Cybersell response Re: Virtual Mall
Robert Ashcroft
Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
>
> Cybersell's Response to Virtual Mall
If this is for real...
Canter and the Church of Scientology---there's not a lot to choose
between the two in terms of content or style. Complete scum.
RNA
That's Negroponte, to the best of my knowledge. Canter's spelling
is about as good as the typical CoS puke as well. Wonder if they've
been introduced.
Jerry Thomas
|>
|>
|> Cybersell's Response to Virtual Mall
|>
|> attendant remarks regarding Cybersell require a public response. Mr. Boyle contracted
|> with and paid Cybersell specifically to mass post.
[blah,blah,blah]
|> The opinions of such individuals have no more credibility than does
|> Mr. Boyle's claim of ignorance.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Don't expect much sympathy for
being perceived as guilty by association. Your subtle distinctions
may satisfy the judicially inclined mind, but out here it smells
suspiciously of evasion.
|> The public is becoming increasingly aware and intolerant of academic institutions who
|> support the dissemination of pornography and the commission of computer crimes as
|> exercises in free speech but act sociopathically in response to advertising. This set of
|> values is not reflective of the beliefs of most Americans. In this regard, an investigation
|> of MIT and their flagrant negligence in turning a blind eye to the misuses of their system
|> is long overdue. Meanwhile, Cybersell stands behind all its actions as being both legal and
|> highly successful business pursuits. We continue to encourage others to follow the path
|> we are cutting through this virtual war zone.
Don't you just love the sound of pseudo-populist baying for the
blood of the intellectual who opposes him and is therefore
a danger to the 'beliefs of most Americans'?
A little bell goes off in my head whenever people like Canter
start to speak for the majority, whenever they start labeling
those who disagree with them as pornographers and criminals.
And so the witch hunt begins, led by the zealots like Canter,
who pretend that their self-interest is going to benefit us all.
Let all who oppose his god of money beware, because he has seen
the light of 'highly successful business pursuits' and it was good.
--
____ ____
/ /
\/ /
Jim Griffith
[CyberSell pablum deleted]
Before people get all huffy at this latest bit of propaganda, I'd just like
to point out that this is an excellent example of how USENET is ideally
suited to allow individuals to portray even the most selfish, offensive,
and possibly even illegal acts in a positive light. The problem with
USENET is that it capitalizes on the fact that in modern society, the
printed word has value far greater than its actual meaning does.
The readers of these newsgroups understand the implications of CyberSell's
actions, and I believe we're all in agreement that their actions are at heart
self-serving, irresponsible, and destructive in nature. I would encourage
people to not dwell on this article, because attention to it tends to
justify the misguided notions it promotes. When dealing with people like
this, the best approach any individual can take is to educate users unfamiliar
with them about the danger that their irresponsible behavior poses, to act
within the law to restrict the damage their actions cause, and to otherwise
ignore them and deny them the attention and notoriety they seek (and need,
in order to remain a viable commercial enterprise).
In short, it is important that the USENET community act within its own rules
to protect itself against damage done by individuals like Canter and Siegel.
To notice or acknowledge them beyond this action merely serves to justify
their continued presence.
Jim
Who is not now, and has never been
an MIT student.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Griffith /--OO--\ | Two great powers are on our side: the power of
grif...@netcom.com | Love and the power of Arithmetic. These two are
BEWARE BATS WITHOUT NOSES! | stronger than anything else in the world.
David L. Cathey
> Cybersell's Response to Virtual Mall
80-columned for readability - Laurence needs a different editor.
> The posting of a public apology by Chuck Boyle concerning his Virtual Mall
> and the attendant remarks regarding Cybersell require a public response.
Okay, fire away...
> Mr. Boyle contracted with and paid Cybersell specifically to mass post.
> Cybersell at all times acted at his request, using his account.
Okay, so you admit that Cybersell did indeed perform the mass post.
> Mr. Boyle, as a direct result of being fully informed, set up a "disposable"
> account with CRL in specific anticipation of the possible consequences
> and in a concerted effort to avoid any deleterious effects on his System 5
> connection as well as an additional personal account he maintained with
> Netcom.
So, "Screw CRL"??? I think CRL would have cause and reason to
take action against you and/or Mr. Boyle if they suffered loss of service.
You admit in your book that such loss of service would occur, yet you
proceeded anyway.
> Mr. Boyle also signed a detailed release of liability, absolving Cybersell
> of responsibility for possible consequences.
But knowing there was a liability concern, you mass posted anyway
(see above statement). This is unethical, since you knowingly endangered
CRL and probably violated their acceptable use policies.
> In addition, Mr. Boyle informed Cybersell that System 5 personnel had
> advised him of the possible consequences and recommended he not proceed.
> He decided to go forward anyway.
You mean YOU decided to go ahead anyway. Given the the service provider
advised against this, shouldn't you (for ethical reasons) stepped away from
this instead of issuing the post? Shouldn't you have taken a hands-off
stance and let Mr. Boyle perform the act himself?
> Given the above facts, the credibility of Mr. Boyle's current claim that he
> did not realize the full implication of his decision to mass post is open to
> serious question.
