Raided again
Zenon Panoussis
Half an hour ago a team of copyright infringement
investigators and computer experts, four in total,
left Karin's place after finishing scientology's
latest raid against me and the very first one
against Karin. They had arrived two and a half
hours earlier in the company of two policemen, with
a search warrant signed by the public prosecutor.
The cause: scientology's repeated and persistent
complaints that we are spreading OTs, NOTs and god
knows what nots. The "evidence":
http://search.freewinds.nl/skriptures.html . Yes,
indeed, a webpage saying "you won't find any OTs
and NOTs here" is clear evidence that the OTs and
NOTs are being spread from that site. If you don't
get the logic, you haven't been a scientologist
long enough and you need to work harder on your
bridge.
Anyway, we had the choice between co-operating and
not co-operating. If we did co-operate, we would
be voluntarily subjecting ourselves to an invasion
of privacy, but get the whole thing done and over
with for both parties. If we did not co-operate,
they would be left empty-handed (encrypted drives,
as one should have expected), but we would be left
equally empty-handed while they took the computers
for a year-long futile investigation. We decided
to co-operate and gave them full access, with the
agreement that they wouldn't nose closely on what
obviously, at their own judgement, was not what they
were looking for.
Fine. They found nothing. There was nothing to find.
Our own private copies of the OTs and NOTs, of course,
but those are part of the evidence in our respective
lawsuits and several courts have already ruled that
even if we may not spread them, we may possess them.
So those copies don't count.
To make the search complete and avoid having to go
through the same procedure once again, I offered
the search team to search on the freewinds webserver
too. They gladly accepted and arrived at the same
results: nothing illegal there. The net result is
that I now have an official statement from the
authorities that there is nothing illegal on the
server, which I can use when the CoS complains to
domain registries and search engines and upstream
providers about that same server.
As for the intimidation and harassment value of the
search, we are thinking about a suitable revenge.
A few pickets, better organised and more spectacular
than what we have done so far, seems appropriate.
Better ideas are welcome by e-mail.
Z
Rejo Zenger
Which gives a 404...
--
# Rejo Zenger <re...@sisterray.xs4all.nl> http://www.xs4all.nl/~sister
arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com
wrote:
Well, the incredible nature of the conduct of the international
ponzi scheme of false dreams dba scientology never fails to amaze me.
Hubbard said something luke "Our incredulity is our best defense"
meaning that nobody would believe that "scientology" would do the
things that they do, and attempts to tell the world about what they do
would be met with disbelief....
Im very pleased that you survived this most recent example of
"charatible" "tax exempt" activty on the part of the Scientology scam.
"An individual processed with the aid of the E-meter was said to reach
the intended goal of "clear" and was led to believe there was reliable
scientific proof that once cleared many, indeed most illnesses would
automatically be cured. Auditing was guaranteed to be successful. All
this was and is false -- in short, a fraud. " Federal District Judge
Gesell 333 F. Supp. 357; 1971 U.S. Dist
"That these defendants were willing to frame their critics to the
point of giving false testimony under oath against them and having
them arrested and indicted speaks legions for their disdain for the
rule of law. Indeed, they arrogantly placed themselves above the law,
meting out their personal brand of punishment to those 'guilty' of
opposing their selfish aims. -- Judge Richey in the sentencing of Mary
Sue Hubbard and ten other Scientologists in October 1978 -- US
District Court, Washington DC.
" Scientologists believe that most human problems can be traced to
lingering spirits of an extraterrestrial people massacred by their
ruler, Xenu, over 75 million years ago. These spirits attach
themselves by "clusters" to individuals in the contemporary world,
causing spiritual harm and negatively influencing the lives of their
hosts ". USDJ Judge Leonie Brinkema 4 Oct 96 Memorandum Opinion, RTC
vs Lerma
".. .capable of such danger that the public interest demands that
people should know what is going on " LORD DENNING
Ferengi + Borg = Scientology
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the new millennium
Secrets are the mortar binding lies as bricks together into prisons for the mind
http://www.lermanet.com/grifters.htm - mentioned 4 January 2000 in
The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"
You want Bigots? http://members.cox.net/bwarr2/Movie2.html
ptsc
>In <alpp45$8v9$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>; Zenon Panoussis:
>> knows what nots. The "evidence":
>> http://search.freewinds.nl/skriptures.html . Yes,
>[...]
>Which gives a 404...
Should be http://search.freewinds.cx/skriptures.html
ptsc
Deana Holmes
news:alpp45$8v9$1...@news1.xs4all.nl:
Thanks for the report, Zenon. I commend you for being so calm in the face
of such an invasion of privacy.
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
U®anus
Zenon Panoussis schreef
> Half an hour ago a team of copyright infringement
> investigators and computer experts, four in total,
> left Karin's place after finishing scientology's
> latest raid against me and the very first one
> against Karin.
>
So the Evil body thetans strike back again. Will they never learn?
Why isn't this IMHO criminal organisation prohibited here,
just like in Germany?
Martin Cleaver
> Half an hour ago a team of copyright infringement
> investigators and computer experts, four in total,
> left Karin's place after finishing scientology's
> latest raid against me and the very first one
> against Karin. They had arrived two and a half
> hours earlier in the company of two policemen, with
> a search warrant signed by the public prosecutor.
I find it extremely worrying that the prosecution service and
police in Amsterdam allow themselves to be used by
intimidating crooks like this. We know that $cientology loves to
use intimidation to silence their critics... but fortunately
recently their threats have been more bark than bite.
What has happened to freedom of speech in Holland if you can't
stand up and say that $cientology is an evil, criminal,
brainwashing scam? And provide it with their own laughable
documents?
I was reminded last night, when I watched the CBS/BBC
documentary about 11 September, that the $cientologists claimed
to have done such good works at Ground Zero. Their attempts to
sabotage the work of psychologists helping police and fire
officers! Now they WOULD be good grounds for raids on the
$cientologists themselves!
Strength to all fighting the menace of $cientology!
Rgds
Martin
Johan Wevers
> What has happened to freedom of speech in Holland if you can't
> stand up and say that $cientology is an evil, criminal,
> brainwashing scam? And provide it with their own laughable
> documents?
What freedom of speech? If you are openly politically incorrect, you
had severe problems until very recently. And a politician who said
openly he wanted to change that was shot.
--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers // Physics and science fiction site:
joh...@iae.nl // http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
PGP/GPG public keys at http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/pgpkeys.html
Johan Wevers
> Half an hour ago a team of copyright infringement
> investigators and computer experts, four in total,
> left Karin's place after finishing scientology's
> latest raid against me and the very first one
> against Karin. They had arrived two and a half
> hours earlier in the company of two policemen, with
> a search warrant signed by the public prosecutor.
Were those people scientologists, or were they appionted by the
prosecuter?
> Fine. They found nothing. There was nothing to find.
I hope you made them feel like complete idiots so they won't
do that again very soon.
> As for the intimidation and harassment value of the
> search, we are thinking about a suitable revenge.
> A few pickets, better organised and more spectacular
> than what we have done so far, seems appropriate.
Hmmm. Now they have left the Nieuwezijdse Voorburgwal and that
bookstore, I thought the public presence of Co$ in The Netherlands
had reduced to practically zero which makes picketing only possible
when they organize something. Or am I mistaken here? After all, I
haven't been in Amsterdam since November 2001.
Etienne von Wettingfeld
>> What has happened to freedom of speech in Holland if you can't stand up
>> and say that $cientology is an evil, criminal, brainwashing scam? And
>> provide it with their own laughable documents?
>
> What freedom of speech? If you are openly politically incorrect, you had
> severe problems until very recently. And a politician who said openly he
> wanted to change that was shot.
The motive is still unkown. He might have shot Pim (the politician) because
he was gay, bold or didn't want to sign an authograph. Maybe he was fed up
of seeing Pim on every TV channel every day?
Even before the murder you couldn't say certain things in Holland.
Eventhough what you said was legal there are enough groups to make life hell
for you.
--
Etienne von Wettingfeld [Powered by FreeBSD]
Voice mail & Fax: +31 (84) 8835157 -//- www.doomdark.demon.nl
{ -*- Nam Et Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est -*- } MMII
Karin Spaink
> Zenon Panoussis wrote:
> > Half an hour ago a team of copyright infringement
> > investigators and computer experts, four in total,
> > left Karin's place after finishing scientology's
> > latest raid against me and the very first one
> > against Karin. They had arrived two and a half
> > hours earlier in the company of two policemen, with
> > a search warrant signed by the public prosecutor.
> Were those people scientologists, or were they appionted by the
> prosecuter?
The latter. And uhm, they even got OT-3 t-shirts afterwards, so
that they would not have to leave empty-handed :)
> > Fine. They found nothing. There was nothing to find.
> I hope you made them feel like complete idiots so they won't
> do that again very soon.
We have no reason to insult *them*. They behaved utterly
friendly and correctly. But I do think that the next series of
complaints from CoS about Z or me will be discarded rather
quickly by the prosecutor.
> > As for the intimidation and harassment value of the
> > search, we are thinking about a suitable revenge.
> > A few pickets, better organised and more spectacular
> > than what we have done so far, seems appropriate.
> Hmmm. Now they have left the Nieuwezijdse Voorburgwal and that
> bookstore, I thought the public presence of Co$ in The Netherlands
> had reduced to practically zero which makes picketing only possible
> when they organize something. Or am I mistaken here?
They have a new & fancy building at Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal.
> After all, I haven't been in Amsterdam since November 2001.
Perhaps we can organise something that can remedy that :)
groet,
Karin Spaink
--
I write, therefore I am:
http://www.spaink.net/
Starshadow
> Half an hour ago a team of copyright infringement
> investigators and computer experts, four in total,
> left Karin's place after finishing scientology's
> latest raid against me and the very first one
> against Karin. They had arrived two and a half
> hours earlier in the company of two policemen, with
> a search warrant signed by the public prosecutor.
>
> The cause: scientology's repeated and persistent
> complaints that we are spreading OTs, NOTs and god
> knows what nots. The "evidence":
> http://search.freewinds.nl/skriptures.html . Yes,
> indeed, a webpage saying "you won't find any OTs
> and NOTs here" is clear evidence that the OTs and
> NOTs are being spread from that site. If you don't
> get the logic, you haven't been a scientologist
> long enough and you need to work harder on your
> bridge.
>
I think pickets work pretty well; they not only educate the public but
also
tend to enrage the Scn'ists subjected to them, especially when they
disseminate
how much money the prospective "raw meat" will have to fork over for
their brand of "enlightenment" and the damage done to people in the
name of the scam cult.
Sorry you and Karin had to go through it the raid, though. Nothing
like people invading your sactum santorum to totally ruin a day. But
I'm glad it ended well.
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow (no sig line, still posting from google)
Charlie
So do I. I'm not sure I could've maintained such composure during
such an intrusion. The dissolution of all personal boundaries happens
inside and outside the cult, and is a powerful means of gaining
control.
>
> Deana Holmes
> mir...@sonic.net
Tha Reverend
>The cause: scientology's repeated and persistent
>complaints that we are spreading OTs, NOTs and god
>knows what nots. The "evidence":
>http://search.freewinds.nl/skriptures.html . Yes,
>indeed, a webpage saying "you won't find any OTs
>and NOTs here" is clear evidence that the OTs and
>NOTs are being spread from that site. If you don't
>get the logic, you haven't been a scientologist
>long enough and you need to work harder on your
>bridge.
What's more important to you:
1) Fighting Scientology
2) Pushing your own religion (Say NO to MS) on others
Not smart.
--
Tha Reverend
When all else fails, read the instructions...
Etienne von Wettingfeld
<tha_rev...@SPAMdolfijn.nl> wrote:
> What's more important to you:
> 1) Fighting Scientology
> 2) Pushing your own religion (Say NO to MS) on others
Hoe groot is je toewijding aan punt 1 als je de moeite niet wil nemen om een
gratis browser te downloaden?
Tha Reverend
>On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 22:21:29 +0200, Tha Reverend
><tha_rev...@SPAMdolfijn.nl> wrote:
>
>> What's more important to you:
>> 1) Fighting Scientology
>> 2) Pushing your own religion (Say NO to MS) on others
>
>Hoe groot is je toewijding aan punt 1 als je de moeite niet wil nemen om een
>gratis browser te downloaden?
Tjonge jonge jonge. Laat me raden, dat ik IE gebruik en het een
perfecte browser vindt en daardoor "evil" MS "steun" betekend
natuurlijk direct dat ik Scientology goedkeur?
(Overigens heb ik Mozilla heus wel uitgeprobeerd, ik vind IE prettiger
werken dan Mozilla. Daarnaast had ik eerst versie 1.1 gedownload.
Lekker is dat, moet je weer versie 1.01 downloaden vanwege security
issues. Maakt dus ook niks uit tov IE. (Tenminste zo komt het over op
mijn (uiteraard) clueless (want ik vind IE prettig) persoon.)
Etienne von Wettingfeld
<tha_rev...@SPAMdolfijn.nl> wrote:
>>> What's more important to you:
>>> 1) Fighting Scientology
>>> 2) Pushing your own religion (Say NO to MS) on others
>>
>>Hoe groot is je toewijding aan punt 1 als je de moeite niet wil nemen om een
>>gratis browser te downloaden?
>
> Tjonge jonge jonge. Laat me raden, dat ik IE gebruik en het een perfecte
> browser vindt en daardoor "evil" MS "steun" betekend natuurlijk direct dat
> ik Scientology goedkeur?
Nee, het betekent dat je de teksten op de bewuste site niet interessant
genoeg vindt om er een kleine moeite voor te doen. Ik vind CoS ook niks,
maar ik interesseer me er verder totaal niet voor. Hoewel ik dus allerlei
browsers heb heb ik die site niet bekeken.
> (Overigens heb ik Mozilla heus wel uitgeprobeerd, ik vind IE prettiger
> werken dan Mozilla. Daarnaast had ik eerst versie 1.1 gedownload. Lekker
> is dat, moet je weer versie 1.01 downloaden vanwege security issues. Maakt
> dus ook niks uit tov IE. (Tenminste zo komt het over op mijn (uiteraard)
> clueless (want ik vind IE prettig) persoon.)
Je moet niks, maar je moet wel gebruiken wat je zelf het prettigste vindt.
:)
Martin Cleaver
>> What's more important to you:
>> 1) Fighting Scientology
>> 2) Pushing your own religion (Say NO to MS) on others
>
> Hoe groot is je toewijding aan punt 1 als je de moeite niet
> wil nemen om een gratis browser te downloaden?
Ik denk dat jij die vraag moet stellen aan diegene die zijn
pagina aan 97 procent van internet gebruikers ontzegd. Ik heb
zelfs voor Opera betaald (3 upgrades ook nog) maar het blijft
een onding om te gebruiken, anders zouden toch veel meer mensen
gebruik van maken? Het gaat mij erom dat je geen actie tegen
$cientologie kan baseren op een kleine minderheid die meer tegen
Microsoft hebben dan tegen Hubbard (Jaloersie? ;-)
Groet
Martin
Etienne von Wettingfeld
>>> What's more important to you:
>>> 1) Fighting Scientology
>>> 2) Pushing your own religion (Say NO to MS) on others
>>
>> Hoe groot is je toewijding aan punt 1 als je de moeite niet
>> wil nemen om een gratis browser te downloaden?
>
> Ik denk dat jij die vraag moet stellen aan diegene die zijn
> pagina aan 97 procent van internet gebruikers ontzegd.
97% van de browser gebruikers. :)
> Ik heb zelfs voor Opera betaald (3 upgrades ook nog) maar het blijft een
> onding om te gebruiken, anders zouden toch veel meer mensen gebruik van
> maken?
