Wright-Burke -- Dead Again
Mimi Kahn
UNterminated him without reading the account history is going to have
a little talk with his or her supervisor....
Mimi the Troll-Slayer
P.S. Anybody who has been forwarding his spew to AOL can stop now --
I don't think we'll have a "Friday the 13th Part III." :^)
BergSO
njk...@hooked.net (Mimi Kahn) signs:
>Mimi the Troll-Slayer
^^^^^^^^^^^^
You mis-spelled 'denouncer', I guess.
Sven
Gary Kirchherr
Give it a rest, you crybaby. As far as _I'm_ concerned, Mimi deserves a medal.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
"There is a type of personality that needs to be abused by
authority, who needs to be censored, that enjoys this crap."
-The legendary DAwn McGatney, commenting on America Online
SkyzDLimt
Kahn) writes:
>Mimi the Troll-Slayer
Yep it is true once again....I tried sending email to wrigh...@aol.com
and recieved this error message:
The following problems occurred while processing your request:
wrightburk - This is not a known user.
SkyzDLimit aka SuZyQ
Waiting for "Friday the 13th Part III-The morphing of Wright-Burke"
Mimi Kahn
>Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
>WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
Take it up with your employer. *AOL* terminated him, not anybody in
this newsgroup. He was terminated for 402 instances of
"inappropriate" posting.
>Mimi has claimed to disagree with AOL's "censorship" policy, yet she ran
>and hid behind it when she couldn't handle what he was posting. Why was
>WrightBurk net-copped? Because his posts were "offensive"? Because he
>insulted someone? What about Ahti? His posts are FAR more hateful than
>anything WrightBurk ever wrote.
I "hid"?
Wright-Burke was netcopped, by me and others, *not* because his posts
were "offensive," although they were, but because they were
inappropriate to this newsgroup and were designed *only* to disrupt
this newsgroup. Evidently AOL agreed.
If you find Ahti hateful (as I do), feel free to netcop him.
>This is a sad day for Usenet.
No, it isn't. If people like Wright-Burke were allowed to disrupt a
newsgroup on a whim, *that* would be a sad day for Usenet. Usenet and
its users have a right to protect themselves from sad individuals like
Wright-Burke who are intent on destroying it.
This is not a free speech issue. As has been explained to you before,
each newsgroup has its focus, its thrust. Posting contrary to that
focus is inappropriate. You should not go into alt.creationism and
speak for evolution or to alt.evolution and speak for creationism. To
do so is inappropriate and disruptive.
Wright-Burke was not merely posting inappropriately and disruptively,
but he was doing so constantly. He was cited for 402 inappropriate
posts -- the largest such number I've ever seen listed in
alt.news.admin.net-abuse.announce. This was AOL's count, not mine.
If you don't like AOL's decision in this case, take it up with
atr...@aol.com.
Most trolls wander off when *plonk*ed. As you know, we tried
*plonk*ing Wright-Burke. It didn't have any noticeable effect. To my
way of thinking, it was either netcop Wright-Burke or let him take
down this newsgroup. I happen to believe that this newsgroup is worth
preserving.
But, as I've said before, the ultimate decision to terminate his
account was AOL's. We can report Usenet abuse, but that's *all* we
can do. If we didn't have a valid complaint, Wright-Burke would still
be among us. I, for one, am grateful that he is not.
Mimi
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
--Pablo Picasso
*The Lone Codester*
--
~~~~~~*The Lone Codester*~~~~~~
*POSTER of Fine M/M Graphic Entertainment*
~~~~USENET WINDOWS Shareware POSTING GOD~~~~
************************************************
TriciaJT
Kahn) writes:
>Wright-Burke has been terminated again. And the person who
>UNterminated him without reading the account history is going to have
>a little talk with his or her supervisor....
>
>Mimi the Troll-Slayer
>
>P.S. Anybody who has been forwarding his spew to AOL can stop now --
>I don't think we'll have a "Friday the 13th Part III." :^)
Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
Mimi has claimed to disagree with AOL's "censorship" policy, yet she ran
and hid behind it when she couldn't handle what he was posting. Why was
WrightBurk net-copped? Because his posts were "offensive"? Because he
insulted someone? What about Ahti? His posts are FAR more hateful than
anything WrightBurk ever wrote.
This is a sad day for Usenet.
Patricia
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Where am I and how did I end up in this handbasket?
Ahti Eric Rovainen
: Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
: WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
BZZZZZT! Wrightburk was in violation of AOL's TOS and should have known
what he/she was getting into by pissing people off on Usenet. Mimi is a
wolf-crying net-cop from hell, but many others probably complained about
Wrightburk; their complaints had merit.
: Mimi has claimed to disagree with AOL's "censorship" policy, yet she ran
: and hid behind it when she couldn't handle what he was posting.