And since he runs a Web site (hence appearently "Net Aware"), I will
agree with you on this point. However, this does not excuse your actions,
especially since knowing the dangers (you wrote the book on it remember), you
chose to implicate the systems and personnel at CRL with your actions. I find
this highly unethical.
> It would seem more likely that Mr. Boyle, having accomplished in a
> completely knowing manner his goal of drawing attention to his Web site, is
> now making a calculated attempt to shift any negative feedback away from
> himself and onto Cybersell.
Okay, I'll grant that one as well. Note that this lowers his
credibility, not raise yours.
> We realize it serves the ends of certain individuals to readily accept Mr.
> Boyle's statements as true, no matter how unlikely they may be. The
> opinions of such individuals have no more credibility than does Mr. Boyle's
> claim of ignorance.
I'm not sure which "certain individuals" you are refering to, however
your own past behavior and actions are consistent with such statements.
Again, despite his "claim of ignorance", you do not have such a claim of
ignorance. You wrote a book, remember? You already agreed that Cybersell
performed the postings with a temporary CRL account under Boyle's name
(Isn't allowing someone else to use your account breach of contract with
CRL? Isn't that unethical, maybe subject to civil/criminal action if such
acts lead to a denial of service?).
> We are well aware that anyone who mass posts to USENET will be the object
> of vicious threats, harassment, bullying, coercion, vandalism, obscene phone
> calls, mail fraud, and assorted other illegal tactics. Indeed there are many
> thousands of copies of our book in circulation worldwide that clearly so
> state.
Not all the angered responses are illegal, in fact, the ability of
the consumer to complain to seller are quite well known and exersized. This
should not stop just because someone is on the net. Usenet is a two-way
street - the ease you have to advertize to millions of us means it's just as
easy for the millions to complain back. Why should the Usenet be different
from any other media?
Again, since your book so clearly states, why did you actively
participate in this?
> We do not doubt Mr. Boyle experienced this first hand and we suspect it has
> weighed heavily in his sudden change of heart. It's now well established
> that every time there is a new mass post there is also a set program of
> intimidation that appears to be initiated by Ron Newman and/or others
> affiliated with the MIT Media Lab.
So, are you saying that the MIT Media Lab is the "ring-leader" of
Usenet? How so?
[Rest deleted,since it fails to be an apology or explaination of Boyle's
or Cybersells actions/agreements]
> We regret that Sprint is experiencing the same sort of despicable gang war
> behavior from MIT that was visited on Mr. Boyle. We also know that, in
> addition, MIT students or personnel are engaged in massive, behind the
> scenes influence brokering, contacting everyone from access providers to our
> own employees in an effort to silence us.
You are not being silenced. No one has taken away your voice. It's
very simply the case that many no longer want to do business with you because
it's simply not worth it. You are being boycotted, much like 7-11's were
boycotted for selling Playboy/etc. There is nothing illegal about that.
In fact, I do hope that Sprintlink reads your reponse with a critical eye
so they can determine the facts themselves.
> In spite of the reprehensible tactics of the MIT thugs, mass posting to
> USENET remains a profitable way to market to the huge majority of people on
> the Internet who do not share the warped MIT mentality.
It has nothing to do with the "warped MIT mentality". It has to do
with your method (posting to off-topic groups, forged approved headers, etc)
that just tick people off. You are the telemarketers of the '90's, a
practice which is becoming restricted with legislation today. If you don't
tone down, you "thugs" may be next.
> Every day more and more businesses are mass posting to USENET because it is
> effective.
Is it? I've talked with several that would disagree. Mainly
because of things you have outlined in your book. Which of course, make
the postings ineffective.
> It is particularly beneficial to small businesses, which our government has
> an interest in fostering.
And as a small business myself, I have profitted by being on the
Internet/Usenet. However, I recognize that I am a GUEST on other peoples
news spools and act accordingly. I have never seen the kind of "threats"
etc that you allude to. I've never had connections terminated, or phones
ringing off the hook, mail-bombed, or anything else.
Could it be that not only am I legal, but simply doing a better job
than you?
> If Cybersell's connection to the Internet were to be eliminated, the
> advertising posted to USENET every day would still continue and grow. Our
> company would also continue on, advising businesses of how to advertise
> through their own accounts, just as Mr. Boyle did.
The question is "how would you advise them?"
> The public is becoming increasingly aware and intolerant of academic
> institutions who support the dissemination of pornography and the commission
> of computer crimes as exercises in free speech but act sociopathically in
> response to advertising.
The public is becoming increasingly aware and intolerant of in-your-
face advertizing methods such as this. The public is tired of telemarketing,
tired of junk mail, tired of being on mailing lists. Some forms of advertizing
ARE illegal today. Do you really think the public will see your side as they
become more net aware?
> Meanwhile, Cybersell stands behind all its actions as being both legal and
> highly successful business pursuits. We continue to encourage others to
> follow the path we are cutting through this virtual war zone.
Then you do yourself and your customers a disservice. They do not
want to be brought into a war zone. They want to sell product. They do
not want to be brought into your personal battles. You see this place as
a "virtual war zone", yet you expect to gain customers from people you are
"at war with". Sorry, but you don't build customer bases that way.