Mensen gebruiken IE, omdat dat standaard bij Windows zit. Veel mensen
bezoeken nooit http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ en gebruiken alleen de
standaard software die bij de installatie van Windows aanwezig was. De
populairste Linux browser is Konqueror, omdat die standaard bij KDE zit.
> Het gaat mij erom dat je geen actie tegen $cientologie kan baseren op een
> kleine minderheid die meer tegen Microsoft hebben dan tegen Hubbard
> (Jaloersie? ;-)
Ja, dat zou kunnen.
Jeta
Zenon Panoussis (ora...@xs4all.nl) :
> Half an hour ago a team of copyright infringement
> investigators and computer experts, four in total,
> left Karin's place after finishing scientology's
> latest raid against me and the very first one
> against Karin [Spaink]. They had arrived two and a
> half hours earlier in the company of two policemen,
> with a search warrant signed by the public prosecutor.
Toemaar, een Officier van Justitie die zich door de
scientology-sekte heeft laten misleiden.
Want dat het misleiding betreft is evident: er
werden geen bestanden of andere bewijsmaterialen
aangetroffen die erop duiden dat de copyrights van de
sekte werden, of worden, geschonden.
Hoe heet die Officier van Justitie?
Op grond waarvan tekende zij/hij dat bevel tot
huiszoeking?
Is Justitie verplicht om de 'aanwijzingen'/materialen
op grond waarvan tot de huiszoeking werd besloten, aan
de ex-verdachten te verstrekken? Zo ja, dan is dit een
mooie gelegenheid om in detail te zien hoe de
scientology-sekte critici, 'vijanden' en 'suppressieve
personen' erin probeert te luizen.
[...]
> Anyway, we had the choice between co-operating and
> not co-operating. If we did co-operate, we would
> be voluntarily subjecting ourselves to an invasion
> of privacy, but get the whole thing done and over
> with for both parties. If we did not co-operate,
> they would be left empty-handed (encrypted drives,
> as one should have expected), but we would be left
> equally empty-handed while they took the computers
> for a year-long futile investigation.
Met andere woorden: Justitie kan een woning
binnenvallen, dreigen met in beslagname van computers,
en dwingen prive-documenten te tonen, _zonder_
deugdelijke aanwijzingen en gedegen vooronderzoek.
Dat is griezelig. En onacceptabel.
Jeta Eggers
--
Scientology's systematische schending van de privacy:
Boudewijn van Ingen
wrote:
>
>Half an hour ago a team of copyright infringement
>investigators and computer experts, four in total,
>left Karin's place after finishing scientology's
>latest raid against me and the very first one
>against Karin.
Oh, boy. Are the judges that are still deliberating on the verdict of
Karin's courtcase aware of this latest attempt at intimidation by
$cientology?
>They had arrived two and a half
>hours earlier in the company of two policemen, with
>a search warrant signed by the public prosecutor.
Is it possible to obtain that search warrant and/or the complaint it
was based on for publication?
>The cause: scientology's repeated and persistent
>complaints that we are spreading OTs, NOTs and god
>knows what nots. The "evidence":
>http://search.freewinds.nl/skriptures.html . Yes,
>indeed, a webpage saying "you won't find any OTs
>and NOTs here" is clear evidence that the OTs and
>NOTs are being spread from that site. If you don't
>get the logic, you haven't been a scientologist
>long enough and you need to work harder on your
>bridge.
>
>Anyway, we had the choice between co-operating and
>not co-operating. If we did co-operate, we would
>be voluntarily subjecting ourselves to an invasion
>of privacy, but get the whole thing done and over
>with for both parties. If we did not co-operate,
>they would be left empty-handed (encrypted drives,
>as one should have expected), but we would be left
>equally empty-handed while they took the computers
>for a year-long futile investigation. We decided
>to co-operate and gave them full access, with the
>agreement that they wouldn't nose closely on what
>obviously, at their own judgement, was not what they
>were looking for.
Heh, the thought crossed my mind that this could be a very elaborate
way for Karel Jeelof to try to obtain my address, so he can file his
suit against me (or start throwing stones through my window)... ;-)
;-)
>Fine. They found nothing. There was nothing to find.
>Our own private copies of the OTs and NOTs, of course,
>but those are part of the evidence in our respective
>lawsuits and several courts have already ruled that
>even if we may not spread them, we may possess them.
>So those copies don't count.
>
>To make the search complete and avoid having to go
>through the same procedure once again, I offered
>the search team to search on the freewinds webserver
>too. They gladly accepted and arrived at the same
>results: nothing illegal there. The net result is
>that I now have an official statement from the
>authorities that there is nothing illegal on the
>server, which I can use when the CoS complains to
>domain registries and search engines and upstream
>providers about that same server.
>
>As for the intimidation and harassment value of the
>search, we are thinking about a suitable revenge.
>A few pickets, better organised and more spectacular
>than what we have done so far, seems appropriate.
>Better ideas are welcome by e-mail.
Thanks for the update and keep up the good work!
--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
hans
Is het in zo'n geval mogelijk nu een justitiele tegenactie te beginnen
omdat valse beschuldigingen zijn geuit en de goede naam van individuen
geschaad? Kan daar dan een financiele boete aan gekoppeld worden? Of
anders een publiek geuitte verontschuldiging?
Is it worthwhile and possible to take legal action for false
accusations? Is it possible to sue for defamation (or at least for
disturbing the peace), followed by financial compenstation and/or public
apologies from the accusers?
h.
Marc
wrote:
>
what an enormous patience you have
given your tale I for shure would take "no prisoners"
perhaps a counter raid would be a proper retaliation
you can surely think of a reason for it.
M.
Marc
wrote:
>Martin Cleaver wrote:
>
>> What has happened to freedom of speech in Holland if you can't
>> stand up and say that $cientology is an evil, criminal,
>> brainwashing scam? And provide it with their own laughable
>> documents?
>
>What freedom of speech? If you are openly politically incorrect, you
>had severe problems until very recently. And a politician who said
>openly he wanted to change that was shot.
by AFAWK a single person, not the police, not a political
organisation, not by a ridicule organisation called $cientology.
I'd say perhaps an Email action to al concerning politicians asking
them to declare them $cient(&%##!&#&%$*%! illegal would be a good
idea.
M.
Tha Reverend
>Is it worthwhile and possible to take legal action for false
>accusations? Is it possible to sue for defamation (or at least for
>disturbing the peace), followed by financial compenstation and/or public
>apologies from the accusers?
Don't mean to flame you Hans, but waarom ook in het engels? De groepen
zijn toch allemaal nederlandse groepen? Of doe ik weer es dom?
--
Tha Reverend
I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learners permit...
Zenon Panoussis
Martin Cleaver wrote:
>
> I find it extremely worrying that the prosecution service and
> police in Amsterdam allow themselves to be used by
> intimidating crooks like this [...]
They do not. I know that scientology has been filing
complaints against me to the prosecuror for years now,
and I have to assume that what I know is only the top
of the iceberg. Put yourself in the prosecutor's shoes.
He knows that the scienos are a bunch of liars, he knows
that the complaints are most probably false, but he does
have a certain obligation to investigate if the complaints
*seem* credible enough. The word "seem" is the key here;
after all, you don't really know what's true unless you
do investigate. Scientology has no scruples against lying,
so they can easily make a complaint seem credible.
The way I see it, today's raid was based on insufficient
suspicion evidence, but humanly it was rather natural and
to be expected after all the pressure that scientology has
put on the authorities. For all I know, the prosecutor
probably thought "Let's search. If we find nothing, then
we can definitely tell scientology to go to hell and get
rid of them. If we do find something, then they might have
been right all along and we have to acknowledge and protect
their rights either we like them or not". Strictly speaking
this way of arguing is against the law, which requires a
certain strength of suspicion before a search (the mere
repetition of a complaint does not strengthen it), but
from a human point of view it's understandable.
The end result is going to be that the prosecutor will be
even more careful next time scientology complains. If he
waited four years before acting wrongly this time, he will
wait forty-four years before doing the same next time. At
the end of the line this *strengthens* the rechtszekerheid
of the citizen (and it's really remarkable that English has
no word for rechtszekerheid).
> What has happened to freedom of speech in Holland if you can't
> stand up and say that $cientology is an evil, criminal,
> brainwashing scam? And provide it with their own laughable
> documents?
Freedom of speech and copyrights are exceptions to each-other:
freedom of speech is an exception to copyright, but copyright
is also an exception to freedom of speech. Besides, criminals
have rights too, as scientology's lawyer Ruprecht Hermans
accurately pointed out to the court in scientology's case
against Karin (which he lost, and see footnote). It's a balance
of interests and, as all other balances, it has to be made by
humans. It will therefore never be perfect and its standard
can only be judged in relative terms. Well, while Dutch
justice realy sucks, I am still much happier to be living
in Holland than I would be in most other places in the world.
That's very relative, but it's what actually counts.
Z
Note: Hermans pleading at the Hague district court: "The
possibly criminal nature of my clients is not relevant
to this case". Tsja. Nobody in the audience managed to
keep a straight face.
Zenon Panoussis
Martin Cleaver wrote:
>
> ... Het gaat mij erom dat je geen actie tegen
> $cientologie kan baseren op een kleine minderheid die meer tegen
> Microsoft hebben dan tegen Hubbard (Jaloersie? ;-)
Je bent al op het verkeerde been als je een actie tegen wie
dan ook baseert op een kwestie van minder- of meerderheiden,
of op wat die mogenheiden denken over wie dan ook. Als je je
acties niet baseert op wat je *zelf* denkt, is jouw inzet
sowieso waardeloos in welke actie dan ook.
Damn, these arguments are really forcing me to improve my
Dutch :)
Z
===
a.r.s. translation services (Inc.[TM]):
> ... What I mean is that you cannot base an action against
> $cientology on a little minority who are more against
> Microsoft than against Hubbard (Jealousy? ;-)
You are already on the wrong footing if you base any action
against anybody on issues of minorities or majorities or on
what such powers think about anybody at all. If you do not
base your actions on what *you yourself* think, is your
contribution to any action whatsover worthless anyway.
Damn, these arguments are really forcing me to improve my
Dutch :)
Z
Zenon Panoussis
Jeta wrote:
>
> Toemaar, een Officier van Justitie die zich door de
> scientology-sekte heeft laten misleiden.
> Want dat het misleiding betreft is evident: er
> werden geen bestanden of andere bewijsmaterialen
> aangetroffen die erop duiden dat de copyrights van de
> sekte werden, of worden, geschonden.
> Hoe heet die Officier van Justitie?
Wouter van Schaijck (or any other possible spelling of
"van Schijk").
> Op grond waarvan tekende zij/hij dat bevel tot
> huiszoeking?
Dunno yet, but will. "Complaint of copyright infringements"
was the reason given. Not specific enough, sure, but you
can't expect the policeman who searches a house to give
the answers that the prosecutor ows you. The prosecutor
will get these questions from a lawyer and he will reply
to them, I'm sure.
> Is Justitie verplicht om de 'aanwijzingen'/materialen
> op grond waarvan tot de huiszoeking werd besloten, aan
> de ex-verdachten te verstrekken? Zo ja, dan is dit een
> mooie gelegenheid om in detail te zien hoe de
> scientology-sekte critici, 'vijanden' en 'suppressieve
> personen' erin probeert te luizen.
As long as the suspicion of the criminal activity which
was the ground of this search has not been formally dropped,
we are suspects and we have the right to appoint a lawyer
and the lawyer has a right to the file. I don't know the
minute details in Dutch law, but I don't really see many
obstacles between that file and Usenet.
> Met andere woorden: Justitie kan een woning
> binnenvallen, dreigen met in beslagname van computers,
> en dwingen prive-documenten te tonen, _zonder_
> deugdelijke aanwijzingen en gedegen vooronderzoek.
> Dat is griezelig. En onacceptabel.
Yes, but at the prosecutor's own risk. If he does it
on obviously insufficient grounds and against the wrong
people, his career can strand on judges as well as on
the public opinion.
The "against the wrong people" is the part you should
worry most about. If a prosecutor raids Karin or me on
insufficient grounds, he can easily end up facing hell.
We are privileged in having a social position, friends,
a certain status, and big mouths that know what they're
talking about. In short: we know the law, we know more
people who know the law, and we can make ourselves heard
and put force behind our arguments. That doesn't make
things any better for that vast number of innocent sods
who are unjustilly and unlawfully harassed and have no
recourse to any of our remedies. From a principal point
of view, *that* is far more worrying than a raid against
Karin and me.
Z
Karin Spaink
> Zenon Panoussis <ora...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >The cause: scientology's repeated and persistent
> >complaints that we are spreading OTs, NOTs and god
> >knows what nots. The "evidence":
> >http://search.freewinds.nl/skriptures.html .
> What's more important to you:
> 1) Fighting Scientology
> 2) Pushing your own religion (Say NO to MS) on others
>
> Not smart.
When I opposed Scientology in the Netherlands, some people
warned me that that was 'not smart'. I knew that, yet I fought
them. Guess where that landed me? In the position to be able to
legally spread quotes of OT2 and OT3.
Smart? No. But both Zenon and I have always been fighting
Scientology on our *own* terms, never spending too much time on
the question of what would be useful to others, or 'smart' as
they would call it. We did what we deemed necessary. And
somehow, both of us have attaind more for the CoS critics than
many critics who were just bent on being 'smart'.
Phil Scott
The 'smartest' is to have courage and integrity... You and Zenon have
demonstrated that, and its rewards... its a good life that way...the scum
never prevails against good people with courage and integrity like that.
Congratulations. The criminal cult bites the dust yet again.
Next is seems they may be tied to Mohamed Atta the terrorist.
That will impress the hell out of all the victims, police and firemen.
Phil Scott
Dave Bird
<ora...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>As for the intimidation and harassment value of the
>search, we are thinking about a suitable revenge.
>A few pickets, better organised and more spectacular
>than what we have done so far, seems appropriate.
>Better ideas are welcome by e-mail.
I'm sure all these people replying on nl.scientology
would gladly join you in a picket :-> :-> :->
We have done many pickets in the UK, it really winds them up.
In article<lga1oucc0fkrevl3s...@news.xs4all.nl>, Karin
Spaink <ksp...@xenu.org> writes:
>Johan Wevers <joh...@iae.nl> kindly wrote:
>> Zenon Panoussis wrote:
>
>> > Half an hour ago a team of copyright infringement
>> > investigators and computer experts, four in total,
>> > left Karin's place after finishing scientology's
>> > latest raid against me
>>
>> Were those people scientologists, or were they appionted by the
>> prosecuter?
>
>The latter. And uhm, they even got OT-3 t-shirts afterwards, so
>that they would not have to leave empty-handed :)
[.........]
>We have no reason to insult *them*. They behaved utterly
>friendly and correctly. But I do think that the next series of
>complaints from CoS about Z or me will be discarded rather
>quickly by the prosecutor.
Are there formal or political channels for complaining that this
was a fraudulent complaint, based on false or misleading evidence,
a waste of police time, etc? The prosecutor himself may feel
hard done by, and wish to sanction CofS for a false complaint.
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
.................................................................
STOP PRESS: EIGHTY SEVEN MILLION THIN DIMES FOR WOLLERSHEIM =====>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63143-2002May9.html
Boudewijn van Ingen
wrote:
>
In normal circumstances, I would advise you to find a lawyer, and get
a 'schadeloosstelling' from the prosecutor's office for what they did.
If the Dutch "strong arm" is wrong in what it does somehow, the
victims of those actions are almost automatically entitled to a
financancial restitution of their damages.
