers who have already tried the
>initial offer, and liked the product or service enough to overcome their sales resistance to other products or services
>featured in follow-up advertising that accompanies delivery of the initial order).
>
>
>
>Freedom of Choice
>
>
>As with any endeavor, there will be those that are dishonest, who will abuse any opportunity, but this is also true of
>anything. We must all work to see to it that only the guilty are punished for actual crimes they have committed, rather than
>allowing anyone to be attacked or punished for assumed or anticipated "crimes," of which they may be entirely innocent,
>and have likely never even considered. Not to mention the practice of using the cyber-pillory against netvertisers for the
>pseudo, non-crime of Usenet advertising.
>
>The category of true "net-abuse" should include anyone who assumes the "authority" to punish any or all Usenet
>advertisers. Hopefully nobody believes that the throw-away card ads that fall out of magazines we subscribe to are
>necessarily "evil" or "abusive." Instead, we each throw them away if they don't interest us. In similar fashion, we each
>need to decide for ourselves whether we want to censor any or all advertising or not, according to our own needs, wants
>or likes. We should not tolerate those who would decide for us what will and will not be censored, when it is a harmless
>and normal activity!
>
>Flags for my proposed "netvertizing" program, plug-in, or feature should allow for determining subject category, so that
>newsgroup users can individually allow or disallow specific types or categories of ads, or even all ads, or automatically
>eliminate objectionable ads, if they so choose.
>
>In fact, since available storage space seems to be the hue and cry and the most standard form of objection against
>advertising in newsgroups, rather than duplicate ads being left in each individual newsgroup server, each should contain a
>pointer, set to on as a default--unless modified according to category, type or preference, or deactivated, by the
>individual newsgroup participant--which automatically accesses a central free-net advertisers database, maintained by
>one or several public spirited administrators, who could set a cancel-bot to automatically delete expired ads.
>
>In this way the needs of both advertisers and newsgroup participants (who can, believe it or not, be one and the same)
>may be met, without trampling mercilessly on the rights and needs of all others who wish to participate. Even without
>automatic access to a central free-advertising database, newsgroups can hardly object to free advertising space on their
>servers, considering all of the objectionable and offensive content they have allowed to reside there unimpeded and
>unmollested for many years.
>
>
>
>Why Usenet Newsgroup Advertising is Necessary!
>
>
>Programmers are to blame for the present impasse. Those who are able and so inclined should get busy and solve this
>problem in a sane, rational way to everyone's benefit, before the unappointed, unelected Net-Kops (the judges, juries
>and executioners, who deceive themselves by their talk of so-called "newsgroup votes" that such actions are somehow
>justified) finally end up giving some bureaucratic government enough of an excuse, with all their complaints, antics and
>abuses of other Internet users, to intervene and destroy the Internet via legislation and enforcement in very real courts for
>new "crimes" that will effectively rob us all of what used to be our cherished freedoms of free speech and the liberty of
>free choice!
>
>The myth that having an advertising only Usenet newsgroup forum, or a home page on the World-Wide Web, is all the
>advertising that is needed or should be tolerated on the Internet ignores some vital facts. For example, no home page, of
>and by itself, can effectively attract new interest unless it is first effectively advertised via other media, so as to alert and
>inform enough potential new visitors of its existence.
>
>Simply listing the home page on various search engine servers is not enough. Like real world advertising, Usenet
>newsgroups--where many different participants gather to learn what's new, different or unique--are an ideal means, and
>the only presently available on the Internet, for advertisers to meet this need, which is why many are daring enough to
>"offend" the few and the mentally and socially constipated with their freely placed ads in various newsgroup forums,
>uninvited.
>
>Whoever believes that such access to advertisers must not be free, open and available to all, are ignorant of the fact that
>most netvertisers are also already paying to advertise in many other media (even if they cannot afford it, because they
>simply can't afford not to).
>
>But very few have the unlimited economic resources to compete with the corporate giants--who may possibly even have
>their shills among those opposing free and open Usenet advertising for just this reason--and to advertise everywhere they
>would like or need to, in order to generate the business they must have to stay in operation.
>
>Netvertizers will continue to post ads to newsgroups on Usenet simply because they are the only real form of public
>advertising available on the Internet outside of expensive, limited exposure Worldwide Web Malls, highly regulated online
>services, and a few other resources that are even more expensive or limited in much needed exposure. And also because,
>though the critics of netvertising on Usenet are loathe to admit it, this form of advertising is actually an effective and
>productive source of much needed business for both the advertisers and also for their clients or customers who have
>dared to respond to such dreaded ads in Usenet forums, even in spite of threats by the few tecno/edu-nerds who have
>dominated this debate from the beginning with their smear and hate campaign against all reason and common sense.