There are thousands of happy businesses on the Internet, both large
and small. They are selling product, making happy customers, and enjoying
the experience and diversity. On the other hand, you and your customers
are "threatened", recieving angry phone calls and FAXes, filtered, kill-filed,
and revoked service due to breach of contract (PSI?). Why the disparity?
I'll leave that exersize up to you.
Now really, I was quite pleased to see you had a Web Site. I've
noted several others, that despite any other impressions they had, applaud
the effort. That you then got your connection dropped from PSI due to breach
of contract was unfortunate, since the tide could have been turned in your
favor. The sad part is the disservice you did to your own customers.
You see this as a legal issue, and it's not. It's about how to
advertize (which is what you purport to do) and draw in CUSTOMERS. Watch TV
sometime. Watch the trade magazines, and listen to the reaction. Notice that
advertizements are PULLED BY THE ADVERTIZERS if they receive a high negative
reaction. Are the Ads legal? YES! But they do not achieve the desired
result, so they are removed.
As a supposed Advertizing Agency, your job is to draw in customers and
improve the perception of the client in the pool of prospective customers. That
is what they are hiring you to do for them. Not engage them in some personal
war against the potential customer base. If you have some virtual war you want
to wage, wage away. I fully support your ability to post your opinions on the
topic, and think this is an ideal forum for it. However don't bring in
unsuspecting companies under false pretenses, as this is is not only unethical,
but may be illegal (false advertizing of your services).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David L. Cathey |Inet: dav...@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260776 |Fone: (214)-578-5036
Plano TX 75026-0772 |http://www.montagar.com/~davidc/
Laurence A Canter
Cybersell's Response to Virtual Mall
established his own Web mall, replete with paying customers, and was not in any manner
unfamiliar with the Internet. Indeed, his objective in mass posting was to draw traffic to
his Web site which, without doubt, he succeeded in doing. Mr. Boyle personally selected
nearly 5,000 Usenet groups as objects of his posting. During the process, he consulted
with Cybersell for many hours. At Mr. Boyle's request, Cybersell also discussed the
mass post at length with personnel from System 5, the suppliers of Mr. Boyle's Web
service and Internet connection. Over a period of two weeks of planning for this mass
post, during which Mr. Boyle was at all times an active participant, the possible
consequences were discussed frequently and in full detail with him as well as with his
representatives from System 5. Mr. Boyle, as a direct result of being fully informed, set
and in a concerted effort to avoid any deleterious effects on his System 5 connection as
the Information Super Highway by Cybersell's Canter & Siegel, which details at length
the possible consequences of mass posting, and, in fact, Mr. Boyle informed Cybersell
personnel that it was his reading of the book which prompted him to call Cybersell initially.
Given the above facts, the credibility of Mr. Boyle's current claim that he did not realize
of drawing attention to his Web site, is now making a calculated attempt to shift any
unlikely they may be. The opinions of such individuals have no more credibility than does
Mr. Boyle's claim of ignorance.
threats, harassment, bullying, coercion, vandalism, obscene phone calls, mail fraud, and
assorted other illegal tactics. Indeed there are many thousands of copies of our book in
well established that every time there is a new mass post there is also a set program of
intimidation that appears to be initiated by Ron Newman and/or others affiliated with the
failed character of the intimidators. Attempts to pass off this well organized effort by a
few reprehensible individuals as a spontaneous grass roots reaction are completely
transparent. Mr. Newman and/or his cohorts have at this point created an impressive
record of either committing or publicly advocating commission of countless civil and
criminal wrongs, all with the apparent knowledge and tacit sanction of MIT officials. The
group of common thugs Mr. Negraponte appears to be harboring are a disgrace to
themselves and their university. We can only wonder if Mr. Negraponte with his much-
vaunted expertise, had a hand in training them.
We regret that Sprint is experiencing the same sort of despicable gang war behavior from
MIT that was visited on Mr. Boyle. We also know that, in addition, MIT students or
personnel are engaged in massive, behind the scenes influence brokering, contacting
people, in spite of their campus affiliation, operate as gutter snipes. The use of university
time and facilities for this purpose should and will be brought to public attention. In any
event, we are confident that Sprint will not be as intimidated as Mr. Boyle seems to have
been. Corporations such as IBM, who are heavily involved with MIT in a number of
ventures, would do well to reconsider the advisability of affiliation with an organization like
MIT whose students and/or personnel flout the law on a regular basis.
In spite of the reprehensible tactics of the MIT thugs, mass posting to USENET remains a
profitable way to market to the huge majority of people on the Internet who do not share
USENET because it is effective. It is particularly beneficial to small businesses, which our
government has an interest in fostering. If Cybersell's connection to the Internet were to
grow. Our company would also continue on, advising businesses of how to advertise
through their own accounts, just as Mr. Boyle did.
support the dissemination of pornography and the commission of computer crimes as
values is not reflective of the beliefs of most Americans. In this regard, an investigation
of MIT and their flagrant negligence in turning a blind eye to the misuses of their system
we are cutting through this virtual war zone.