Very true. Mimi reinforces the stereotype of Ashkenazi Jews as thought
police (so does Howie). If a male Gentile says something that upsets
Mimi, she net-cops him. Cowboy's letter was extremely tame. Note that
the "Dianna Leech" troll made hundreds of posts from AOL, much worse than
Wrightburk, but Mimi defended DAwn when DAwn was flamed for her Dianna
troll posts. The easiest way to manipulate Mimi is to have a female
and/or Jew post; she'll accept whatever is said without complaining.
(The Dianna troll was a left-wing Jewphile posing as the Xtian right, a
cowardly passive-aggressive attack on nonwhites by a leftie, pinned on
the right. The right needs no help in maintaining a racist image).
: Why was
: WrightBurk net-copped? Because his posts were "offensive"? Because he
: insulted someone?
Youneverknow. AOL's TOS is way too haphazard and inconsistent to know
what exactly caused the termination. If Wrightburk wants free speech,
he/she can open an ISP account. Some think the TOS was a blessing in
disguise.
: What about Ahti? His posts are FAR more hateful than
: anything WrightBurk ever wrote.
First of all, that kind of remark has already been made by DAwn, Mimi,
Liza, d., Vinny, and others, so you're not adding anything with this
"unique" opinion of yours.
And are you implying that Mimi wouldn't net-cop me? FYI, Mimi made dozens
of completely off-topic posts on a.a-s (and crossposted to other groups),
the posts being nothing but an outlet for her sick, bigoted, hypocritical
views. I flamed the cunt in email the way most old-time netizens do
(by Mimi's reasoning, Canter & Siegel were the poor helpless victims of
thousands of unwarranted email attacks). Knowing Mimi's weaknesses,
I mentioned the Holocaust to punish her for her pollution of Usenet.
Without warning, Mimi netcopped me. She should have said "I'll
netcop you if you email me again" instead of immediately netcopping
someone. I wonder if she tried to contact my employer the way she
did with Cowboy and Rob O'Neill. Tricia is correct about one thing:
Mimi is a big hypocrite. I'm proud to say I'd acquit anyone accused of
crimes against Mimi; her wolf-crying is reasonable doubt.
To all: if Mimi emails you, netcop her (Mimi makes a lot of "posted and
emailed" flames, so the bitch is a total hypocrite), since Mimi thinks
it's illegal to make impersonal email replies to Usenet posts.
If I were on the school board at Tricia's school, I'd have Tricia fired
for her inability to teach based on her idiocy. Most teachers teach
because they can't do. Most teachers are in the bottom 15% of their class.
Perhaps Tricia is upset at my remarks about the teaching profession? Lucky
for her she didn't see what I said about Kiralynne (another teacher).
Hey Trish, are you saying I should be terminated because my posts are
harsher than someone who got terminated? My posts are an argument for
the ISP side. You see, if CRL lets me post politically incorrect stuff,
and Netcom lets Mad Max post his "offensive" stuff, and Bob Reptile's ISP
lets him post cool stuff like the "Mimi Kahn: A Jew's Story" thread, that
shows ISPs are pro-free-speech while AOL is thought police. (Ashke)Nazis
such as Mimi and Howie might be better off on AOL.
BTW Trish, you had asked Mimi why she stayed on AOL so long if she knew it
sucked. I believe she had many hours of free credit left over from beta
testing or something to that effect. I doubt she paid for the last few
months. That, combined with her "send me money" is a perfect opportunity
for a Jewish penny-pinching joke since Mimi is Jewish and materialistic.
While I'm at it, I'll take a delusion from Mimi. Mimi seems to think Rick
Jordan is her friend. RJ used a conflict between me and Mimi to troll her
into thinking he was helping her. According to Mimi, RJ told Mimi _I_ had
netcopped Mimi instead of vice versa (how the hell would someone on GNN
know who sends stuff to hooked!) Anyway, Mimi was trolled by RJ.
First Mimi thought she was friends with the "cabal", then someone killfiled
her and she got pissed and tried to reveal secrets about the "cabal" to
DAwn. Why should the location of a "cabalist's" tattoo and other "s3Kr1tZ"
be revealed to Usenet just because Mimi was hurt at being killfiled by one
cabalist? Besides, nobody outside the "cabal" gives a ---- about the
"cabal" (except DAwn).
Mimi thought she was friends with DAwn, then DAwn accused Mimi of being
Dianna, and Mimi lost another friend (this conflict might have been a hoax).
Now Mimi is forced to realise RJ doesn't like her either (Mimi sent RJ
tons of vulgar emails; hey RJ, be sure to net-cop Mimi for telling you to
do X-rated things with your body!)
Who will be next? Coming in March: Meg Beagle speaks out: "I don't like
Mimi at all. I'm a hunting dog and would rather go on walks in the woods
with Mr. Kahn, but Mimi forces me to log onto AOL instead. Mimi sucks!"
After Meg, the "lunatic cyber asylum" might turn on the unpopular Mimi,
fed up with her obnoxious whining. Then Mimi will have nary a friend.
Leave AOL for an ISP and you can say stuff like this w/o being TOSsed:
How was copper wire invented? Two Jews fighting over a penny!
How was the Grand Canyon formed? A Jew dropped a quarter in a gopher hole!