>
>Usenet netvertising is better than mass "junk" Email postings, though even these can be a beneficial and effective means of
>netvertising. Again, this should be regulated individually with the help of a similar netvertizing option for Email, which
>could flag a notice to Email users, who could set their readers to ignore or even delete, unread, any netvertisement
>according to the recipient's perferences.
>
>It should only be considered "bad netiquette" for netvertisers who ignore or try to bypass this proper means of
>distributing their netvertisements. Such postings or mailings are only "junk" if the recipient doesn't want or need them--in
>which case a handy netvertisement option and trash utility for newsgroup postings and Email senders and receivers should
>be a standard feature of their Internet communication software--but so-called "junk" Email may be necessary and useful
>to many who receive it as well. Their rights to receive such notices or mail postings should not be infringed or abandoned
>to suit the whims of those who don't wish to receive them, or vice versa.
>
>
>
>In Conclusion:
>
>
>There is more than one side to this issue, as with most things in life. Both should be heard and a compromise reached that
>is equitable to everyone concerned. This is our duty and responsibility in order to have the kind of resource the Internet is
>capable of being, and promises to become. But there is a long way to go before the Internet reaches this worthy goal.
>
>So the Internet community, in these ways, can and should provide this valuable resource for both netvertisers and their
>potential clients, customers and audiences, as well as for the original purpose of those who helped found and continue to
>build this growing and evolving resource. Either this will happen, or else all our freedoms and vaunted free choice will
>ultimately be limited in unsatisfactory ways for all but the few who desire to monopolize, rule and control everyone else.
>
>The Internet can become the great resource for everyone that it promises to be, so long as we all learn to behave and
>regulate ourselves, limiting our own personal actions to what is acceptable and appropriate behavior for everyone on the
>Internet, rather than the discriminatory and/or offensive conduct of which many involved in this thorny issue have been
>guilty!
Douglas Adams
In article <338c4ade...@204.127.4.20>, JeffL...@WorldNet.att.net
says...
> You won't like this, certainly. Under http://www.netzilla.net/ there
> is an entry labeled 'New" that says:
>
> > Attention "Anti-Spammers"
> > Click here to learn why Usenet
> > advertising is necessary.
>
There's something about being falsely accused that, in this case, is
taking me from lurking mode to a more active participation in this group.
Since the "businessmen" running Netzilla.net seem so offended by modest
namecalling -- such as identifying purveyors of UCE and the like as
"spammers -- I'll avoid such terms.
The insinuation of the Netzilla Manifesto (so to speak) is that anyone
opposed to Usenet and e-mail advertising is anti-business, which is a
politically correct way of calling us communists, socialists, left-wing
radicals or some other nonsense.
Look again and you'll find (as I have in following this group) that the
interests, tactics and politics of the various participants appear to be
quite varied -- about a diverse as you'll find in the general population.
The so-called "cabal" does not seem to be interested in destroying the
Constitution of the United State or trampling upon the rights of
businesses, legitimate or otherwise, to conduct their commercial
endeavors. The exception, and what brings these people together, is a
concern (boy, that's a mild term!) that THEIR rights are being held
hostage by a relatively small group of "business people" who frequently
disreguard establish rules of conduct and Netiquette, ignore legal
restrictions, invade the rights of privacy, often engage in outright
harrassment, and in general engage in practices most "legitimate"
businesses avoid.
That's not to say that all MLM's are pyramid schemes -- though most are.
Many, or even most of us, aren't personally opposed to porn. Hell, I'm
enough of a cival libertarian to believe that caveat emptor is the second
step in business regulation, coming after self-imposed ethics by the
businesses themselves.
Unfortunately, whether these businesses are "legitimate" or not, their
ethical standards fall woefully short when presented with the
technological capabilities of Usenet and e-mail. Though most newsgroups
specifically prohibit advertising and off-topic postings, these
businesses seem to feel that Usenet is private domain. Though it is
illegal to send UCE to .gov, .mil and .edu domains, these businesses
apparently have no sense of legality when posting thousands of messages
to these addresses. Though ALL of us pay some portion of our monthly
access fees for email and Usenet postings we don't want, they force our
service providers and all other links between their computers and ours to
provide additional bandwidth for their postings, and MAKE US pay for it!