Martha S. Siegel
Cybersell (tm)
--
Cybersell, Inc.
Tim Skirvin
Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
Forgery? I'm hoping this was a troll...could C&S REALLY be
stupid enough to mess up their columns, in addition to the contet?
(For that matter, this is the first peep we've gotten out of
them for a long time...)
>attendant remarks regarding Cybersell require a public response. Mr. Boyle contracted
>with and paid Cybersell specifically to mass post. Cybersell at all times acted at his
>request, using his account.
Then you blame Mr. Boyle entirely?
> Mr. Boyle personally selected nearly 5,000 Usenet groups as objects of
> his posting.
Personally selected? By hand? From what list?
>We are well aware that anyone who mass posts to USENET will be the object of vicious
>threats, harassment, bullying, coercion, vandalism, obscene phone calls, mail fraud, and
>assorted other illegal tactics. Indeed there are many thousands of copies of our book in
Vicious threats, harassment, bullying, coercion, vandalism,
obscene phone calls, mail fraud, AND assorted other illegal tactics?
Does anyone know if Mr. Boyle got all of these? Or any of
these?
(BTW: many THOUSANDS? <grin>)
>well established that every time there is a new mass post there is also a set program of
>intimidation that appears to be initiated by Ron Newman and/or others affiliated with the
>MIT Media Lab.
Huh?
Are you saying that Ron Newman encourages these "vicious
threats, harassment, bullying, coercion, vandalism, obscene phone calss,
mail fraud, and assorted other illegal tactics"?
Gods, if you truly believe it's one group doing anything of the
sort...well, you're worse than SpeedBump and Allistat combined.
>We regret that Sprint is experiencing the same sort of despicable gang war behavior from
>MIT that was visited on Mr. Boyle.
What, a boycott?
[more conspiracy rants deleted]
>In spite of the reprehensible tactics of the MIT thugs, mass posting to USENET remains a
>profitable way to market to the huge majority of people on the Internet who do not share
>the warped MIT mentality.
Profitable? Hardly. Would you care to prove that they have
made money? I'd LOVE to see this.
>Every day more and more businesses are mass posting to
>USENET because it is effective. It is particularly beneficial to small businesses, which our
>government has an interest in fostering.
Actually, this is wrong, because with enough of it the smaller
sites (the small businesses) will just plain go down...or drop Usenet.
It's bad for them due to boycotts, too, but...
>be eliminated, the advertising posted to USENET every day would still continue and
>grow. Our company would also continue on, advising businesses of how to advertise
>through their own accounts, just as Mr. Boyle did.
And continue to be hated, of course.
For that matter, you'll also get every one of your clients
boycotted.
>The public is becoming increasingly aware and intolerant of academic institutions who
>support the dissemination of pornography and the commission of computer crimes as
>exercises in free speech but act sociopathically in response to advertising. This set of
WHAT?
>is long overdue. Meanwhile, Cybersell stands behind all its actions as being both legal and
>highly successful business pursuits. We continue to encourage others to follow the path
>we are cutting through this virtual war zone.
We figured.
Thanks for showing us that you're still the enemy, Mr. Canter.
- Tim Skirvin
--
Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
"I have, for many years, longed for the coveted title of net.kook -- but
as you are making clear to me, the competition is just too tough."
-- Lizard (liz...@mercury.interpath.net)
Mark Miller
Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
> Cybersell's Response to Virtual Mall
>
>profitable way to market to the huge majority of people on the Internet who do not share
>the warped MIT mentality. Every day more and more businesses are mass posting to
>USENET because it is effective. It is particularly beneficial to small businesses, which our
>government has an interest in fostering. If Cybersell's connection to the Internet were to
>be eliminated, the advertising posted to USENET every day would still continue and
>grow. Our company would also continue on, advising businesses of how to advertise
>through their own accounts, just as Mr. Boyle did.
>
>The public is becoming increasingly aware and intolerant of academic institutions who
No, that's nonsense. The public is becoming increasingly annoyed and
intolerant of your SPAM which you foolishly condone.
How many times shall we politely suggest that postings be placed in the
appropriate newsgroup(s)? It is apparent that you think you have a
"right" to post what you feel is important to any of the newsgroups,
regardless of it's relevence.
You have been repeatedly informed of how to post your material in a
manner that is accepted in an established community.
Your quick judgments and harsh mannerisms are not too inviting for
people who are so deeply concerned with "the future".
Enjoy.
>Laurence A. Canter
>Martha S. Siegel
>Cybersell (tm)
>
>--
>Cybersell, Inc.
--
Mark Miller "In a world full of people only
ma...@drift.winternet.com some want to fly, isn't that crazy?" --Seal
Paul Moloney
[complete rot]
So, it it him? If it _is_ him, well, he seems to feel
that it's only a small cabal at MIT who disagree
with his promotion of spamming and net abuse.
So, let's inform him otherwise.
WHEN we find out that it is indeed Canter, let's all
send him mail telling him our name, our geographic
location, and what exactly we think of his vandalism.
P.