As an illustration: I once was very ill. To the point that I had so
much pain that I hadn't slept for about three nights. That was over
the weekend. By sunday evening, rather sunday night, very late, I took
-very much against my habit- some strong painkillers. As a result I
slept so thouroughly on monday morning that I could not call in to the
place I worked to tell them what was wrong. Nor did I hear the phone
next to my bed. Nor did I hear the doorbell, apparently. So naturally,
my collegues at work became very worried -they knew about my alleged
handicap- and they did alarm the authorities. To make a long story
short, I was very surprised to be woken up by a police officer at my
bedside. And I guess he was as glad as I was when he found out I
wasn't really dead. Still, my front door had been smashed to pieces in
the process. Apologies came my way, and a few hours later the damage
was restored, apparently payed for by the same "authorities" that
invaded my privacy. (And I am still feeling thankful to all concerned
in that incident, but that is not what I was trying to say here.)
Then again, you're not exactly in "normal circumstances"... ;-)
>The end result is going to be that the prosecutor will be
>even more careful next time scientology complains.
That is still not enough, as far as I'm concerned. Obviously I have to
talk to more people in the Dutch Judicial system. Jeez, just because I
know a few of them doesn't mean I like them. This is going to be a
hard job... ;-)
>If he
>waited four years before acting wrongly this time, he will
>wait forty-four years before doing the same next time. At
>the end of the line this *strengthens* the rechtszekerheid
>of the citizen (and it's really remarkable that English has
>no word for rechtszekerheid).
Now you mention it, I'm puzzled as well. Could that be the reason that
Americans rather shoot each other than trust their judicial system to
solve any problem they might have? ;-)
>> What has happened to freedom of speech in Holland if you can't
>> stand up and say that $cientology is an evil, criminal,
>> brainwashing scam? And provide it with their own laughable
>> documents?
>
>Freedom of speech and copyrights are exceptions to each-other:
>freedom of speech is an exception to copyright, but copyright
>is also an exception to freedom of speech. Besides, criminals
>have rights too, as scientology's lawyer Ruprecht Hermans
>accurately pointed out to the court in scientology's case
>against Karin (which he lost, and see footnote). It's a balance
>of interests and, as all other balances, it has to be made by
>humans. It will therefore never be perfect and its standard
>can only be judged in relative terms. Well, while Dutch
>justice realy sucks, I am still much happier to be living
>in Holland than I would be in most other places in the world.
>That's very relative, but it's what actually counts.
>
>Z
>
>
>Note: Hermans pleading at the Hague district court: "The
>possibly criminal nature of my clients is not relevant
>to this case". Tsja. Nobody in the audience managed to
>keep a straight face.
I was busy making notes. But I must admit that I couldn't keep my pen
straight when he said that. What a silly man.
--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
Martin Cleaver
> > ... What I mean is that you cannot base an action against
> > $cientology on a little minority who are more against
> > Microsoft than against Hubbard (Jealousy? ;-)
>
> You are already on the wrong footing if you base any action
> against anybody on issues of minorities or majorities or on
> what such powers think about anybody at all. If you do not
> base your actions on what *you yourself* think, is your
> contribution to any action whatsover worthless anyway.
>
> Damn, these arguments are really forcing me to improve my
> Dutch :)
Okay... I have been using this technology since the mid eighties
and set up a project back then to use Fidonet for the arts. Soon
realised that it was not a very friendly technology and have
ever since been intrerested in bringing technology to people and
not the other way round.
Internet use is groing explosivle but, as it does so, the old
traditions and community of nerds is getting swamped by
newbies... who actually USE the computer to work as opposed to
keep it as a hobby.
I feel a bit in between as someone interested in the technology
but also in its use... BUt as Internet grows, more and
more people need to be made aware of the dangers of e.g.
$cientology and of Microsoft... but by barring that great
majority, you are not warning them of the dangers of Microsoft,
only making them less likely to hear your message about
$cientology. Now that is silly ;-)
Regards
Martin
ptsc
wrote:
>Zenon Panoussis <ora...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Not smart.
While Zenon's stance against MS has an annoying result in this case,
it gives me a chance to state that it is indeed possible to use his site
while still using IE. However horrible MS may be, and however awful
IE may be in comparison to what might exist without MS' malign influence
on the browser market, for the moment it's the best browser for its
platform. I'm not changing browsers to see Zenon's site.
However, I don't have to. I also don't like seeing ads or being bombarded
with popups for porn and other things I don't want invading my desktop
against my will.
So I have another program to block that crap. http://proxomitron.cjb.net
is the site where the Proxomitron lives. Nicely, the Proxomitron also has
a feature to send whatever browser string you like. Once installed (and
proxy settings changed) pick "Headers" in the configuration, page down
to "User-Agent" and either pick one of the ones there or type in your
own. Currently I send out "Lynx/2.8.3dev.8 libwww-FM/2.14FM"
You could send out anything, though, including "Xenu's Favorite
Web Browser" or "Marcab/Galactica 23.2.32 build 8-80-88."
This way I resist the attempt by the self-righteous user to bludgeon the
viewers of his page into changing their browser, meanwhile getting to
see the site anyway ;-) Needless to say I don't have the ridiculous setting to
download the entire site for offline viewing that Zenon claims is his bandwidth-
related reason for blocking IE.
Anything which changes the outgoing User-Agent header in order to
indicate anything other than IE will get around this. I think this makes
a mockery (or at least a silly symbolic gesture) of attempts to express
displeasure against Microsoft by blocking 90% of your viewers from
seeing your page.
ptsc
Martin Cleaver
> Nee, het betekent dat je de teksten op de bewuste site niet
> interessant genoeg vindt om er een kleine moeite voor te
> doen.
Doe niet zo raar. Ji jen ik installeren en deinstalleren
programmas tig keer per dag.... maar de grote meerderheid (97%?
;-) niet. De grote meerderheid heeft even veel recht op
informatie en kan even veel steun bieden, maar hebben nooit van
hun leven een programma geinstaleerd. Daar zijn ze echt niet
minder door, hoor!
Groet
Martin
Etienne von Wettingfeld
>> Nee, het betekent dat je de teksten op de bewuste site niet
>> interessant genoeg vindt om er een kleine moeite voor te
>> doen.
>
> Doe niet zo raar.
Wuuuhuuu!
> Ji jen ik installeren en deinstalleren programmas tig keer per dag....
> maar de grote meerderheid (97%? ;-) niet. De grote meerderheid heeft even
> veel recht op informatie en kan even veel steun bieden, maar hebben nooit
> van hun leven een programma geinstaleerd. Daar zijn ze echt niet minder
> door, hoor!
Ik wil ook niet zeggen dat ze minder zijn en het had mij ook verstandiger
geleken de site ook voor IE toegankelijk te maken (sowieso dat het een
browser discussie zou schelen), maar met matige kennis en een kleine moeite
moet het toch mogelijk Netscape te installeren.
Er zijn mensen die 1.000 gulden voor een zwart Britney Spears kaartje
betalen of 3 dagen voor een bioscoop gaan liggen om Star Wars te zien. Ik
geef je gelijk dat het eigenlijk onnodig moet zijn extra moeite te doen om
deze site te bezoeken, maar mensen die er echt op willen komen komen er op
(als ze moeite doen).
Tha Reverend
>> What's more important to you:
>> 1) Fighting Scientology
>> 2) Pushing your own religion (Say NO to MS) on others
>>
>> Not smart.
>
>When I opposed Scientology in the Netherlands, some people
>warned me that that was 'not smart'. I knew that, yet I fought
>them. Guess where that landed me? In the position to be able to
>legally spread quotes of OT2 and OT3.
>
>Smart? No. But both Zenon and I have always been fighting
>Scientology on our *own* terms, never spending too much time on
>the question of what would be useful to others, or 'smart' as
>they would call it. We did what we deemed necessary. And
>somehow, both of us have attaind more for the CoS critics than
>many critics who were just bent on being 'smart'.
You don't understand my point. My point is that his site isn't
viewable for people who happen to use IE as a browser. If you would
like to fight Scientology with info for others on your site, it would
be smart NOT to block the IE users. Now he's blocking 97% of all
people with browsers.
--
Tha Reverend
Having children is hereditary: If your parents didn't have any,
then you probably won't either...
Tha Reverend
>This way I resist the attempt by the self-righteous user to bludgeon the
>viewers of his page into changing their browser, meanwhile getting to
>see the site anyway ;-) Needless to say I don't have the ridiculous setting to
>download the entire site for offline viewing that Zenon claims is his bandwidth-
>related reason for blocking IE.
I also have tools too download complete sites, but that's beside my
point. Nevermind, If he doesn't wat me (or other IE users) too view
his site than I don't. Not because I am too lazy to download another
browser, but because he himself is showing arrogance and can't be
taken seriously.
>Anything which changes the outgoing User-Agent header in order to
>indicate anything other than IE will get around this. I think this makes
>a mockery (or at least a silly symbolic gesture) of attempts to express
>displeasure against Microsoft by blocking 90% of your viewers from
>seeing your page.
Exactly my point.
Cor
>You don't understand my point. My point is that his site isn't
>viewable for people who happen to use IE as a browser. If you would
>like to fight Scientology with info for others on your site, it would
>be smart NOT to block the IE users. Now he's blocking 97% of all
>people with browsers.
Even on Internet we're not allowed to sit on every bus. Only the ones
with people like yourself.
Cor
Tha Reverend
>>You don't understand my point. My point is that his site isn't
>>viewable for people who happen to use IE as a browser. If you would
>>like to fight Scientology with info for others on your site, it would
>>be smart NOT to block the IE users. Now he's blocking 97% of all
>>people with browsers.
>
>Even on Internet we're not allowed to sit on every bus. Only the ones
>with people like yourself.
At least my bus is bigger and crowdier than the other bus... hmmm
don't know if that is a good thing though ;-]
--
Tha Reverend
Disc space, the final frontier...
Marc
<tha_rev...@SPAMdolfijn.nl> wrote:
>hans <j.j.ri...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>Is it worthwhile and possible to take legal action for false
>>accusations? Is it possible to sue for defamation (or at least for
>>disturbing the peace), followed by financial compenstation and/or public
>>apologies from the accusers?
>
>Don't mean to flame you Hans, but waarom ook in het engels? De groepen
>zijn toch allemaal nederlandse groepen? Of doe ik weer es dom?
Mischien omdat de originele poster de nederlandse taal nog niet
helemaal onder de knie heeft, en daarom in het Engels gepost heeft met
als rede dat de essentie en de inhoud van het bericht veel
belangrijker is dan de vorm ( in dit geval de engelse taal) en juist
het onderwerp van vrije meningsuiting en openbaarheid van rechtspraak,
voor xs4all, en daarmee haar abbonee's zowel als lezers van de
nieuwsgroepen nl.scientology, en nl.juridisch een te belangerijk isue
is om in taal onvolkomenheden verloren te zien gaan?
(jesus ik ben buiten adem, wat een krankzinige zin)
Maybe because the original poster does not have sufficient knowledge
of the dutch language, and therefore posted in the english language
for reasons that the essence of the posting is by far more important
then the form ( in this case the english language) explicitly the
subject of freedom of speech and public accessible and therefor
controllable justice, to XS4al and her clients as wel as readers of
the newsgroups nl.scientology, and nl.juridisch an issue to important
is to lose over inconsistency of word?
note :-)
db
>
> Zenon Panoussis <ora...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >The cause: scientology's repeated and persistent
> >complaints that we are spreading OTs, NOTs and god
> >knows what nots. The "evidence":
> >http://search.freewinds.nl/skriptures.html . Yes,
> >indeed, a webpage saying "you won't find any OTs
> >and NOTs here" is clear evidence that the OTs and
> >NOTs are being spread from that site. If you don't
> >get the logic, you haven't been a scientologist
> >long enough and you need to work harder on your
> >bridge.
>
> 1) Fighting Scientology
> 2) Pushing your own religion (Say NO to MS) on others
why one or the other, while both don't exclude each other?
as a matter of fact, the two are completely unrelated. especially since
'say no to ms' isn't (presented as) a religion.
db
Peter Peters
>> What's more important to you:
>> 1) Fighting Scientology
>> 2) Pushing your own religion (Say NO to MS) on others
>
>why one or the other, while both don't exclude each other?
>as a matter of fact, the two are completely unrelated. especially since
>'say no to ms' isn't (presented as) a religion.
Considering newer versions of IE has/had the posiblitiy for
organizations with enough money to have IE alter the appearance and
content of the visited websites. Those organizations could make IE add
links to their sites instead of to sites of competitors or critics.
--
Peter Peters
senior netwerkbeheerder, Centrum voor Informatievoorziening,
Universiteit Twente, Postbus 217, 7500 AE Enschede
telefoon: +31 53 489 2301, fax:+31 53 489 2383, http://www.utwente.nl/civ
Martin Cleaver
> Ik wil ook niet zeggen dat ze minder zijn en het had mij
> ook verstandiger geleken de site ook voor IE toegankelijk
> te maken (sowieso dat het een browser discussie zou
> schelen)...
Dit is geen browser discussie. Een browser discussie
interesseerd mijn niet echt. Ik heb niets tegen Opera en Mozilla
en Netscape en heb ze inderdaad niet zo lang geleden weer eens
geprobeerd, maar was iet tevrede, nou en?
Dit gaar over iemand die blijkbaar vind dat een goede manier van
mensen beinvloeden om Mickeysoft niet te gebruiken is censuur
plegen: "Je komt er niet in met Internet Explorer".
Dat vind ik stom en ook zorgwekkend. Ik sta pal achter Karin en
Zenon wat $ betreft en de klotenknijper, maar deze tactiek zal
nooit helpen om welke alternatieve browser dan ook te promoten.
Groet
Martin
Etienne von Wettingfeld
>> Ik wil ook niet zeggen dat ze minder zijn en het had mij ook verstandiger
>> geleken de site ook voor IE toegankelijk te maken (sowieso dat het een
>> browser discussie zou schelen)...
>
> Dit is geen browser discussie. Een browser discussie interesseerd mijn
> niet echt. Ik heb niets tegen Opera en Mozilla en Netscape en heb ze
> inderdaad niet zo lang geleden weer eens geprobeerd, maar was iet tevrede,
> nou en?
Okay, dan is het geen browser discussie, maar een discussie waarin veel
browser namen vallen. :)
> Dit gaar over iemand die blijkbaar vind dat een goede manier van mensen
> beinvloeden om Mickeysoft niet te gebruiken is censuur plegen: "Je komt er
> niet in met Internet Explorer".
Dat is jammer dat hij dat doet en hij had het denk ik beter niet kunnen
doen, maar hij mag en kan die keuze maken. Censuur vind ik een groot woord
in deze zaak. Iedereen kan er in principe bij door een andere browser dan IE
te gebruiken en ik ben overtuigd dat iemand die echt 100% bij die teksten
wilt komen zal zorgen dat hij/zij een non-IE browser regelt.
Maar zoals gezegd denk ik dat het beter zou zijn de site voor alles en
iedereen open te zetten.
> Dat vind ik stom en ook zorgwekkend. Ik sta pal achter Karin en Zenon wat
> $ betreft en de klotenknijper, maar deze tactiek zal nooit helpen om welke
> alternatieve browser dan ook te promoten.
Wie geen andere browser dan IE kent heeft nu toch een aantal alternatieven
gehoord. :)
Zenon Panoussis
Boudewijn van Ingen wrote:
>
> In normal circumstances, I would advise you to find a lawyer, and get
> a 'schadeloosstelling' from the prosecutor's office for what they did.
> If the Dutch "strong arm" is wrong in what it does somehow, the
> victims of those actions are almost automatically entitled to a
> financancial restitution of their damages.
Yeah. There was no physical damage done, they didn't break
anything. What's left is the waste of our time and the
immaterial damage of invasion of privacy. If you get wrongly
arrested and jailed, you get 100 euro per day that you spend
in jail. If you are wrongly searched for three hours, how
much do you get then? 15 euro? Am I supposed to accept the
insult of such a sum on top of the search? I'd rather do
without.