And now, with the volume of UCE what it is these days, every legitimate
(no quotation marks needed here) business with email addresses is paying
employees to delete these unwanted solicitations.
I wonder how much of the Silicon Valley payroll goes for hitting "delete"
in mail readers? At GM? Ford? Citibank? Awfully "pink" of them to avoid
your messages by paying an IT staffer to write and update a procmail
script shipping your UCE to /dev/null, isn't it?
I'm reminded of a standup comedian who said that when asked "Mind if I
smoke?" would reply "No. Mind if I fart?"
That's the way we feel about what is commonly referred to as "spam."
I don't mind you advertising in the appropriate places with appropriate
messages. Usenet, and especially my e-mailbox don't qualify for either.
Since I'm not in Fargo, stick you heads up your asses and sniff *really*
hard.
Doug Adams
Join CAUCE and fight spam!
Doug M (aka Nemo)
> is an entry labeled 'New" that says:
>
> > Attention "Anti-Spammers"
> > Click here to learn why Usenet
> > advertising is necessary.
>
> If you click there you get the diatribe whioch I've included below
> (seen here and there in various forms before). Some high points:
<huge, rending gash>
>
> >A cabal of self-appointed, blacklist wielding, anti-business-advertising techno/edu-nerds has apparently decided for all
> >the rest of us Usenet participants[...]
Uh, I think he means us.
> >Name calling, however, is abusive everywhere but the Usenet, it seems, where advertisers are called "spammers,"
So you won't be calling us 'self-appointed, blacklist wielding, anti-
business-advertising techno/edu-nerds' anymore?
> >Newsgroups, newsgroup moderators or founders, and system or server administrators need to quit acting like offended
> >capitalists themselves, whose monopoly has been invaded by mom and pop competitors, and learn to let their
> >marketplace decide what it does and doesn't want, instead of trying to squash advertisers like the little annoying "evil
> >bugs" they falsely perceive them to be.
> >
'Evil Bugs' I kinda like the sound of that.
All this ranting, and I didn't even learn why 'Usenet advertising is
necessary'.
Damn. I was curious too.
Wouf!
Doug
--
Remove 'REMOVE_ME' from address below to reply
mailto: spamless@REMOVE_MEpacbell.net
Lee Jackson Beauregard
JeffL...@WorldNet.att.net (Jeffery J. Leader) wrote:
>You won't like this, certainly. Under http://www.netzilla.net/ there
>is an entry labeled 'New" that says:
[whitespace removed to trim the columns]
>>Attention "Anti-Spammers"
>>Click here to learn why Usenet
>>advertising is necessary.
>
>If you click there you get the diatribe whioch I've included below
>(seen here and there in various forms before). Some high points:
[crap flushed]
These assholes are just like the companies that clear-cut and strip-mine and
then get their panties in a wad when the hunters, fishermen, campers, and
tourists have the audacity to complain.
David Ritz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <338c4ade...@204.127.4.20>, JeffL...@WorldNet.att.net
(Jeffery J. Leader) wrote:
: You won't like this, certainly. Under http://www.netzilla.net/ there
: is an entry labeled 'New" that says:
<...>
: > The Case For Advertising on Usenet
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > By Richard Scott
<...>
You can find the original at
<http://hamilton.htcomp.net/apt/Internet_Advertising.htm>.
There's a good rebuttal at <http://com.primenet.com/spamking/internetad.html>.
I'm not sure how long this thing has been floating around, but the rebullal
has been up since 10 Sep 96.
--
** Let's start heating the lead. **
David Ritz <dr...@primenet.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Finger for Public Keys
iQCVAwUBM4z6PNzLrWGabIhRAQF01AP/ZaQbCjYo0bxv1N63gcDB5cB113abylSw
3vPZZvX85rDsdC2f6qZmtK5bDNOfU3DRBdBPVPBtbbmXoP3JQ6RS2gu59/apfK53
uhSzlj+LKzCgWLoKYcbkhinYWAVNWshbbrqsUwDNpVrCyyAxwCMpZq2XbKIcNqDa
SF+BeYJz0pA=
=xuoP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 28 May 1997, Lee Jackson Beauregard wrote:
> >You won't like this, certainly. Under http://www.netzilla.net/ there
> >is an entry labeled 'New" that says:
>
> [whitespace removed to trim the columns]
>
> >>Attention "Anti-Spammers"
> >>Click here to learn why Usenet
> >>advertising is necessary.