--
moorcockdenislearypratchettdelasouliainmbanksneworderclivejamesbatmanpjorourke
vr p a u l m o l o n e y "`Discipline!' I bellowed.`Remember Vince Lombardi!'"
pe dublin ireland http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~pmoloney/
brownbladerunnerdrhuntersthompsonsugarcubesjohnwooblaylockpowershiassenorbital
John Groseclose
Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
<snip>
>We are well aware that anyone who mass posts to USENET will be the object
of >vicious threats, harassment, bullying, coercion, vandalism, obscene
phone >calls, mail fraud, and assorted other illegal tactics.
Really? What about those of us who *don't* do any of those things, but
merely call to inform the advertiser that we won't be patronizing them
because we don't like the way they do business. Harassment? I can't call
one phone call harassment. Coercion? Nope. No threat of force, no threats
at all... Just telling them that their methods of advertising are
reprehensible to me. Mail fraud? Didn't mail anything...
"Assorted other illegal tactics?" Care to elaborate? Looks to me like you
got most of what's done under what you listed... What else is there?
<snip>
>The public is becoming increasingly aware and intolerant of academic
>institutions who support the dissemination of pornography and the
commission of >computer crimes as exercises in free speech but act
sociopathically in response >to advertising. This set of values is not
reflective of the beliefs of most >Americans. In this regard, an
investigation of MIT and their flagrant >negligence in turning a blind eye
to the misuses of their system is long >overdue. Meanwhile, Cybersell
stands behind all its actions as being both legal >and highly successful
business pursuits. We continue to encourage others to >follow the path we
are cutting through this virtual war zone.
1) When even aol.com users are starting to speak out against spamming, I
think it's safe to say that the majority of online users see spam as a
reprehensible act, to be outlawed under the same rules as junk fax.
2) "Sociopathic" is *your* stance against the rest of us, insisting that
it is your *right* to waste drive space and bandwidth by sending the same
insipid and poorly-written advertisements OVER AND OVER AND OVER. I don't
know anyone personally who LIKES advertising, especially invasive
advertising like junk mail, telemarketing, or spam.
3) I don't call the control of spam a misuse of a system. I'd call what
you have done to every provider you've had so far (Pipeline, Netcom,
Internet Direct, Netcom again, PSI, and now Sprint) misuse of a system.
Your behavior may be legal, but from the point of view of nearly any
professional in the computer industry, it is ethically indefensible.
I *really* doubt your "success" at this, either. If you were so
successful, why did you feel the need to publish a book on how to do it
instead of reserving all of the income from this form of advertising to
yourself? Could it be that your "success" is in teaching other idiots how
to make themselves known as BLITHERING idiots?
--
John Groseclose <car...@enet.net>
Another person who will NEVER buy anything inappropriately
advertised on the UseNet...
*Unsolicited Commercial EMail will be proofread for $100 per message*
Michael Kaufman
Paul Moloney <pmol...@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>[complete rot]
>
>So, it it him? If it _is_ him, well, he seems to feel
>that it's only a small cabal at MIT who disagree
>with his promotion of spamming and net abuse.
It can't be him. Considering that Compuserve charges by the message, imagine
what it will cost him if everyone responds to his post. 73450,3565 would be
charged a fortune. And if people start sending him large chunks of garbage,
it will be even worse. He can't possibly be that stupid.
Michael
--
| I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack
Michael L. Kaufman | ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched
kau...@mcs.com | C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
| All those moments will be lost in time - like tears
| in rain. Time to die. Roy Batty - Blade Runner
Paul Moloney
>Don't you just love the sound of pseudo-populist baying for the
>blood of the intellectual who opposes him and is therefore
>a danger to the 'beliefs of most Americans'?
...especially when he also spams newsgroups read by
non-Americans. Gah, the little twerp. He's got my hackles
up.
Bill Stewart-Cole
wrote:
> In article <3jhho7$n...@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>,
> Paul Moloney <pmol...@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
> >Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> >[complete rot]
> >
> >So, it it him? If it _is_ him, well, he seems to feel
> >that it's only a small cabal at MIT who disagree
> >with his promotion of spamming and net abuse.
>
> It can't be him. Considering that Compuserve charges by the message, imagine
> what it will cost him if everyone responds to his post. 73450,3565 would be
> charged a fortune.
1. CI$ charges for Internet mail reciept ONLY if the message is read
before it is deleted. If you trash mail without reading it there is no
charge.
2. CI$ mailboxes have overload protection. I would bet that a note to the
address used by Larry here will get a swift bounce noting that the mailbox
is full.
> And if people start sending him large chunks of garbage,
> it will be even worse. He can't possibly be that stupid.
>
I'd argue that the past year has proven that he IS that stupid, but not in
this case.
Paul Tomblin
[Canter's claim that Boyle knew what he was getting into, and thence, his
apology was empty elided]
>negative feedback away from himself and onto Cybersell. We realize it serves the ends of
>certain individuals to readily accept Mr. Boyle's statements as true, no matter how
>unlikely they may be. The opinions of such individuals have no more credibility than does
>Mr. Boyle's claim of ignorance.