Z
Zenon Panoussis
ptsc wrote:
>
[MSIE block]
> Anything which changes the outgoing User-Agent header in order to
> indicate anything other than IE will get around this. I think this makes
> a mockery (or at least a silly symbolic gesture) of attempts to express
> displeasure against Microsoft by blocking 90% of your viewers from
> seeing your page.
Not really. By using MSIE with a fake user agent you
undermine those "97% of all people use MSIE" statistics
which are used as an argument why yet more people should
use MSIE and why web developers shouldn't care about
cross-browser compatibility etc. If your fake user agent
is an incitament to web authors to avoid M$-specific
code, something significant can be gained anyway.
Z
Tha Reverend
>> What's more important to you:
>> 1) Fighting Scientology
>> 2) Pushing your own religion (Say NO to MS) on others
>
>why one or the other, while both don't exclude each other?
>as a matter of fact, the two are completely unrelated.
That's exactly my point. However I am not capable of getting his info
on 1 if i am using IE. He's is doing both. That's the problem here.
>especially since
>'say no to ms' isn't (presented as) a religion.
So far it's presented as a religion (see other posts of Zenon). With
the same fanatism as pushing a religion on others.
--
Tha Reverend
I didn't know it was impossible when I did it...
Zenon Panoussis
Martin Cleaver wrote:
>
> Dit gaar over iemand die blijkbaar vind dat een goede manier van
> mensen beinvloeden om Mickeysoft niet te gebruiken is censuur
> plegen: "Je komt er niet in met Internet Explorer".
Now, now, big words. Freedom of speech is not an *obligation*
to speak, is it? If I choose to tell something to Jan but not
to Piet, you can't claim that I'm censoring Piet, can you? Or
even that I'm censoring myself? Well, that's the situation
here. I am providing certain sites to Jan, but not to Piet.
I'm telling you "this is a pub for Ajax supporters, you can't
come in wearing that Feyenoord shirt". I'm saying "this is a
members-only club and you can buy membership by downloading
a browser". If you call that censorship, you need to buy a
new dictionary.
Z
Marcel de Groot
<tha_rev...@SPAMdolfijn.nl> wrote in
<5iu1oucdl36otrgrr...@news.xs4all.nl>:
>
>(Overigens heb ik Mozilla heus wel uitgeprobeerd, ik vind IE prettiger
>werken dan Mozilla. Daarnaast had ik eerst versie 1.1 gedownload.
>Lekker is dat, moet je weer versie 1.01 downloaden vanwege security
>issues.
Ehh, hoe kom je daarbij??
Van de Mozilla homepage: "Mozilla 1.0 users that have not already
upgraded to Mozilla 1.1 are strongly encouraged to upgrade to 1.0.1."
>Maakt dus ook niks uit tov IE. (Tenminste zo komt het over op
>mijn (uiteraard) clueless (want ik vind IE prettig) persoon.)
Er staat dat je naar 1.0.1 moet upgraden ALS je 1.1 nog niet
gedownload hebt..Niet dat je terug moet naar 1.0.1
--
Marcel
--
Marcel
Cor
Imho its a new, modern version of discrimination. There are legions of
people for who 'downloading a browser' is too difficult. Let alone
'installing a browser'. Who own a 14k4 modem which would be busy for 2
days just 'downloading a browser'. They buy Windows because that's what
works for them. And it comes with IE, which works for them. My mom is one
of them.
They want to see your site, which doesn't work for them, because they
don't belong to the smart, internet savvy unix elite. They are
'not allowed on the bus'.
Sure, they have no right to see your website. And you can do whatever you
want with your website. And sure, it sucks that webmasters create sites
that only work right in IE. But geez, I really don't see the point in
disallowing IE from a website. It is worse than any IE only site, because
I bet most of those are just out of ignorance.
Cor
Marc
wrote:
>
I'd charge them my our rate + v.a.t. @ a minimum of four hours
If they were not willing to pay they soon would see a bill collector.
furthermore a complaint for " smaad " ( what's the English word any
way) to the $cientologists and drag them in court for a "dwangsom"
(my english is slowly deteriorating) if they continue to do so. And on
top of that go to the police for falsely accusing you of doing
anything illegal.
M.
Jan van Aalderen (Z)
>
> Deana Holmes <mir...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<Xns928733C6F16D...@208.201.224.154>...
> > Zenon Panoussis <ora...@xs4all.nl> wrote in
> > news:alpp45$8v9$1...@news1.xs4all.nl:
> >
> > >
> > > Half an hour ago a team of copyright infringement
> > > investigators and computer experts, four in total,
> > > left Karin's place after finishing scientology's
> > > against Karin. They had arrived two and a half
> > > hours earlier in the company of two policemen, with
> > > a search warrant signed by the public prosecutor.
> > >
> > > The cause: scientology's repeated and persistent
> > > complaints that we are spreading OTs, NOTs and god
> > > knows what nots. The "evidence":
> > > http://search.freewinds.nl/skriptures.html . Yes,
> > > indeed, a webpage saying "you won't find any OTs
> > > and NOTs here" is clear evidence that the OTs and
> > > NOTs are being spread from that site. If you don't
> > > get the logic, you haven't been a scientologist
> > > long enough and you need to work harder on your
> > > bridge.
> > >
> > > not co-operating. If we did co-operate, we would
> > > be voluntarily subjecting ourselves to an invasion
> > > of privacy, but get the whole thing done and over
> > > with for both parties. If we did not co-operate,
> > > they would be left empty-handed (encrypted drives,
> > > as one should have expected), but we would be left
> > > equally empty-handed while they took the computers
> > > for a year-long futile investigation. We decided
> > > to co-operate and gave them full access, with the
> > > agreement that they wouldn't nose closely on what
> > > obviously, at their own judgement, was not what they
> > > were looking for.
> > >
> > > Fine. They found nothing. There was nothing to find.
> > > Our own private copies of the OTs and NOTs, of course,
> > > but those are part of the evidence in our respective
> > > lawsuits and several courts have already ruled that
> > > even if we may not spread them, we may possess them.
> > > So those copies don't count.
> > >
> > > To make the search complete and avoid having to go
> > > through the same procedure once again, I offered
> > > the search team to search on the freewinds webserver
> > > too. They gladly accepted and arrived at the same
> > > results: nothing illegal there. The net result is
> > > that I now have an official statement from the
> > > authorities that there is nothing illegal on the
> > > server, which I can use when the CoS complains to
> > > domain registries and search engines and upstream
> > > providers about that same server.
> > >
> > > As for the intimidation and harassment value of the
> > > search, we are thinking about a suitable revenge.
> > > A few pickets, better organised and more spectacular
> > > than what we have done so far, seems appropriate.
> > > Better ideas are welcome by e-mail.
> >
> > of such an invasion of privacy.
>
> So do I. I'm not sure I could've maintained such composure during
> such an intrusion. The dissolution of all personal boundaries happens
> inside and outside the cult, and is a powerful means of gaining
> control.
>
> >
> > Deana Holmes
> > mir...@sonic.net
Ik vrees, dat ik het tuig - althans de twee leden van de crminele
organisatie - zo over de balustrade gekieperd had. Het wordt tijd, dat
de wetgever actie neemt tegen dat soort rapalje, dat stelselmatig het
recht verkracht om commerciële doeleinden na te jagen, nu de
rechterlijke macht blijkbaar hetzij ingekapseld is, hetzij door haar
gebruikelijke onmacht malafide gebruikers van de wet te weerstreven
teneinde de bonafide krachten in de samenleving effectief te steunen.
Het lijkt erop, dat de Chinese regering 1 van de weinige is die bereid
is effectief op te treden tegen pseudoreligieuze drammers. Ook de
Japanse heeft wellicht haar lesje geleerd, hoewel daar de mosterd na de
maaltijd is uitgereikt. Waar ik gevoelsmatig weliswaar een lichte
voorkeur voor heb, maar gezien de sociale kosten slechts een hele
lichte.
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Jan van Aalderen, Amstelveen
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Wie mijn raad volgt, doet zulks geheel op eigen risico!
Reactie op usenetpostjes svp in de groep. Email zal bouncen.
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Jan van Aalderen (Z)
> > > investigators and computer experts, four in total,
> > > left Karin's place after finishing scientology's
> > > latest raid against me and the very first one
> > > against Karin. They had arrived two and a half
> > > hours earlier in the company of two policemen, with
> > > a search warrant signed by the public prosecutor.
>
> > prosecuter?
>
> The latter. And uhm, they even got OT-3 t-shirts afterwards, so
> that they would not have to leave empty-handed :)
OJ. Nu komen ze nog een keer, aangezien het tuig zal aanvoeren dat deze
mensen door jou/jullie zijn omgekocht!
> > > Fine. They found nothing. There was nothing to find.
>
> > I hope you made them feel like complete idiots so they won't
> > do that again very soon.
>
> We have no reason to insult *them*. They behaved utterly
> friendly and correctly. But I do think that the next series of
> complaints from CoS about Z or me will be discarded rather
> quickly by the prosecutor.
Tenzij ze die in hun zak hebben. Er worden de laatste jaren veel te veel
idiote vonnissen geveld om niet aan te nemen dat justitie en de
rechterlijke macht door deze of gene duistere krachten gecorrumpeerd
zijn. Het alzheimergehalte onder bureaucraten is altijd hoog geweest,
maar het begint nu toch echt opvallend te worden.
.............
>
> groet,
> Karin Spaink
Zenon Panoussis
Cor wrote:
>
[MSIE block]
> Imho its a new, modern version of discrimination. There are legions of
> people for who 'downloading a browser' is too difficult. Let alone
> 'installing a browser'. Who own a 14k4 modem which would be busy for 2
> days just 'downloading a browser'. They buy Windows because that's what
> works for them. And it comes with IE, which works for them. My mom is one
> of them.
Anyone using a 14.4 K modem in these days is out of his
mind. A rather modest user can end up paying more than
a 56.6 K modem costs every month over for the extra cost
of the telephone calls over a 14.4 K line.
> They want to see your site, which doesn't work for them, because they
> don't belong to the smart, internet savvy unix elite. They are
> 'not allowed on the bus'.
Hmm. Your mom of all people happens to have a son who
belongs to the cream of the smart, internet savvy unix
elite, and that son is aware of the fact that she is
using a 14.4 K modem but hasn't bought her a better
one (27 euro at http://www.magna.nl/Modems.htm with
voice), and yet the same son is now criticising me for
not taking his mom into account. Hmm again.
> Sure, they have no right to see your website. And you can do whatever you
> want with your website. And sure, it sucks that webmasters create sites
> that only work right in IE. But geez, I really don't see the point in
> disallowing IE from a website. It is worse than any IE only site, because
> I bet most of those are just out of ignorance.
You can't have it all, I can't have it all, your mom
can't have it all. I would much like to slap Microsoft
where I get an opportunity, spread my information about
scientology to as many people as possible, educate and
help the ignorant net users to be less ignorant, and
on so forever. In real life I cannot combine these
ambitions and I need to choose. In this particular case
I chose to slap M$ at the cost of not informing about
scientology for the simple reason that there are plenty
of anti-CoS sites around, while my MSIE block was a
truly unique idea that nobody had come up with before.
If I choose for blocking MSIE your mom can still find
out everything she needs to know about the CoS. If I
choose against blocking MSIE nobody would ever find out
whether doing so can have any effect on the usage of
MSIE and what that effect could be.
As for helping and educating ignorant net users, I tried.
Honestly. But I do have my limits. The following is cut
and paste from a mail I wrote to someone sometime ago
who was asking about the MSIE block:
There's more to it than meets the eye. Try cooking dinner
with this recipe:
- Server behind an ADSL line, 64 Kb upstream, later 128.
- A number of relatively popular websites on it, most of
them in the order of 50 -80 MB.
- MSIE by default "off-line files: on" on W2K laptops,
others intentionally and cluelessly setting it so.
Visitor V visits one single page, downloads all 50 MB
on the site. Visitor W visits one single page, accidentally,
downloads another 70 MB on a site. Visitor X trying to
read a simple text page times out. Search engine Y trying
to index the site times out and abandons. Webmaster and
server owner Z trying to fetch his mail has to fire up
the analogue modem before he can get anywhere.
That's what started the MSIE block. At first, I only blocked
off-line mode based on obscure undocumented MS user-agent
strings. People mailed me "I'm not off-line, you moron, I
am connected, yet I can't get in your site". I played
helpdesk for a while, then wrote a FAQ and put it on the
block page. I didn't get less mail; I got more. "That
so-called control panel of yours, where do I find that?"
I got fed up, sick of the shit. Sick of facing the choice
of either wasting all my bandwidth to Microsoft's irresponsible
defaults or wasting all my time to Microsoft's millions of
clueless customers. That's when MSIE took a plunge on my
server.
Mind you, the political statement I'm making on the block
page now is not an excuse; I really think what I say about
MS (and much more than that). I'm just saying now that
there's more to it.
By now the server has moved out of its ADSL cage and has a
decent 10 Mbps connection to the world. By now I can get my
mail at any time without having to dial in. However, by now,
I have discovered the pleasures of fucking with Microsoft
and having the upper hand. As the old truth goes, it takes
a lot of effort to build something and very little effort
to ruin it. If I can, with not much of an effort, contribute
to ruining the usability of MSIE (and of standard Windows
in general through that), nothing will convince me to not
do it. After all, I'd be doing the same even if it did cost
me a significant effort.
Now then, let's put things back in their right place.
You wouldn't be criticising me for not having made a
website to begin with. You wouldn't be accusing me for
taking down an existing site, be it because I got tired
of it or because I didn't want to pay for it any more
or for whatever reason. You are asking me to be kind
to users who don't know how to install a browser. You
have a lot of understanding for people who only think
of their own convenience and can't be bothered to think
of anybody else's (think Outlook users and the recurring
storms of virii that you personally have to deal with
every day), but you have very little understanding for
somebody who attaches some consequence to this and says
"if you don't even want to try to understand how to use
our own computer, you cannot count on me to solve your
problems". Then, instead of commending me for the fact
that I provide certain information to at least some
people, you berate me for not providing it to everybody.
To me, this looks as if I gave a guilder to a street
musician, did not give a guilder to another street
musician, and then somebody comes along and criticises me
for not taking into account the needs and the misfortunes
of the second street musician.
Having read all this, do you still think that I am worse
than those who make MSIE-only sites out of pure ignorance?
Do you still think that my MSIE block is "a new, modern
version of discrimination"? And, in case you do, are you
willing to take over my scientology search engine and any
other of my MSIE-blocked sites which you yourself think
should be available to your mom? If your answer to all
three questions is yes, then the sites that you yourself
choose are yours immediately and you have forfeited your
right to criticise me for the sites that you choose to
not take over.
Z
Karin Spaink
[Zenon's search engine pages refuses IE users]
> Ik denk dat jij die vraag moet stellen aan diegene die zijn
> pagina aan 97 procent van internet gebruikers ontzegd.
<grin>
Imagine Zenon's defense if this raid ends up in a court case.
"Your honorable, Scientology claims thatI am spreading their
material, but many internet users are claiming that they cannot
reach my site. In fact, they claim that 97% of users cannot see
my site. Yet, Scientology claims that I am distributing to the
general public. I claim that I am not distributing anything and
that *what* I distribute is only distributed to non-IE users."
Btw, this IE-block of Zenon - which I am not in favour of,
although I do agree that Zenon has the right to block whomever
the fuck he wants - is efective. He has forced not only
Scientology to download and use a non-IE browser, but also
Buma/Stemra and the Amsterdam prosecutor :)
groet,
Karin Spaink
--
I write, therefore I am:
http://www.spaink.net/
Paul Rubin
Zenon Panoussis <ora...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Anyone using a 14.4 K modem in these days is out of his mind. A
>rather modest user can end up paying more than a 56.6 K modem costs
>every month over for the extra cost of the telephone calls over a
>14.4 K line.