> >
> >If you click there you get the diatribe whioch I've included below
> >(seen here and there in various forms before). Some high points:
>
> [crap flushed]
>
> These assholes are just like the companies that clear-cut and strip-mine and
> then get their panties in a wad when the hunters, fishermen, campers, and
> tourists have the audacity to complain.
Or residents (although, sadly, having been driven in large part into
economic wanness, their voice is muffled)--fortunately, spammers do not
destroy as many lives as strip-miners/clear-cutters...
Stan,
Evil Cabal (*) member who spent one of the three weeks he has spent
working on low-income housing in Southern Appalachia in an area of
Kentucky that had been ruined by strip-mining
* There is no Cabal, Sexzilla kids--the fact that you seriously believe so
shows what a bunch of idiots you are, and how easily the people you
attribute to this "Cabal" could, with their superior intelligence, drive
you off of Usenet in a heartbeat if they actually chose to be unfair.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM5ZZ55yiGl9g1kgJAQE7QQP/fgtbBHzTnjyGy0JctSKJN/DLNLOc7O9J
/zhgLX7uMywY4e0YLZS/g/G54i9iI8rESud0Dfhiilwt1/aUe1er/NZoBNndwz7V
fLcHzMdrJ+GhZ93OaiFucf1h6wqzO8mNaM0Rlpo70beBWil+zx4+3jE39pE6ftr8
McKcF1G+tGk=
=RCe9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 27 May 1997, Phoenix wrote:
> > >A cabal of self-appointed, blacklist wielding, anti-business-advertising
> > >techno/edu-nerds has apparently decided for all the rest of us Usenet
> > >participants[...]
> >
> Isn't there a better insult a spammer can come up with than "nerd"?
Not really--what else do you accuse someone whom you can't beat in an
argument of being? It's necessary for them, especially if they
pathologically believe in their crappy logic, to come up with some kind of
scheme under which the stupider can be right. "The 'Nerd'" is the only
stereotype under which that concept can successfully exist (unless
Sexzilla wants to try something like racism, instead).
<...>
> Marketplace seems to really dislike newsgroup spamming in my experience,
> so I guess I had better take your direction to heart, shouldn't I?
Something like that. I'm still trying to figure out why they think
they're my, among others', competitor. If capitalism applies here,
where's this money I was supposedly making from this market they
supposedly invaded?
They're just so *stupid*--those of you concerned about them should, thus,
worry less, because such stupid people are easily thwarted--they just
haven't been *completely* thwarted yet because of policy problems, if
anything.
<...>
> It appears we're making some progress if they feel the need to rant this
> much. I like the sound of that.
"Me too." I pretty much like it any time they have anything to say. I'm
serious. They reestablish my faith that they're a bunch of idiots waiting
to self-destruct.
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM5Zf8JyiGl9g1kgJAQGUKAP+Lcg3c+7sM/27KigWhwnGYaUmBYeljBLp
4zS2g0ZerDFBxD1iAiMEhB3p2qtZMZ48YFkx6lxXL9KV7RUVRTdX7lqwrpxtm+SQ
iFK/y1S+DkNgmMykW2ha/LEYxib4EB2Y6iDrPbLThBJBgE/+nfvZmqrHz5gnwCuV
dsyUWwTDRqw=
=XyDm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lee Jackson Beauregard
Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
>* There is no Cabal, Sexzilla kids--the fact that you seriously believe so
>shows what a bunch of idiots you are, and how easily the people you
>attribute to this "Cabal" could, with their superior intelligence,
### emphasis ###
>drive
>you off of Usenet in a heartbeat if they actually chose to be unfair.
### emphasis ###
Works for me....
Jeremy
Lee Jackson Beauregard <rch...@bigfoot.com.NO.SPAM.PLEASE> wrote:
>Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
>
>>* There is no Cabal, Sexzilla kids--the fact that you seriously believe so
>>shows what a bunch of idiots you are, and how easily the people you
>>attribute to this "Cabal" could, with their superior intelligence,
>
>### emphasis ###
>>drive
>>you off of Usenet in a heartbeat if they actually chose to be unfair.
>### emphasis ###
>
>Works for me....
Um, yeah, me too. I didn't know we could do that, but if we can,
well, screw "fair".
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
The customer is always right, until he tries to say something.