You know, at this point, I was ready to almost cut you some slack, after all I
find it entirely believeable that anybody slimey enough to spam the net would
be slimey enough to try and claim that they weren't guilty of any wrong
doing. I can't remember where I saw that defense before...
>assorted other illegal tactics. Indeed there are many thousands of copies of our book in
>circulation worldwide that clearly so state. We do not doubt Mr. Boyle experienced this
"In circulation"? "In remainders bins", you mean.
[increasingly paranoid ranting deleted]
>failed character of the intimidators. Attempts to pass off this well organized effort by a
>few reprehensible individuals as a spontaneous grass roots reaction are completely
>transparent. Mr. Newman and/or his cohorts have at this point created an impressive
[even *more* ranting deleted]
You know, this paranoid ranting makes an awful lot of accusations that are
unproven, unfounded, and generally unwarranted. I'm not a lawyer, but it
seems to me that this sort of thing should be actionable. If you have proof
of these assertions, Mr. Canter, then I'd expect you to have taken them to
court. As you obviously don't have any proof except your own paranoid
delusions, then I'm suprised nobody has taken you to court yet.
Oh, I notice you use the word 'apparently' a lot to escape libel laws. Ok,
in that case I'll say you are apparently suffering from paranoid
delusions and seeing conspiracys that are apparently made up whole cloth in
your apparently sick and twisted little mind.
--
Paul Tomblin, Freenet News Administrator. Currently living in Akron, Ohio.
"I'm cruising down the Information Superhighway in high gear... Surfing the
waves of the Digital Ocean.. Exploring the uncharted regions of Cyberspace!"
"Actually, you're sitting on your butt staring at a computer screen." - TT
Ron Kirkpatrick
|>
|>
|> Cybersell's Response to Virtual Mall
[Background information deleted]
|> Mr. Boyle also signed
|> a detailed release of liability, absolving Cybersell of responsibility for possible
|> consequences.
A "release of liability, absolving Cybersell of responsibility"?
That release is between Cybersell and Mr. Boyle. Where is the "release"
between Cybersell and people who use Usenet as it was intended? Cybersell
has a "moral and ethical" responsibility to be "good net citizens". A
"good net citizen" is someone who doesn't intrude where they are not wanted.
News Groups are created to discuss a specific topic or topics. As such I
view them as being "private meetings" in which anyone can join in as long
as they keep within the purpose of the "meeting". Anyone coming in and
disrupting the "meeting", knowing full well that they are disrupting the
"meeting", and with every intention of disrupting the "meeting" should be
thrown out of the "meeting".
[more deletion]
|>
|> We are well aware that anyone who mass posts to USENET will be the object of vicious
|> threats, harassment, bullying, coercion, vandalism, obscene phone calls, mail fraud, and
|> assorted other illegal tactics. Indeed there are many thousands of copies of our book in
|> circulation worldwide that clearly so state.
I don't agree with all of the tactics employed against you. That doesn't
excuse the interruption of "private meetings" or the painting of "graffiti"
on the cyberwalls.
[comments that sound rather paranoid to me deleted]
|> Every day more and more businesses are mass posting to
|> USENET because it is effective. It is particularly beneficial to small businesses, which our
|> government has an interest in fostering. If Cybersell's connection to the Internet were to
|> be eliminated, the advertising posted to USENET every day would still continue and
|> grow.
Spray painting your company information on cyberwalls and interrupting
"private meetings" are NOT good buiness practices. If anything, they turn
people off and drive away business.
[more deletion]
|> The public is becoming increasingly aware and intolerant of academic institutions who
|> support the dissemination of pornography and the commission of computer crimes as
|> exercises in free speech but act sociopathically in response to advertising. This set of
Pornography is in the eye of the beholder (at least that's the impression I
get from the Supreme Court). As far as "computer crimes" go, you'll have to
prove that in court. WWW sites are great places to advertise, I've gone to
many WWW sites looking for information and researching products I was
interested in. I DON'T support your form of advertising.
|> values is not reflective of the beliefs of most Americans. In this regard, an investigation
|> of MIT and their flagrant negligence in turning a blind eye to the misuses of their system
|> is long overdue. Meanwhile, Cybersell stands behind all its actions as being both legal and
|> highly successful business pursuits. We continue to encourage others to follow the path
|> we are cutting through this virtual war zone.
In other words, you're going to continue to interrupt "private meetings" and
spray paint the cyberwalls with your "graffiti".
You accuse MIT of "flagrant negligence in turning a blind eye to the
misuses of their system". You on the other hand, have show the "good business"
sense of being kicked off system after system. Ever ask yourself why we don't
believe you?
--
I speak for myself in this matter.
Ron Kirkpatrick
Tektronix, Inc
503-627-3434
henry
Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
> Cybersell's Response to Virtual Mall
>
>The posting of a public apology by Chuck Boyle concerning his Virtual Mall and the
>attendant remarks regarding Cybersell require a public response. Mr. Boyle contracted
>with and paid Cybersell specifically to mass post. Cybersell at all times acted at his
>request, using his account. At the time Mr. Boyle contacted Cybersell, he had already
>established his own Web mall, replete with paying customers, and was not in any manner
>unfamiliar with the Internet. Indeed, his objective in mass posting was to draw traffic to
>his Web site which, without doubt, he succeeded in doing.
this is true, unlike most things this crazy criminal
snake tries to pull off. he certainly _did_ attract
a great deal of attention to his web site.
the peals of laughter have not yet died.