Depends where they are... most users in the USA pay a fixed amount
per month for local phone service regardless of how much they use.
>I chose to slap M$ at the cost of not informing about
>scientology for the simple reason that there are plenty
>of anti-CoS sites around, while my MSIE block was a
>truly unique idea that nobody had come up with before.
Actually, quite a few people have came up with the same idea at
different times, and got hassled over it for the same reason that
you're getting hassled.
Here's a clever compromise that's been circulating for a year or so:
http://unlikely.org/mike/hacks/mod_msff.c
MSFF stands for "Microsoft-Free Friday". mod_msff.c is an Apache
module that blocks out MSIE only on Fridays. Anyone browsing with
MSIE on Friday gets told to try again on a different day.
See <http://davenet.userland.com/2001/06/13> for more info.
Zenon Panoussis
Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>>... my MSIE block was a
>>truly unique idea that nobody had come up with before.
> Actually, quite a few people have came up with the same idea at
> different times, and got hassled over it for the same reason that
> you're getting hassled.
> Here's a clever compromise that's been circulating for a year or so:
> http://unlikely.org/mike/hacks/mod_msff.c
Buuuuuhuhuhuhuh. I was totally convinced I had an original
idea, and here you come proving that nothing's new under
the sun.
> MSFF stands for "Microsoft-Free Friday". mod_msff.c is an Apache
> module that blocks out MSIE only on Fridays. Anyone browsing with
> MSIE on Friday gets told to try again on a different day.
> See <http://davenet.userland.com/2001/06/13> for more info.
I'm already gleeing at the prospect of hacking the module to
allow (that's six times worse) access on one random day of the
week, a day which changes every time the module is loaded, but
I have a problem: I don't only serve my own websites, but also
those of other people. I can block my own sites all I want, but
I can hardly load a module into the server that blocks other
people's websites unless *all* site owners agree. I know at
least one who wouldn't and she's sitting next to me grinning.
Thinking of it though, I have more than one IP. I can run more
than one server on the same port of the same machine. I can
load a module on the one server and not on the other. Hmm,
Paul, you just gave me something to dig into for the rest of
the weekend. However, I don't know whether I should thank you
or curse you for it. I had a lazy weekend in mind, originally...
Z
Paul Rubin
Zenon Panoussis <ora...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>I'm already gleeing at the prospect of hacking the module to
>allow (that's six times worse) access on one random day of the
>week, a day which changes every time the module is loaded, but
>I have a problem: I don't only serve my own websites, but also
>those of other people. I can block my own sites all I want, but
>I can hardly load a module into the server that blocks other
>people's websites unless *all* site owners agree. I know at
>least one who wouldn't and she's sitting next to me grinning.
>
>Thinking of it though, I have more than one IP. I can run more
>than one server on the same port of the same machine. I can
>load a module on the one server and not on the other. Hmm,
If you're going to hack the module, you should hack it so that it can
be activated on a per-virtual-host or per-file basis or from a .htaccess.
It looks like the original author didn't bother to do that. Maybe
there's a version you can Google for, that does that already. I
remembered that module because there was a Slashdot post about it
when it was first released a year or so ago. It's possible people
have been hacking at it since then.
Colon Bowels
"Zenon Panoussis" <ora...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:alpp45$8v9$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>
> Half an hour ago a team of copyright infringement
> investigators and computer experts, four in total,
> left Karin's place after finishing scientology's
> latest raid against me and the very first one
> against Karin. They had arrived two and a half
> hours earlier in the company of two policemen, with
> a search warrant signed by the public prosecutor.
>
It serves you fucking right, you EVIL, EVIL, EVIL, worthless welfare
slurping
degenerate sub-human scumbags !
Colon Bowels
Colon Bowels
"Martin Cleaver" <martinATcleaverDOTnl> wrote in message
news:Xns92879F7C7DFC...@194.109.133.20...
> Zenon Panoussis <ora...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > Half an hour ago a team of copyright infringement
> > investigators and computer experts, four in total,
> > left Karin's place after finishing scientology's
> > latest raid against me and the very first one
> > against Karin. They had arrived two and a half
> > hours earlier in the company of two policemen, with
> > a search warrant signed by the public prosecutor.
>
> police in Amsterdam allow themselves to be used by
> intimidating crooks like this.
Abuse report sent !
Colon Bowels
Dr.Ruud
> Here's a clever compromise that's been circulating for a year or so:
> http://unlikely.org/mike/hacks/mod_msff.c
> MSFF stands for "Microsoft-Free Friday". mod_msff.c is an Apache
> module that blocks out MSIE only on Fridays. Anyone browsing with
> MSIE on Friday gets told to try again on a different day.
Or on odd days, to get even. (hey, just joking)
Reminds me of certain sites that don't work on Sundays.
Maybe it' this one: http://www.christenunie.nl/
or certainly one much like it.
--
Affijn, Ruud
db
>
> Zenon Panoussis <ora...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>
> >> Dit gaar over iemand die blijkbaar vind dat een goede manier van
> >> mensen beinvloeden om Mickeysoft niet te gebruiken is censuur
> >> plegen: "Je komt er niet in met Internet Explorer".
>
> >Now, now, big words. Freedom of speech is not an *obligation*
> >to speak, is it? If I choose to tell something to Jan but not
> >to Piet, you can't claim that I'm censoring Piet, can you? Or
> >even that I'm censoring myself? Well, that's the situation
> >here. I am providing certain sites to Jan, but not to Piet.
> >I'm telling you "this is a pub for Ajax supporters, you can't
> >come in wearing that Feyenoord shirt". I'm saying "this is a
> >members-only club and you can buy membership by downloading
> >a browser". If you call that censorship, you need to buy a
> >new dictionary.
>
> Imho its a new, modern version of discrimination. There are legions of
> people for who 'downloading a browser' is too difficult.
because MS tries to make it so that it seems as though
illiterates to can use computers.
i think we'd better not conform to the dumbest common
denominator.
db
Tha Reverend
>> Imho its a new, modern version of discrimination. There are legions of
>> people for who 'downloading a browser' is too difficult.
>
>because MS tries to make it so that it seems as though
>illiterates to can use computers.
>i think we'd better not conform to the dumbest common
>denominator.
Ofcourse you don't have too. But if you want people to view your
information, you better do.
--
Tha Reverend
If a book about failures doesnt sell, is it a success?
Cor Bosman
> > people for who 'downloading a browser' is too difficult. Let alone
> > 'installing a browser'. Who own a 14k4 modem which would be busy for 2
> > days just 'downloading a browser'. They buy Windows because that's what
> > works for them. And it comes with IE, which works for them. My mom is one
> > of them.
>Anyone using a 14.4 K modem in these days is out of his
>mind. A rather modest user can end up paying more than
>a 56.6 K modem costs every month over for the extra cost
>of the telephone calls over a 14.4 K line.
Who cares if it's 14k4 or 56k. It is besides the point. So in my mom, who
isnt even on Internet. It's a metaphor for almost everyone's mom. There is
an army of people on the Internet who do not really understand what
'downloading a browser' means. They don't even know what MSIE means.
If you tell them 'it's that picture you click on your computer, the third
one from the bottom', then maybe.
They should download what, 10 to 15MB of software, not to mention additional
plugins and Java just so they 'don't support the bad bad Microsoft'.
> > Sure, they have no right to see your website. And you can do whatever you
> > want with your website. And sure, it sucks that webmasters create sites
> > that only work right in IE. But geez, I really don't see the point in
> > disallowing IE from a website. It is worse than any IE only site, because
> > I bet most of those are just out of ignorance.
>You can't have it all, I can't have it all, your mom
>can't have it all. I would much like to slap Microsoft
>where I get an opportunity, spread my information about
>scientology to as many people as possible, educate and
>help the ignorant net users to be less ignorant, and
They are not 'ignorant users'. They are just plain 'users'.
>ambitions and I need to choose. In this particular case
>I chose to slap M$ at the cost of not informing about
You are not slapping M$ at all. You really think they are now
cowering in fear? The only people you are hurting are those that
want to use the Internet as a daily tool, and use the equipment handed
to them. They are not yet ready to create their own equipment.
Thinking they'll learn faster by disallowing access to information is
in my opinion the wrong way. I guess we disagree :)
>truly unique idea that nobody had come up with before.
I think lots of people have thought of it before.
>to users who don't know how to install a browser. You
>have a lot of understanding for people who only think
>of their own convenience and can't be bothered to think
>of anybody else's (think Outlook users and the recurring
>storms of virii that you personally have to deal with
>every day), but you have very little understanding for
>somebody who attaches some consequence to this and says
>"if you don't even want to try to understand how to use
>our own computer, you cannot count on me to solve your
>problems". Then, instead of commending me for the fact
>that I provide certain information to at least some
>people, you berate me for not providing it to everybody.
I indeed have understanding (admittedly, most of it only recently)
for people that are new to technology and barely know how to wield
that technology. Crafting their own sword is something that will
come in time. I really think they don't know better, and are just using
the tools provided to them.
This is not about the fact that some people can't reach your information.
Indeed, if it was password protected, I would not have responded.
It is about the fact that you are treating people like ignorant idiots
that are seemingly out to destroy the free world on purpose by using
the evil tools of the Microsoft Empire.
It is my opinion that they are just using what they know, and all the
power to them. Use it! Join the Internet. Get access to information.
The fight against breaking protocols and other gripes most of us probably
have with Microsoft should imho not be fought over their backs. It's
only discouraging them.
>To me, this looks as if I gave a guilder to a street
>musician, did not give a guilder to another street
>musician, and then somebody comes along and criticises me
>for not taking into account the needs and the misfortunes
>of the second street musician.
No, this would be equal to making it password protected. You are saying
that if that person is too ignorant and too lazy to learn proper dutch,
they don't deserve your help. And it had better have all the right
GGGGGG in the proper Scheveningen way!
>Having read all this, do you still think that I am worse
>than those who make MSIE-only sites out of pure ignorance?
I don't think you personally are worse :) I think Karin and you are
very nice people. But I think your method of reaching a goal is not
the right one. I guess we disagree, oh well. I won't loose a night of
sleep really.
>Do you still think that my MSIE block is "a new, modern
>version of discrimination"? And, in case you do, are you
>willing to take over my scientology search engine and any
>other of my MSIE-blocked sites which you yourself think
>should be available to your mom? If your answer to all
>three questions is yes, then the sites that you yourself
>choose are yours immediately and you have forfeited your
>right to criticise me for the sites that you choose to
>not take over.
:)
Regards,
Cor
Etienne von Wettingfeld
<tha_rev...@SPAMdolfijn.nl> wrote:
>>> Imho its a new, modern version of discrimination. There are legions of
>>> people for who 'downloading a browser' is too difficult.
>>
>>because MS tries to make it so that it seems as though illiterates to can
>>use computers. i think we'd better not conform to the dumbest common
>>denominator.
>
> Ofcourse you don't have too. But if you want people to view your
> information, you better do.
People must want to view the info. And if they really want to they will find
a way. It's not like Zenon's site is guarded by some IQ test.
I just upgraded Netscape 7.0 on my XP from beta to release.
Etienne von Wettingfeld
> Who cares if it's 14k4 or 56k. It is besides the point. So in my mom, who
> isnt even on Internet. It's a metaphor for almost everyone's mom. There is
> an army of people on the Internet who do not really understand what
> 'downloading a browser' means. They don't even know what MSIE means. If
> you tell them 'it's that picture you click on your computer, the third one
> from the bottom', then maybe.
I doubt if people who don't understand what 'downloading a browser' means
are on Usenet or that they can understand the texts on Zenon's site.
Maybe now they will learn how to download a browser. Using this knowlegde
they might even download more stuff or security updates for their system.
Zenon Panoussis
Jeta wrote:
>
> Toemaar, een Officier van Justitie die zich door de
> scientology-sekte heeft laten misleiden.
If he has the habit of reading the Saturday Parool at
breakfast, then I suspect his breakfast was ruined today.
So was surely that of Karel and the rest of our friends
at Nieuwezijds. Page 3, but not on Parool's website.
Z
Jeta
Zenon Panoussis (ora...@xs4all.nl) :
[Jeta:]
>> Op grond waarvan tekende zij/hij dat bevel tot
>> huiszoeking?
> Dunno yet, but will. "Complaint of copyright infringements"
> was the reason given. Not specific enough, sure, but you
> can't expect the policeman who searches a house to give
> the answers that the prosecutor ows you. The prosecutor
> will get these questions from a lawyer and he will reply
> to them, I'm sure.
Misschien is het toepasselijk om, nu jullie toch met
Officier van Justitie Wouter van Schaijck te maken
hebben, hem het onderstaande voor te leggen.
Het gaat hier om vragen waarop de boekhouder en
internet 'handler' van Scientology en Dianetics in
Nederland, de heer Karel Jeelof (k...@euronet.nl), de
antwoorden schuldig blijft.
Vragen aan Jeelof/Scientology Kerk Amsterdam:
Kunt u uitleggen hoe de Scientology Kerk Amsterdam,
waarvan u de boekhouding deed (doet?), al jaren een
verlies kan lijden van enkele tonnen per jaar - t/m 1993
opgelopen tot in totaal f. 3.938.796 (bron: uitspraak
Derde Meervoudige Belastingkamer, 11-01-2002) - _zonder_
dat haar schuldeisers maatregelen treffen hun geld te
incasseren?
Betreft het hier 'vestzak - broekzak' schulden van de ene
scientology-organisatie ('org') aan de andere?
Schulden die gekunsteld in stand worden gehouden met
de bedoelingen minder belasting af te dragen en de indruk
te vestigen dat Scientology/SKA geen winstgevend en
commercieel bedrijven-conglomeraat is - met alleen
sekte-leden als personeel.
Wat denkt u, mijnheer Jeelof, zou de Officier van
Justitie Wouter van Schaijck, die zojuist door uw
scientology-sekte is misleid (wat tot de inval bij Karin
Spaink en Zenon Panoussis leidde), geinteresseerd zijn in
uw rol als, mogelijk, 'creatief boekhouder'?
Liggen er boekhoudkundige documenten van de SKA/
Scientology in uw woning?
Documenten die als bewijs zouden kunnen dienen van
door u en uw sekte gepleegde financiele malversaties in
Nederland?
Is het u bekend dat het Belgische Parket anderhalf jaar
geleden, vanwege soortgelijke verdenkingen, invallen en
beslagleggingen heeft uitgevoerd bij zo'n twintig
scientology-filialen en bij toegewijde scientologen
aldaar?
Zie:
http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/nl/pers/de-morgen-20000317.html
(De Morgen. Parket vind fraude by Scientology)
en
http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/nl/pers/belang-limburg-20000318.html
(Het Belang van Limburg. Brussels gerecht zit achter
Scientology aan)
Dank voor uw antwoorden - als u die wilt geven.
Jeta Eggers
--
Dekmantels van Scientology en Dianetics in Nederland:
Tha Reverend
>>>because MS tries to make it so that it seems as though illiterates to can
>>>use computers. i think we'd better not conform to the dumbest common
>>>denominator.
>>
>> Ofcourse you don't have too. But if you want people to view your
>> information, you better do.
>
>People must want to view the info. And if they really want to they will find
>a way. It's not like Zenon's site is guarded by some IQ test.
No it is nog guarded by an IQ test. It's guarded by a bias test.
>I just upgraded Netscape 7.0 on my XP from beta to release.
Well, you sure passed the IQ test of that ;-]
--
Tha Reverend
How come wrong numbers are never busy?
Johan Wevers
>Mischien omdat de originele poster de nederlandse taal nog niet
>helemaal onder de knie heeft, en daarom in het Engels gepost heeft
Zenon verstaat en leest uitstekend Nederlands hoor. Alleen schrijven
gaat hem in het Engels beter af.
--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers // Physics and science fiction site:
joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl // http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
PGP/GPG public keys at http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/pgpkeys.html
Jeta
Zenon Panoussis (ora...@xs4all.nl) :
> Jeta wrote:
Wat zou Bart nou toch gemotiveerd hebben tot het
schrijven van dit artikel. :-)
Hier is 't:
Het Parool, zaterdag 14 september 2002, pagina 3.
Zijn ze daar bij justitie nu helemaal van Xemu los?
---------------------------------------------------
Door Bart Middelburg
HET EERSTE wat je denkt bij het lezen van het bericht
'Inval openbaar ministerie bij Karin Spaink vanwege
Scientology' (gisteren in deze krant) is: dat kan niet
waar zijn. Zijn ze, in de terminologie van de sekte zelf,
bij justitie in Amsterdam nu helemaal van Xemu los?
Maar het is wel waar: op last van officier van justitie
Wouter van Schaijck (gespecialiseerd in auteursrecht)
betraden donderdag maar liefst zes opsporingsambtenaren
(twee agenten met de platte pet, twee rechercheurs van
het hoofdbureau, en twee rechercheurs van
auteursrechtenorganisatie Buma/Stemra) de woning van
schrijfster en columniste Karin Spaink, op zoek naar
belastend materiaal.
Spaink volgt en beschrijft Scientology al jaren
hinderlijk, en is ook verwikkeld in een aantal rechtzaken
met de Nederlandse tak van deze in de jaren vijftig door
de gesjeesde science-fictionschrijver Lafayette Ron
Hubbard bedachte pseudo-filosofie.
Scientology beschuldigt Spaink er daarbij onder meer van
dat zij de wartaal die de sekte in geschrifte uitslaat,
verspreidt via internet, en dat zij daarmee de auteurswet
schendt. Daartoe heeft de 'Org' aan de Nieuwezijds
Voorburgwal in Amsterdam - het hoofdkwartier van
Scientology, door Gerrit Komrij ooit gekwalificeerd als
'de stankbel van de Nieuwezijds' - de afgelopen jaren tal
van aangiften gedaan bij justitie, en jawel: deze week
besloot officier Van Schaijck de sterke arm maar eens op
de schrijfster af te sturen. Meestal vangt Scientology
bot in haar kruistocht tegen iedereen die als vijand
wordt beschouwd, maar eens in de zoveel tijd weten ze
toch een gezagsdrager te strikken die z'n klassiekers
niet kent.
Beestachtig
Scientology - dat ervan overtuigd is dat al het
wereldleed is terug te voeren op zekere Xemu, een
beestachtig tiran die de aarde zo'n zeventig miljoen jaar
geleden heeft bestookt met thermonucleair, zeker voor die
tijd geavanceerd wapentuig - kent wereldwijd nogal wat
vijanden: spijtoptanten die gaan inzien dat ze jarenlang
voor tienduizenden guldens zijn opgelicht en uit de
school klappen, politici en justitie-autoriteiten die
zich sterk maken voor optreden tegen de sekte,
journalisten die de zeepbel van Hubbard van tijd tot tijd
doorprikken, etcetera.
Dergelijke vijanden worden bij Scientology onveranderlijk
uitgeroepen tot Potential Trouble Source (PTS), en in nog
ernstiger gevallen tot Suppressive Person (SP). Wie die
status heeft bereikt, wordt door Scientology
onveranderlijk uitgeroepen tot fair game: tot wild waarop
wettig jacht mag worden gemaakt, wettig althans volgens
de door Hubbard nagelaten Fair Game Law. Volgens die
'wet' moet er over de betreffende vijand zoveel mogelijk
vuiligheid boven water worden gehaald - een verzwegen
strafblad of zo - en naar de media worden doorgespeeld.
En als er niks te vinden is, is dat geen enkel punt: dan
moet er, heeft Hubbard decennia geleden al verordonneerd,
gewoon wat 'verzonnen' worden.
Een klassiek geval is in dat opzicht de Amerikaanse
journaliste Paulette Cooper, die eind jaren zeventig het
boek The Scandal of Scientology publiceerde. Scientology
lanceerde vervolgens een uitgebreide smeercampagne tegen
Cooper onder de codenaam Operation Freakout. Doel: Cooper
tot de rand van waanzin drijven, en ervoor zorgen dat zij
strafrechtelijk zou worden vervolgd.
Bij Cooper en haar advocaat werd ingebroken, en zelfs
haar medische dossiers werden ontvreemd. Buren van Cooper
werden middels anonieme brieven gewaarschuwd dat zij een
gevaarlijke psychiatrisch patiënt zou zijn. Een lid van
Scientology werd zelfs getraind om de stem van Cooper na
te doen door de telefoon, waarna er een aantal
ambassades, zogenaamd door Cooper, werd bedreigd met
bomaanslagen.
Het gevolg van de campagne was dat justitie daadwerkelijk
een strafrechtelijk onderzoek tegen Paulette Cooper
startte wegens het dreigen met bomaanslagen. Dat
onderzoek liep al geruime tijd toen de FBI in een heel
ander onderzoek op documenten van Scientology betreffende
Operation Fredkout stuitte, een plan van aanpak met als
target:
" To get P.C. incarcerated in a mental institution or
jail, or at least to hit her so hard that she drops her
attacks."
Karretje
Sinds de smeercampagne tegen Cooper, en tegen een reeks
van andere vijanden van de sekte, laat justitie in de VS
zich niet meer voor het karretje van Hubbards volgelingen
spannen, maar in het buitenland wil het nog weleens
lukken.
Bij de inval bij Spaink is niets gevonden, niets in
beslag genomen, en er mag gevoegelijk van worden
uitgegaan dat ze er nooit meer iets van hoort, maar
desondanks zou het nuttig zijn als officier van justitie
Van Schaijck zich - naast de Auteurswet - ook eens een
beetje zou verdiepen in de Fair Game Law van wijlen
Hubbard.
---------------------------------------------------------
Een ander voorbeeld van de praktijken van de
scientology-sekte in Nederland is hier te lezen:
http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/nl/divers/internet-cycle.html
Scientology onderzocht prive-leven president rechtbank;
en schaduwde 24 uur per dag Nederlandse critici
(waaronder Felipe Rodriquez, ex-directeur van Xs4all);
dit met de bedoeling gevoelige gegevens over hen te
verkrijgen. Een recente posting hierover staat hier:
Jeta Eggers
Rhialto
>Who cares if it's 14k4 or 56k. It is besides the point. So in my mom, who
>isnt even on Internet. It's a metaphor for almost everyone's mom. There is
>an army of people on the Internet who do not really understand what
>'downloading a browser' means. They don't even know what MSIE means.
>If you tell them 'it's that picture you click on your computer, the third
>one from the bottom', then maybe.
People who are *that* stupid should not be using a computer. Just like
people who don't know how to drive a car should not be allowed to drive
one.
>I indeed have understanding (admittedly, most of it only recently)
>for people that are new to technology and barely know how to wield
>that technology. Crafting their own sword is something that will
>come in time. I really think they don't know better, and are just using
>the tools provided to them.
And if they need to do use a computer anyway for some reason, they
should get the proper education, one that goes further than "press this
button" and stimulates them to think for themselves. One that teaches
them the difference between a browser and an operating system, so that
they can determine for themselves which features they are experiencing
are supplied by which, so that they won't be surprised when "another
browser" is doing some things the same, but also some things
differently.
>Cor
-Olaf.
--
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert -- The evil eye is caused by the black
\X/ rhialto/at/xs4all.nl -- tongue - Tom Poes, "Het boze oog", 4456.
pierre®
justitie nu helemaal van Xemu los?" Die houden we derin ;)
Ben even weg mensen, efkes op de Parool abonneren!
Groets, PierreŽ
cmk
<nos...@hccnet.nl.invalid> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>>
>Paul Rubin wrote:
Grote knip.
Get a life wil je.
Er zijn meer dingen op de wereld als M$
mvg
Martin Cleaver
> It's not like Zenon's site is guarded by some IQ test.
I would indeed doubt that IQ should be measured in terms of
one's willingness to sweat over the keyboard installing an
alternative browser (and the Flash and Shockwave plugins, not to
mention Real Player, Quicktime and any other plugins that
autoinstall in IE ;-)
OQ (Obsession quotient) maybe?
Rgds
Martin
Etienne von Wettingfeld
<tha_rev...@SPAMdolfijn.nl> wrote:
>>People must want to view the info. And if they really want to they will
>>find a way. It's not like Zenon's site is guarded by some IQ test.
> No it is nog guarded by an IQ test. It's guarded by a bias test.
Bias towards what? Microsoft is a monopolistic evil empire. I personaly have
no problem with IE. The fact that some site only work with IE is not IE's
fault.
>>I just upgraded Netscape 7.0 on my XP from beta to release.
>
> Well, you sure passed the IQ test of that ;-]
Not really, I spent most of the time behind my PC upgrading all kinds of
things without ever thinking what I'm doing. And now I wrecked my KDE 3.0
install ever the upgrade failed. :)
Etienne von Wettingfeld
>> It's not like Zenon's site is guarded by some IQ test.
>
> I would indeed doubt that IQ should be measured in terms of one's
> willingness to sweat over the keyboard installing an alternative browser
> (and the Flash and Shockwave plugins, not to mention Real Player,
> Quicktime and any other plugins that autoinstall in IE ;-)
IQ has indeed nothing to do with willingness and that's just what it's
about. Even the most basic Internet skills should be the ability to download
"something" and install it. Press "next" 5 times and "finish" once.
It's about these bloody CoS files or whatever they are. Want them or not?
Praise Zenon or fuck him, that's a different discussion. If Zenon would
reward everyone who would download Netscape from his web servers with $10
nobody would complain and everybody will try to download Netscape 200 times.
Rob Janssen
> Etienne von Wettingfeld <eti...@xs4none.nl> wrote:
>> It's not like Zenon's site is guarded by some IQ test.
> I would indeed doubt that IQ should be measured in terms of
> one's willingness to sweat over the keyboard installing an
> alternative browser (and the Flash and Shockwave plugins, not to
> mention Real Player, Quicktime and any other plugins that
> autoinstall in IE ;-)
Ja je hebt het lage nivo van je IQ nu wel voldoende aangetoond,
hou maar weer op met zeiken.
Rob
--
+--------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen pe1...@amsat.org | WWW: http://www.xs4all.nl/~pe1chl/ |
| AMPRnet: r...@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8ZAA.#NBO.NLD.EU |
+--------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
Jan van Aalderen (Z)
>
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 01:33:36 +0200, Tha Reverend
> <tha_rev...@SPAMdolfijn.nl> wrote:
>
> >hans <j.j.ri...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
> >>Is it worthwhile and possible to take legal action for false
> >>accusations? Is it possible to sue for defamation (or at least for
> >>disturbing the peace), followed by financial compenstation and/or public
> >>apologies from the accusers?
> >
> >Don't mean to flame you Hans, but waarom ook in het engels? De groepen
> >zijn toch allemaal nederlandse groepen? Of doe ik weer es dom?
>
> Mischien omdat de originele poster de nederlandse taal nog niet
Ik heb al enkele jaren geleden berichten van de OP in NL-groepen
waargenomen. Hij zou inmiddels de taal voldoende dienen te beheersen om
in ieder geval NL teksten te begrijpen. Schrijven is een ander verhaal.
Niettemin: probeer eens in een US of UK groep in NL te posten omdat je
de taal nog niet goed beheerst....
> als rede dat de essentie en de inhoud van het bericht veel
> belangrijker is dan de vorm ( in dit geval de engelse taal) en juist
> het onderwerp van vrije meningsuiting en openbaarheid van rechtspraak,
> voor xs4all, en daarmee haar abbonee's zowel als lezers van de
> nieuwsgroepen nl.scientology, en nl.juridisch een te belangerijk isue
> is om in taal onvolkomenheden verloren te zien gaan?
>
> (jesus ik ben buiten adem, wat een krankzinige zin)
Nou moe, jij bent kortademig! 8 regeltjes, wat is dat nou helemaal?
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Jan van Aalderen, Amstelveen
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Wie mijn raad volgt, doet zulks geheel op eigen risico!
Reactie op usenetpostjes svp in de groep. Email zal bouncen.
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Karin Spaink
"Jan van Aalderen (Z)" <JvA...@zonnet.nl> kindly wrote:
> Marc wrote:
[Marc reageerde in het Engels op Zenon, en iemand begreep niet
warom]
> > Mischien omdat de originele poster de nederlandse taal nog niet
> > helemaal onder de knie heeft, en daarom in het Engels gepost heeft met
Een ander argument is dat het bericht aanvankelijk ook was
gepost naar alt.religion.scientology, waar Engels de voertaal
is.
> Ik heb al enkele jaren geleden berichten van de OP in NL-groepen
> waargenomen. Hij zou inmiddels de taal voldoende dienen te beheersen om
> in ieder geval NL teksten te begrijpen. Schrijven is een ander verhaal.
Begrijpen doet hij ze zeker. Zenon heeft de ruwe versie van mijn
meest recente boek uitgebreid becommentarieerd, en hij schrijft
steeds vaker in het Nederlands. Nederlands *spreken* is de enige
drempel die hij nog niet heeft genomen.
*
Meer to the point: ik heb me erover verbaasd dat deze inval in
nl.juridisch en in xs4all.general enigszins laconiek is opgevat.
Het is bepaald ongewoon, zo is mij ondertussen door juristen en
door geļnformeerde journalisten verzekerd, dat het OM een inval
doet bij een individu op grond van een claim van auteursrecht-
schending van teksten. Invallen bij bedrijven zijn iets gewoner,
net als invallen op verdenking van massale verspreiding van
mp3's of films. Maar deze inval schijnt een absolute primeur te
zijn. Een paar deskundigen waren apert furieus.
Los daarvan zijn er nogal; wat vraagtekens te zetten bij de gang
van zaken rond deze inval:
a) Het invalteam kon niet specificeren naar welke documenten ze
*precies* zochten. Ze zeiden dat Scientology, via hun
advocaten (Nauta Dutilh), met enige regelmaat klachten over
Zenon en/of mij bij het OM heeft neergelegd en dat die steeds
terzijde zijn gelegd na oppervlakkig onderzoek.
Deze keer hebben ze dat niet gedaan, en toen ik vroeg op
grond waarvan *deze* klacht dan was, kwamen ze aan met een
print van een pagina van een zoekmachine die Zenon
onderhoudt. Daar staat *expliciet*: "op deze pagina zul je de
'heilige'geschriften van Scientology niet vinden; wil je ze
wel hebben, dan kun je het beste een berichtje posten op
alt.religion.scientology waarin je vraagt naar de OTs en
NOTs; je hebt goede kans dat je ze dan opgestuurd krijgt."
Maar da's geen strafbaar iets: het is een instructie,
vergelijkbaar met: "als je heroļne wilt kopen kun je het
beste op de pillenbrug vragen."
Ik kan me niet voorstellen dat ze deze instructie voldoende
aanleiding vonden voor een huiszoeking. Vandaar mijn
alternatieve (en uiterst optimistische) theorie: het OM deed
deze huiszoeking hoofdzakelijk om hierna nog jarenlang tegen
Scientology en Nauta Dutilh te kunnen zeggen: "Jongens, lazer
toch op. We hebben jullie een keer serieus genomen en toen
zelf een modderfiguur geslagen. Denk je dat we dat nog een
keer doen? Ajuus."