[details of plans to defraud a sucker who fell for this
'make a fortune on the information superhighway'
shit deleted--also details on planning in advance to
commit theft of services against crl--which is tantamount
to a confession of criminal conspiracy.]
>well established that every time there is a new mass post there is also a set program of
>intimidation that appears to be initiated by Ron Newman and/or others affiliated with the
>MIT Media Lab. This behavior speaks volumes, not about mass posting, but about the
>failed character of the intimidators. Attempts to pass off this well organized effort by a
>few reprehensible individuals as a spontaneous grass roots reaction are completely
>transparent. Mr. Newman and/or his cohorts have at this point created an impressive
>record of either committing or publicly advocating commission of countless civil and
>criminal wrongs, all with the apparent knowledge and tacit sanction of MIT officials. The
Mr. Newman has done no such things. the paltry attempts
of a criminal snake and purveyor of snake-oil to portray those
who repair the damage he causes, are seen by the veriest
idiot to be transparent character assassination.
>group of common thugs Mr. Negraponte appears to be harboring are a disgrace to
>themselves and their university. We can only wonder if Mr. Negraponte with his much-
>vaunted expertise, had a hand in training them.
praise _negroponte_! you semi-literate cheap-ass ripoff
hack lawyer, how dare you slander or even sully the name
of a man before whom you are vermin by speaking it!
in a just society your tongue, or at least your
index fingers, would be removed for such a
a transgression.
>Cybersell, Inc.
btw, clown, noticed your from: line.
it greatly amuses me to see you
reduced to the usenet equivalent
of sleeping in a cardboard box
and _paying_ for the privilege.
h
Howard Wilson
:
:
: We regret that Sprint is experiencing the same sort of despicable gang war behavior from
If this is true, leave Sprint alone. They really don't need to be dragged
through your slime.
: time and facilities for this purpose should and will be brought to public attention. In any
: event, we are confident that Sprint will not be as intimidated as Mr. Boyle seems to have
: been. Corporations such as IBM, who are heavily involved with MIT in a number of
: ventures, would do well to reconsider the advisability of affiliation with an organization like
: MIT whose students and/or personnel flout the law on a regular basis.
Corporations like Sprint would do well to reconsider the advisability
of affiliation with an organization like C&S, who flout the law on a
regulat basis. And guess what! THEY ARE!
: In spite of the reprehensible tactics of the MIT thugs, mass posting to USENET remains a
: profitable way to market to the huge majority of people on the Internet who do not share
Profit for whom? The company that does it, or the company that charges them
excessive fees and then runs and hides?
: the warped MIT mentality. Every day more and more businesses are mass posting to
: USENET because it is effective. It is particularly beneficial to small businesses, which our
: government has an interest in fostering. If Cybersell's connection to the Internet were to
: be eliminated, the advertising posted to USENET every day would still continue and
: grow. Our company would also continue on, advising businesses of how to advertise
It will be eliminated, eventually. You'll run through enough providers
that no others will touch you. More businesses are mass posting because of
you (PERSONALLY). They all get bitten, none do it again (except you).
If you and Martha died right now, the advertising would NOT continue and grow.
It is all because of you, and companies learn the hard way. I figure your
scam has three more years of life in it, until companies get a clue and
see the snake oil you have to sell is really muddy water.
Howard
--
st...@ionet.net fnord kibo | "And my soul from out that shadow that
I speak for no one but myself, | lies floating on the floor, shall be
and no one else speaks for me. | lifted --- nevermore! - The Raven
Commence strategic maneuvers at audible command signal. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, begin.
Walter Vose Jeffries
SEE FOOTNOTE AT THE END OF THIS MESSAGE.
In article <3jgl1h$t96$1...@mhadg.production.compuserve.com> (news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,alt.culture.internet,alt.current-events.net-abuse,alt.internet.services), Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> It's now
> well established that every time there is a new mass post there is also a set program of
> intimidation that appears to be initiated by Ron Newman and/or others affiliated with the
> MIT Media Lab. This behavior speaks volumes, not about mass posting, but about the
> failed character of the intimidators.
Actually, what is speaks volumes for is the lack of
responsibility and failed character of the mass posters
such as yourself (Canter & Siegel) who do serious
destruction and vandalism in a peaceful community (the
Usenet) by making their mass postings that cost a lot of
other people large amounts of money. Your objection that
you can do it because it is not illegal is not good enough.
It is not illegal for you to go into our local town meeting
every year and stand around yelling about your services for
hours, disrupting our community. But, that would be in very
poor taste and very disrespectful. You would also be likely
to get thrown out in the snowbank if you made enough of an
ass of yourself. I realize you may not have learned this in
law school, and somehow your parents never taught you it
either, but just because something is not illegal does not
make it right. It appears that your problem is you are a
lawyer and as such you seem to have lost sight of the ideas
of community and society if they are not framed as laws. I
wonder if we could get the death penalty passed for
lawyers. First you pass the bar exam, then you get a little
lethal injection. Painless and easy. The savings for
society would be enormous!