Maar dan nog. Het OM heeft haar eigen problemen niet te
dumpen op de burgers. Ze hadden *minstens* een specificatie
van CoS moeten vragen om welke teksten het dan zou gaan, en
hoe die te herkennen zijn. Nu zaten ze met een ongespe-
cificeerde zoekopdracht. En *wij* zijn daar het slachtroffer
van, niet zij.
[Terzijde: Tegelijkertijd: de precieze klacht heben we nog niet
gezien. Zenon moet van de week nog naar het OM, voor wat ze
eufemistisch een 'vraaggesprek' noemen (is er iemand in de zaal
die kan bevestigen dat het OM altijd zo versluierd spreekt?
'gesprek', "nee dit was geen inval, ze deed zelf open"?), en dan
hopen we inzage daarin te krijgen.]
b) Ze kunnen wel zoeken naar teksten waarop CoS misschien het
auteursrecht heeft, maar dan nog. Ik meldde hen al meteen dat
ik diverse CoS-doumenten op mijn harde schijf heb staan:
documentatie voor mijn rechtszaak en voor die van Zenon,
meest berichten die publiekelijk gepost zijn en die in mijn
nieuwsfolders wonen. Daarnaast, zo stelde ik, is het legitiem
om kopieėn voor *eigen* gebruik te hebben. Daar waren ze
het mee eens.
c) Een ander fundamenteel probleem was dit: ze hadden volmacht
hier de deur open te breken en om onze computers mee te
nemen. Met andere woorden: we wilden best meewerken, maar
wat nu als ik niet thuis was geweest? Mooie zooi: deur kapot,
computers weg, zonder dat zulks nodig was geweest.
[Nu ik wel thuis was, was er een ander praktisch probleem dat
we meteen konden bespreken. We legden ze uit dat computers
meenemen voor onderzoek voor hen wellicht een optie was, maar
dan toch een die voor beide partijen uiterst contra-
productief was: al onze data is immers versleuteld, dus
zonder onze hulp kunnen ze nergens bij. Tegelijkertijd, als
zij de machines zouden meenemen zijn wij onze computers
mogelijk maandenlang kwijt. We kwamen overeen dat ze de boel
ter plekke zouden onderzoeken: ze waren vrij om te kijken
waar ze maar wilden, wij zouden tekst en uitleg geven, en
alles wat evident niet onder het bevel viel - belasting-
aangiftes, liefdesbrieven - zouden ze niet verder inkijken.]
Ze waren op zoek naar bewijzen van verspreiding. Teksten in
uitgaande mail, ftp servers, webservers enzo. We hebben ze
laten zien wat er allemaal precies draaide, de machines zijn
geportscanned, en Zenon heeft ze nog vriendelijk gesuggereerd op
welke steekwoorden ze konden zoeken (zelf hadden ze die immers
niet). Alles wat ze vonden zat in van alt.religion.scientology
gedownloade nieuwsberichten, en niets wees erop dat die door ons
systematisch waren of werden herverstuurd.
Iemand mailde me:
> Je trekt je natuurlijk niets aan van de intimidatie mogen we hopen.
> Maar het blijft vervelend!
Da's het punt. Ook al weet ik dat ik me netjes aan de wet houd
en niks verspreid, toch: je schrikt je rot. Net zoals anderen
zich een hartverzakking schrikken als ze goedertouw op de fiets
zitten en plots worden klemgereden door twee politieauto's met
agenten erin die met je willen 'praten'.
Nog weer iemad anders mailde:
> Als die aanwijzingen vals zijn geweest kun je de
> scientology toch weer aanklagen wegens het indienen van
> een valse klacht. Dat ie vals is is namelijk bewezen......
Mja. Je komt in een vreselijk lastig schemergebied: CoS
*dacht* dat hun klacht redelijk was maar ze bleken ongelijk
te hebben. Is dat dan vals? En dan weet ik wel dat zulks hun
gewoonte is en dat daar de wens tot intimidatie aan ten
grondslag ligt, maar het is goed gebruik niemand te
veroordelen op basis van hun algemene gedrag, slechts op
basis van bewijsbare feiten. Tenminste, dat is de
behandeling waar ik voor mezelf op zou hopen... :)
Boudewijn van Ingen
I know some more businessites in The Netherlands that show a page with
a religious statement on sundays. And I know some businesses that even
have their e-mailserver configured to refuse e-mail on sundays,
sending back a polite, but very religious statement.
I tend not to do business with any such company, for several reasons:
1) It is very presumptious of them to suppose that all their customers
and suppliers belong (or should belong, in their mind) to the
'religion' of their choosing;
2) Given the fact that Dutch law expressly forbids discrimination on
the grounds of 'religion', to the extent that businesses would not be
allowed to refuse to hire somebody on the ground of their religion, I
have suspicions about such companies: How can they comply with the
law, and still be principal about some specific 'religion'? Does that
mean that they do not respect the sabbath, for those of their
employees that believe in that?? Or does it mean that they break the
law when they hire people???
Just as there should be a 'separation between state and church', there
should be a 'separation between economy and religion', IMNSHO;
Besides, people who force their personal beliefs on others, using
their commercial or social activities to do so, are (again IMNSHO)
a**holes anyway.
--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
Nantko Schanssema
[zijspoor geknipt]
>a) Het invalteam kon niet specificeren naar welke documenten ze
> *precies* zochten. Ze zeiden dat Scientology, via hun
> advocaten (Nauta Dutilh), met enige regelmaat klachten over
> Zenon en/of mij bij het OM heeft neergelegd en dat die steeds
> terzijde zijn gelegd na oppervlakkig onderzoek.
Kunnen de inwoners van nl.juridisch aangeven of de Officier van
Justitie een huiszoekingsbevel mag afgeven voor een dergelijke
vis-expeditie? Het zou me niet verbazen als blijkt dat de huiszoeking
onwettig is.
Karin, heb je een afschrift van het bevel tot huiszoeking? Zo ja, zou
je een scan kunnen 'webben'?
[knip]
> Vandaar mijn
> alternatieve (en uiterst optimistische) theorie: het OM deed
> deze huiszoeking hoofdzakelijk om hierna nog jarenlang tegen
> Scientology en Nauta Dutilh te kunnen zeggen: "Jongens, lazer
> toch op. We hebben jullie een keer serieus genomen en toen
> zelf een modderfiguur geslagen. Denk je dat we dat nog een
> keer doen? Ajuus."
Als dat zo is, is het geen reden een relatief zwaar rechtsmiddel als
huiszoeking te rechtvaardigen. Er zal toch tenminste een redelijk
vermoeden van het plegen van een strafbaar feit moeten zijn. Weliswaar
is volgens artikel 31 van de Auteurswet 1912 inbreuk maken op eens
anders auteursrecht een misdrijf waarop een straf van ten hoogste zes
maanden of een boete van de vierde categorie staat, maar het vermoeden
van overtreding van dat artikel is in mijn ogen niet duidelijk.
Ik ben ook benieuwd op grond van welk artikel van het Wetboek van
Strafvordering de huiszoeking plaatsvond. Zie
http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/jura/Strafrecht/Wetboek_van_Strafvordering/boek_1/titel_4/afdeling_3.html
voor de relevante wetteksten.
[knip]
>[Terzijde: Tegelijkertijd: de precieze klacht heben we nog niet
>gezien. Zenon moet van de week nog naar het OM, voor wat ze
>eufemistisch een 'vraaggesprek' noemen (is er iemand in de zaal
>die kan bevestigen dat het OM altijd zo versluierd spreekt?
>'gesprek', "nee dit was geen inval, ze deed zelf open"?), en dan
>hopen we inzage daarin te krijgen.]
Kortom: we halen het net er door heen en eens kijken wat er in de
mazen blijft hangen. Ik wil niet meteen beweren dat dit de methoden
van een politiestaat zijn, maar het zegt wel wat over de ideeën van
justitie over burgelijke vrijheid.
[knip]
groet,
Nantko
--
No, I haven't lost my .sig. I have it backed up on tape somewhere.
Zenon Panoussis
Etienne von Wettingfeld wrote:
>
> ... The fact that some site only work with IE is not IE's
> fault.
Oh, but it is. And it's not only a "fault", but a conscious
active strategy on the part of Microsoft. Why do you think they
keep inventing all kinds of their own non-standard proprietary
tags and scripting tools, if not to get webmasters to use them
and thus make other browsers less useful?
Z
hans
>
-knip
> Een ander argument is dat het bericht aanvankelijk ook was
> gepost naar alt.religion.scientology, waar Engels de voertaal
> is.
>
het enige juiste antwoord (:)
'twas laat.
hans
Exactly. Look at their just issued upgrade of Mediaplayer: here as well
they do their best not to adhere to standards. Or they do their best to
make it difficult or costly to the user. "Small" example: one can only
play mpeg3 if one pays for that module.
Microsoft is in trouble: they do not generate enough money from OS-XP,
their software is extremely buggy or vulnerable to hacking, they have
costly courtcases, they have a growing image problem.
(Funny, I see some striking resemblances with another organisation (-:)
h.
ptsc
>Etienne von Wettingfeld wrote:
Of course, they've done this since they drove GEM out of
business by making Windows software incompatible with it.
Before that, DR-DOS. It's been a consistent habit of Microsoft
not merely to destroy competition but to do it in a consistently
unethical manner and to the severe detriment of consumer
choice. Of course this is "free" enterprise, when a jackbooted
thug creates a situation in which you have garbage forced
down your throat and get shafted for the privilege, and you
can't choose a competitor because they don't exist. Rather
like a certain cult we all like.
But of course similarly, you can't really force anyone NOT to
use a browser even if it's from a shitty company. Just as when
I used Netscape, a company whose website told me "you must
use IE" would live without my business (although I'd look at
their website if I felt like it), when a site tells me "I don't want
you looking at me with your shitty IE browser," I tell it, okay,
I'm lynx.
I'm happy, the site's happy, everyone is happy.
(To view Zenon's site with IE, download http://proxomitron.cjb.net
the Proxomitron, install it, click "Headers" and pick User-Agent,
then set it to whatever non-IE browser you like. As Zenon points
out, you also get to screw up those "percentage of browser"
reports on sites you visit.)
ptsc
Dr.Ruud
>
http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/jura/Strafrecht/Wetboek_van_Strafvordering/bo
ek_1/titel_4/afdeling_3.html
> voor de relevante wetteksten.
Ha, die is veel beter dan deze stoffige site:
http://utopia.knoware.nl/users/oterhaar/wetten/wetten.htm
--
Affijn, Ruud
Marc
wrote:
>[Eerst een zijspoor - vergeef me]
>
>
>"Jan van Aalderen (Z)" <JvA...@zonnet.nl> kindly wrote:
>> Marc wrote:
>
>[Marc reageerde in het Engels op Zenon, en iemand begreep niet
>warom]
>
>> > Mischien omdat de originele poster de nederlandse taal nog niet
>> > helemaal onder de knie heeft, en daarom in het Engels gepost heeft met
>
>Een ander argument is dat het bericht aanvankelijk ook was
>gepost naar alt.religion.scientology, waar Engels de voertaal
>is.
Tja vergeef me, niet gelezen
>
>> Ik heb al enkele jaren geleden berichten van de OP in NL-groepen
>> waargenomen. Hij zou inmiddels de taal voldoende dienen te beheersen om
>> in ieder geval NL teksten te begrijpen. Schrijven is een ander verhaal.
>
>Begrijpen doet hij ze zeker. Zenon heeft de ruwe versie van mijn
>meest recente boek uitgebreid becommentarieerd, en hij schrijft
>steeds vaker in het Nederlands. Nederlands *spreken* is de enige
>drempel die hij nog niet heeft genomen.
>
Is ook lastig, bovendien kom ik in het Grieks ook niet verder dan kali
spero, en to logariesmo poracolore en zo nog wat algemeenheden (om
over schrijven dan maar te zwijgen) engels lijkt me een goede tussen
vorm.
overigens stond aan het einde van mijn adembenemende (
letterlijk)onliner een :-)
>
>*
>
>Meer to the point: ik heb me erover verbaasd dat deze inval in
>nl.juridisch en in xs4all.general enigszins laconiek is opgevat.
>Het is bepaald ongewoon, zo is mij ondertussen door juristen en
>door geďnformeerde journalisten verzekerd, dat het OM een inval
>doet bij een individu op grond van een claim van auteursrecht-
>schending van teksten. Invallen bij bedrijven zijn iets gewoner,
>net als invallen op verdenking van massale verspreiding van
>mp3's of films. Maar deze inval schijnt een absolute primeur te
>zijn. Een paar deskundigen waren apert furieus.
>
Nou ja laconiek, ik ben behoorlijk pissed off van wat jouw en je lief
is overkomen, ik vind het juist zo knap dat jullie er koeltjes onder
blijven.
>
>Los daarvan zijn er nogal; wat vraagtekens te zetten bij de gang
>van zaken rond deze inval:
>
>a) Het invalteam kon niet specificeren naar welke documenten ze
> *precies* zochten. Ze zeiden dat Scientology, via hun
> advocaten (Nauta Dutilh), met enige regelmaat klachten over
> Zenon en/of mij bij het OM heeft neergelegd en dat die steeds
> terzijde zijn gelegd na oppervlakkig onderzoek.
>
> Deze keer hebben ze dat niet gedaan, en toen ik vroeg op
> grond waarvan *deze* klacht dan was, kwamen ze aan met een
> print van een pagina van een zoekmachine die Zenon
> onderhoudt. Daar staat *expliciet*: "op deze pagina zul je de
> 'heilige'geschriften van Scientology niet vinden; wil je ze
> wel hebben, dan kun je het beste een berichtje posten op
> alt.religion.scientology waarin je vraagt naar de OTs en
> NOTs; je hebt goede kans dat je ze dan opgestuurd krijgt."
Wat daar natuurlijk uit te sugereren is is dat jullie ze dan op sturen
>
> Maar da's geen strafbaar iets: het is een instructie,
> vergelijkbaar met: "als je heroďne wilt kopen kun je het
> beste op de pillenbrug vragen."
>
> Ik kan me niet voorstellen dat ze deze instructie voldoende
> aanleiding vonden voor een huiszoeking. Vandaar mijn
> alternatieve (en uiterst optimistische) theorie: het OM deed
> deze huiszoeking hoofdzakelijk om hierna nog jarenlang tegen
> Scientology en Nauta Dutilh te kunnen zeggen: "Jongens, lazer
> toch op. We hebben jullie een keer serieus genomen en toen
> zelf een modderfiguur geslagen. Denk je dat we dat nog een
> keer doen? Ajuus."
>
> Maar dan nog. Het OM heeft haar eigen problemen niet te
> dumpen op de burgers. Ze hadden *minstens* een specificatie
> van CoS moeten vragen om welke teksten het dan zou gaan, en
> hoe die te herkennen zijn. Nu zaten ze met een ongespe-
> cificeerde zoekopdracht. En *wij* zijn daar het slachtroffer
> van, niet zij.
Alles samen gevat en even heel negatief gedacht, wat is de religieuze
overtuiging van leden van het OM?
>
>[Terzijde: Tegelijkertijd: de precieze klacht heben we nog niet
>gezien. Zenon moet van de week nog naar het OM, voor wat ze
>eufemistisch een 'vraaggesprek' noemen (is er iemand in de zaal
>die kan bevestigen dat het OM altijd zo versluierd spreekt?
>'gesprek', "nee dit was geen inval, ze deed zelf open"?), en dan
>hopen we inzage daarin te krijgen.]
Lijkt me toch wel dat je daar inzage in krijgt, of anders te eisen. je
mag toch wel weten wat er over jouw geklaagt word?
Ik neem aan dat daar verslag van word gedaan? Hier?
>
>
>b) Ze kunnen wel zoeken naar teksten waarop CoS misschien het
> auteursrecht heeft, maar dan nog. Ik meldde hen al meteen dat
> ik diverse CoS-doumenten op mijn harde schijf heb staan:
> documentatie voor mijn rechtszaak en voor die van Zenon,
> meest berichten die publiekelijk gepost zijn en die in mijn
> nieuwsfolders wonen. Daarnaast, zo stelde ik, is het legitiem
> om kopieën voor *eigen* gebruik te hebben. Daar waren ze
> het mee eens.
>
>c) Een ander fundamenteel probleem was dit: ze hadden volmacht
> hier de deur open te breken en om onze computers mee te
> nemen. Met andere woorden: we wilden best meewerken, maar
> wat nu als ik niet thuis was geweest? Mooie zooi: deur kapot,
> computers weg, zonder dat zulks nodig was geweest.
lijkt me nog gevaarlijk ook, waren ze in uniform? stel dat je thuis
bent en je hebt de bel uit staan? Ik denkt dat de eerste die dan bij
mij binnen zou komen zich uiterst snel als bevoegde kenbaar moet
maken, zeg maar voor dat mijn verdedigings reactie zou plaatsvinden
>
> [Nu ik wel thuis was, was er een ander praktisch probleem dat
> we meteen konden bespreken. We legden ze uit dat computers
> meenemen voor onderzoek voor hen wellicht een optie was, maar
> dan toch een die voor beide partijen uiterst contra-
> productief was: al onze data is immers versleuteld, dus
> zonder onze hulp kunnen ze nergens bij. Tegelijkertijd, als
> zij de machines zouden meenemen zijn wij onze computers
> mogelijk maandenlang kwijt. We kwamen overeen dat ze de boel
> ter plekke zouden onderzoeken: ze waren vrij om te kijken
> waar ze maar wilden, wij zouden tekst en uitleg geven, en
> alles wat evident niet onder het bevel viel - belasting-
> aangiftes, liefdesbrieven - zouden ze niet verder inkijken.]
maar juist op die manier word je wel gedwongen mee te werken, aan je
eventuele veroordeling, lijkt me toch een vreemde gang van zaken.
nog even uit de eerste stelling
/Karin
Het invalteam kon niet specificeren naar welke documenten ze
> *precies* zochten. Ze zeiden dat Scientology, via hun
> advocaten (Nauta Dutilh), met enige regelmaat klachten over
> Zenon en/of mij bij het OM heeft neergelegd en dat die steeds
> terzijde zijn gelegd na oppervlakkig onderzoek.
\Karin
als je daar de "bewijzen" van hebt kan je wel degelijk een smaadklacht
indienen......
>
>
>groet,
> Karin Spaink
Btw twee goeie stukjes in het Parool gisteren en eergisteren
Is die teks ook online te bekijken, niet iedereen heeft het parool
als dagblad,
zouden ze die T-shirts btw gaan dragen?
Grzzz
Marc
P.S.
<knipoog mode>
Wat was dat paypal nummer ook alweer, het lijkt me dat
financieele steun welkom voor je is
\ <knipoog mode>
Tha Reverend
>>Who cares if it's 14k4 or 56k. It is besides the point. So in my mom, who
>>isnt even on Internet. It's a metaphor for almost everyone's mom. There is
>>an army of people on the Internet who do not really understand what
>>'downloading a browser' means. They don't even know what MSIE means.
>>If you tell them 'it's that picture you click on your computer, the third
>>one from the bottom', then maybe.
>
>People who are *that* stupid should not be using a computer. Just like
>people who don't know how to drive a car should not be allowed to drive
>one.
Wake up call: People are even more stupid than that. But you wouldn't
know that, because you obviously don't socialize much.
--
Tha Reverend
You can observe a lot by watching...
Zenon Panoussis
Nantko Schanssema wrote:
>
>>a) Het invalteam kon niet specificeren naar welke documenten ze
>> *precies* zochten.
It is standard CoS practice to not specify what documents it
claims copyright to. They always say "that webpage of yours
there (specify your URL) violates our copyrights/trade marks/
patents/what have you", but they never say *which* copyrights,
trade marks etc those are, nor *how* they are violated, unless
you press them to.
In six years of court cases in Sweden and despite treemendous
efforts on my part to enforce some accuracy of terminology,
the courts still speak of "the Material" in their rulings.
The result: in a situation where we have several versions of
*completely different* documents carrying the same title,
*all* of them get called "the Material" and all of them are
ruled to be infringing, even though anyone with a chicken's
brain can understand that only one of them can be the CoS'
copyrighted version, if any.
> Kunnen de inwoners van nl.juridisch aangeven of de Officier van
> Justitie een huiszoekingsbevel mag afgeven voor een dergelijke
> vis-expeditie? Het zou me niet verbazen als blijkt dat de huiszoeking
> onwettig is.
I doubt there is any clear and crystalised praxis on this
subject. When it comes to physical objects, it is acceptable
that a search warrant is somewhat vague if the search is
relevant to the suspicion that lies behind it. Thus, if
someone is suspected of burglary, a warrant can authorise
the search for "stolen property" and does not need to be
specified to "stolen TVs, stolen jewelry..." etc. The limit
of the search lies in the grounds on which the warrant was
issued, not in the target of the search. Thus, you can't
start searching for drugs on a warrant issued because of
a suspicion of burglary, but you may well search for TVs
and jewelry and cameras and anything else that can be stolen
from a house based on such a warrant without the items having
to be specified.
If you draw the analogy, a warrant issued on suspicion of
copyright infringement against the CoS would allow a search
for anything that could prove such an infringement.
The problem lies elsewhere: how the hell is the police
supposed to identify the evidence if they don't know what
they are looking for? If you don't provide them with copies
of the material that is allegedly infringed upon, they
could have infringement screaming at their face and not
recognise it. However, as long as they stick to the rules,
this is the prosecutor's problem alone and the suspect
can hardly complain.
At the first raid against me in Sweden, the bailiff tried
the opposite: "we don't know what we are looking for, so
we have to take everything". That was also the intention
of the CoS; they kept the bailiff in the dark so that
they themselves would have to search my hard drives. It
took me a couple of phone calls, an angry discussion with
the bailiff and some pointing to the law book, and that
whole plan fell through.
> Karin, heb je een afschrift van het bevel tot huiszoeking? Zo ja, zou
> je een scan kunnen 'webben'?
We asked for a copy (could have scanned it on the spot),
but they were a bit reluctant to give it ("I'll give you
all the paperwork when you come over for the questionning")
and we didn't bother to press the issue. Tomorrow I'll
phone the prosecutor and ask for the file. If he gives it
fine, and if not he'll have to talk with a lawyer instead
of with me.
>> Vandaar mijn
>> alternatieve (en uiterst optimistische) theorie: het OM deed
>> deze huiszoeking hoofdzakelijk om hierna nog jarenlang tegen
>> Scientology en Nauta Dutilh te kunnen zeggen: "Jongens, lazer
>> toch op. We hebben jullie een keer serieus genomen en toen
>> zelf een modderfiguur geslagen. Denk je dat we dat nog een
>> keer doen? Ajuus."
> Als dat zo is, is het geen reden een relatief zwaar rechtsmiddel als
> huiszoeking te rechtvaardigen. Er zal toch tenminste een redelijk
> vermoeden van het plegen van een strafbaar feit moeten zijn. Weliswaar
> is volgens artikel 31 van de Auteurswet 1912 inbreuk maken op eens
> anders auteursrecht een misdrijf waarop een straf van ten hoogste zes
> maanden of een boete van de vierde categorie staat, maar het vermoeden
> van overtreding van dat artikel is in mijn ogen niet duidelijk.
As I wrote elsewhere, the CoS has no scruples against
lying or, better, using "acceptable truths". An acceptable
truth in Hubbard-speak is what according to everyday
standards is a lie, but according to a strict biased
interpretation is not. Example: according to the CoS, the
OT quotes on Karin's site are infringing. According to
two judges so far, they are not. An acceptable truth
is to tell the prosucutor "Spaink's site is infringing
our copyrights". Strictly speaking, the CoS is entitled
to its opinion and to its own position with regard to
the legal status of that stuff. Strictly speaking, if
one page is infringing, then the site is infringing.
Yet, by not mentioning that they only mean one page and
that the courts have found that particular page fully
legal, they are in effect lying and they make it sound
as if the entire site would be full of obvious and clear
infringements.
After this lesson in scientology-speak (I know you didn't
need it, but others do), it is perhaps easier to see how
a careful prosecutor can be dragged in a trap, let alone
a sloppy one. If the complaints, on top of it all, come
from a big and well-renowed law firm - Nauta Dutilh in
this case - well, it becomes rather easy to pull a
prosecutor by the nose.
Z
jos...@quadpro.stupendous.org
> Oh, but it is. And it's not only a "fault", but a conscious
> active strategy on the part of Microsoft.
And to show that you vehemently disagree with such tactics, you
do *exactly the same*. Riiiiight.
--
Jurjen Oskam
PGP Key available at http://www.stupendous.org/
Etienne von Wettingfeld
I know, it's Microsoft and it's strategy that has caused these IE-only
sites. IE is just a browser that works fine with standard sites.
Rob Janssen
> Etienne von Wettingfeld wrote:
Actually this policy was invented by Netscape. They put all kinds
of self-invented stuff in their browser, and after a while many pages
would only show "This page requires frames and your browser doesn't
support them" when viewed with a standard browser. Other browser
developers gave in and implemented frames, even while the design
was crappy.
Nantko Schanssema
>Nantko Schanssema wrote:
[aanhalingen met ">>>" ervoor zijn van Karin]
>>>a) Het invalteam kon niet specificeren naar welke documenten ze
>>> *precies* zochten.
>It is standard CoS practice to not specify what documents it
>claims copyright to. They always say "that webpage of yours
>there (specify your URL) violates our copyrights/trade marks/
>patents/what have you", but they never say *which* copyrights,
>trade marks etc those are, nor *how* they are violated, unless
>you press them to.
Als ik in hun schoenen stond zou ik hetzelfde doen. Het doel van een
en ander is immers niet zo zeer het behalen van recht, als wel het tot
tot het graf toe pesten van critici.
Wat mij in de hele zaak verbaast, is het feit dat een Officier van
Justitie zich voor dat karretje laat spannen, terwijl zo'n ambtenaar
volgens mij zijn tijd beter kan besteden aan het vangen van boeven.
Als we nu gebrek zouden hebben aan boeven...
[knip]
>> Kunnen de inwoners van nl.juridisch aangeven of de Officier van
>> Justitie een huiszoekingsbevel mag afgeven voor een dergelijke
>> vis-expeditie? Het zou me niet verbazen als blijkt dat de huiszoeking
>> onwettig is.
>I doubt there is any clear and crystalised praxis on this
>subject.
Een zoektocht op het web leverde geen bijzondere informatie op. Je zou
toch denken dat dit doort dingen vaker aan de orde is geweest.
[knip]
>> Karin, heb je een afschrift van het bevel tot huiszoeking? Zo ja, zou
>> je een scan kunnen 'webben'?
>We asked for a copy (could have scanned it on the spot),
>but they were a bit reluctant to give it ("I'll give you
>all the paperwork when you come over for the questionning")
>and we didn't bother to press the issue. Tomorrow I'll
>phone the prosecutor and ask for the file. If he gives it
>fine, and if not he'll have to talk with a lawyer instead
>of with me.
In ieder geval moet je volgens Artikel 11 van de Algemene wet op het
binnentreden binnen vier dagen een afschrift van het proces-verbaal
van de binnentreding krijgen.
[snip]
>After this lesson in scientology-speak (I know you didn't
>need it, but others do),
Heheh.
>it is perhaps easier to see how
>a careful prosecutor can be dragged in a trap, let alone
>a sloppy one. If the complaints, on top of it all, come
>from a big and well-renowed law firm - Nauta Dutilh in
>this case - well, it becomes rather easy to pull a
>prosecutor by the nose.
Helaas wel. Het is al erg genoeg dat Nauta Dutilh zich met deze zaken
inlaat. Ik zou het op prijs stellen wanneer de Officier van Justitie
zijn handelen nader zou verklaren, zelfs wanneer dit op een vergissing
zou berusten.
Marc
<JvA...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> (jesus ik ben buiten adem, wat een krankzinige zin)
>
>Nou moe, jij bent kortademig! 8 regeltjes, wat is dat nou helemaal?
te veel drank en sigaretten, te weinig gefietst :-)
M.
Marc
wrote:
>lijkt me nog gevaarlijk ook, waren ze in uniform? stel dat je thuis
>bent en je hebt de bel uit staan? Ik denkt dat de eerste die dan bij
>mij binnen zou komen zich uiterst snel als bevoegde kenbaar moet
>maken, zeg maar voor dat mijn verdedigings reactie zou plaatsvinden
<shame>
te vroeg geblaft, artikel in de kant beter moet lezen
<\shame>
Marc
Boudewijn van Ingen
wrote:
Volgens mij werkt zijn "." toets niet.
Er was nergens een aanleiding voor een zin van acht regels.
--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
Philip Homburg
>Zenon Panoussis <ora...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>Imho its a new, modern version of discrimination. There are legions of
>people for who 'downloading a browser' is too difficult. Let alone
>'installing a browser'. Who own a 14k4 modem which would be busy for 2
>days just 'downloading a browser'. They buy Windows because that's what
>works for them. And it comes with IE, which works for them. My mom is one
>of them.
Chimera is the only graphical browser that is available for the O.S.
that runs on the computer on my desk. Needless to say, the xs4all web page
is too compicated for Chimera. Who do I call to get my browser supported?
There isn't any e-mail address to be found.
>They want to see your site, which doesn't work for them, because they
>don't belong to the smart, internet savvy unix elite. They are
>'not allowed on the bus'.
If you *do* belong to the internet savvy unix elite, you are 'not allowed
on the bus' unless you have a PC with IE on stand-by, and are prepared to
download the lastest greatest at a regular basis.
Even for using one of xs4all's products (ADSL through the KPN) you may be
required to download a new version of IE, otherwise you don't qualify for
support (by the KPN).
>Sure, they have no right to see your website. And you can do whatever you
>want with your website. And sure, it sucks that webmasters create sites
>that only work right in IE. But geez, I really don't see the point in
>disallowing IE from a website. It is worse than any IE only site, because
>I bet most of those are just out of ignorance.
An ignorant crowd is what got us in this situation in the first place.
I'm not sure that ignorance is that innocent in this context.
Philip Homburg
Marc
?
es ff kijken........ ja doet het toch.
Waarom mag ik niet een alles omvattende zin schrijven die naast
de plank volledig mis te slaan ook nog eens een amusementswaarde
vertegenwoordigt die helaas bij een aantal posters op onbegrip stuit,
en waarvan toch in enige mate gesteld mag worden dat een zekere vorm
van humor niet ontbreekt, en die zo het onbegrip door gebrek aan iets
persoonlijks en subjectiefs als humor een schisma veroorzaakt tussen
hen die wel, en, hen die geen humor bevatten waarbij aangenomen dat
diegenen gezegend met humor hun schouders ophalen anders wel een
kleine glimlach niet onderdrukken, en, diegenen zonder humor, na de
niet onverdienstelijk engelse vertaling, wel degelijk een zogeheten
smiley hadden kunnen zien staan, waarop zij minimaal de conclusie
konden trekken dat de gebruikte en in mijn optiek noodzakelijk geachte
acht regels niet in zijn geheel aux serieux genomen diende te worden
en daarbij de onterechte aanname dat mijn toestenbord aan vervanging
toe is achterwege hadden kunnen laten? ...... ( ja hij doet het nog
steeds).
:-)
Grzzz
Marc
Fup naar xs4all.offtopic?