As to the flaming response you and other mass posters get,
you deserve it. Ostrasizing you and yelling you down is the
only way of dealing with your type since you insist on
being so disrespectful of the customs and traditions of our
society. The best response for everyone else on the net is
to write you at your CompuServe and any other accounts they
can find. Every posting to you at CompuServe from the
Internet will cost you money.*
Laurence, I too am a business man. I greatly object to your
mass postings because you are making ME pay for your
advertising. It SHOULD be illegal for you to do such things
and hopefully it will be soon. But, it would be better if
we didn't need such laws and people were respectful of
other people. This is just as bad as the mass unsolicited
junk faxes that waste my fax paper each and every night. My
fax machine and computer equipment is for my use and the
use of my customers so that I can provide them with support
and handle their orders and requests. It is NOT for
irresponsible jerks to use as your own personal printing
press. When you post to inappropriate newsgroups (e.g.,
legal services for immigrants in rec.gardens) you double
the insult and irresponsibleness of your actions. Your
messages are junk mail. The American public (and others)
hate junk mail. Grow up and start taking responsibility for
your actions. Your behavior is totally out of line.
May you be forever tormented in the deep, dark pit of your
own demented digging. A far better solution would be for
you to choke on your own vitriolic lies and die.
Pleeeaaaassssseeee, go have a stroke or heart attack!
*FOOTNOTE:
[I strongly encourage everyone who is reading this to send
an e-mail letter to Canter & Siegel (C&S) at:
Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM>
which is the address they posted the above quoted letter from
and to the postmaster of CompuServe at:
postm...@CompuServe.COM
to let them know how you feel about this. It is important that
you write the postmaster as well since C&S might just have set
their CIS account to delete without reading their incoming e-mail
from the net in which case they don't get charged.
I just called CIS and checked that account number and they
said that it is "unpublished info" meaning you can't find out
who it is because the user doesn't want to be included in the
user directory - BUT they did say they are aware that C&S is
doing their slime work from CompuServe AND they (CIS, not to
be confused with C&S) are taking action to deal with this problem.
Help them understand the importance of this by writing the postmaster
at the above address with your comments. As another aside, I
did find two other accounts of interest using the member directory:
7663...@compuserve.com (Laurence A Canter of Scottsdale, AZ)
7303...@compuserve.com (Martha S Siegel of Scottsdale, AZ)
So these might be other accounts of C&S on CIS. One could email them
there. Perhaps a new newsgroup should form for the specific purpose
of tracking C&S and other slugs and lower lifeforms... :)/2 ]
----------------------------------------------------------------
BlackLightning, Riddle Pond Rd, West Topsham, Vermont 05086 USA
Sales: 1-800-252-2599 x01 or (802) 439-6462 Fax:(802) 439-6463
For wild ideas in laser printing & desktop publishing send email
subject:INDEX,TRANSFER TONER,FLASH MAGAZINE to:IN...@FLASHMAG.COM
Taki Kogoma
<3jhho7$n...@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> in news.admin.policy:
>So, it it him? If it _is_ him, well, he seems to feel
>that it's only a small cabal at MIT who disagree
>with his promotion of spamming and net abuse.
>
>So, let's inform him otherwise.
>
>WHEN we find out that it is indeed Canter, let's all
>send him mail telling him our name, our geographic
>location, and what exactly we think of his vandalism.
Nah. You'd just be giving him proof that the Mythical MIT Cabal(tm) -
Not to be confused with the Mythical Usenet Cabal(tm) - has very long
tentacles indeed.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
qu...@unm.edu | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
BiPolarBear
Paul Tomblin <ab...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
>In a previous article, Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> said:
Note Canter's excellent skill with his editor? Remember, this is the same
guy that Martha Siegel said in an interview was "significantly more advanced
than the so-called internet specialists out there"
>>negative feedback away from himself and onto Cybersell. We realize it serves the ends of
>>certain individuals to readily accept Mr. Boyle's statements as true, no matter how
>>unlikely they may be. The opinions of such individuals have no more credibility than does
>>Mr. Boyle's claim of ignorance.
The rest deleted to avoid inducing waves of nausea in the reader.
>
>You know, at this point, I was ready to almost cut you some slack, after all I
>find it entirely believeable that anybody slimey enough to spam the net would
>be slimey enough to try and claim that they weren't guilty of any wrong
>doing. I can't remember where I saw that defense before...
He was "OUT OF THE LOOP" :-)
--
Just say NO! to Big Brother's monitoring of public bandwidth:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| M-16 AK-47 Heroin LSD Cocaine Marijuana Grenades TNT Bomb Thermonuclear |
| Uranium-238 RU-486 Data Encryption Security PGP Conspiracy Censorship JFK |
| Clipper Chip Import Export Airport Spooks DIA CIA NSA FBI Secret Service |
| FDA Brave New World Order Alien Keyword Filtering Software haha fooled you |
| ** Scott Milliken (yes, my real name) *** (Feel free to reproduce) |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-