How many Jews does it take to change a lightbulb? None; they're all too
cheap to buy a replacement bulb!
The above jokes were told because of Mimi's "send me money" attitude and
her "I'll use all my built-up free time on AOL" strategy.
CJ
wrote:
> Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
> WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
>
> Mimi has claimed to disagree with AOL's "censorship" policy, yet she ran
> and hid behind it when she couldn't handle what he was posting. Why was
> WrightBurk net-copped? Because his posts were "offensive"? Because he
> insulted someone? What about Ahti? His posts are FAR more hateful than
> anything WrightBurk ever wrote.
>
> This is a sad day for Usenet.
>
> Patricia
No, Patricia. This is an *enlightening* day for the readers of
alt.aol-sucks. Enlightening in that the posters to this group as well as
the lurkers have been able to witness, first hand, that what we've been
saying all along about AOL is the absolute truth. AOL is, and has always
been, inconsistent and unpredictable in enforcing TOS. What is cause for
termination for one customer's account is not necessarily cause for the
termination of another's. And this couldn't have been demonstrated more
beautifully than it was with AOL's reckless
termination/reinstatement/termination of Wrightburk's account. Such
incredible irony here. I love it. :)
But this isn't a sad day for usenet, not by a long shot. So.... in the
words of someone whom both you and I know.... pick up the shattered pieces
of your life and move on, Tricia, hon.
cj
--
.---. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
.' / `. : TOSs THAT AOL DISK! Switch to a full-service ISP and
| AOL | : SAVE MONEY! See http://www.thelist.com/ for a list of
`. / .' : internet service providers near you. Also, don't miss
~---~ DAwn's homepage at http://www.acess.digex.net/~mcgatney/
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"It is not true that life is one damn thing after another -- it's
one damn thing over and over." --Edna St. Vincent Millay
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Gary Kirchherr
> In article <312c9e72....@news.hooked.net>, njk...@hooked.net (Mimi
> Kahn) writes:
>
> >Wright-Burke has been terminated again. And the person who
> >UNterminated him without reading the account history is going to have
> >a little talk with his or her supervisor....
> >
> >Mimi the Troll-Slayer
> >
> >P.S. Anybody who has been forwarding his spew to AOL can stop now --
> >I don't think we'll have a "Friday the 13th Part III." :^)
>
> Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
> WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
If you were in a movie theater an Wright-Burke were being continually
loud, abusive and disruptive, would you say his free-speech rights were
being violated when the ushers throw his ass out in the street? The only
difference is, his behavior took place in a.a-s instead of a theater.
> Mimi has claimed to disagree with AOL's "censorship" policy, yet she ran
> and hid behind it when she couldn't handle what he was posting.
After a while, most of us "couldn't handle what he was posting." But
probably not for the reason _you_ mean.
> Why was
> WrightBurk net-copped? Because his posts were "offensive"? Because he
> insulted someone? What about Ahti? His posts are FAR more hateful than
> anything WrightBurk ever wrote.
True, but Ahti's total posts to date are equal to about one day's worth of
Wright-Burke's.
> This is a sad day for Usenet.
All the trolls are mourning their fallen brother.
>
> Patricia
Alison Rosenstengel
>Im Artikel <4gjrtr$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT) schreibt:
>
>>Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
>>WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
>
>you defend with tooth and nail. We are a little bit hypocritical again,
>are we?
False. Anybody who defends the right to free speech should defend
responsible speech as well. Certain time/place restrictions are indeed
permissible, even under the First Amendment, and I don't think requiring
a person who posts a volume of 402+ posts to keep a large percentage of
them on topic is an affront to 'freedom of speech,' especially when
off-topic/personal/harrassing notes of that quantity are costing time
(to those who have to filter this newsgroup) and money (to those who
have to pay per increment of online time and/or to contribute to upgrade
disk storage to handle the growing volume of inappropriate posts all over
Usenet).
>You should worry about these policies, not about the denouncer(s).
>The latter are harmful if and only if your service is willing to boot
>you for groundless accusations.
And suddenly 402 off-topic and harrassing posts are 'groundless accusations?'
I highly doubt anybody went to AOL and said, 'There are 402 inappropriate
posts from this screenname.' If I had to guess, it was probably
something like, 'Check out the stuff this loser posts,' and then AOL did
the math.
>>This is a sad day for Usenet.
>
>No. It is an unmasking day for quite a few posters to a.a-s who
>don't have any spine, honor, guts, or a remote idea of decency.
And it takes spine, honor, guts, and decency to invade a newsgroup and
harass its members? I don't know why you're bitching at us because *he*
*got* *caught* *violating* *the* *rules*. I suppose you'd be happy as a
pig sitting in shit if AOL allowed each of its members to invade
newsgroups and behave the way WB did, refusing to respond to complaints
about the volume of inappropriate posts and harrassment.
-- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * --
BOYCOTT AMERICA ONLINE
Censorship * Excessive Pricing Schemes * Unfair Employment Practices
* Inadequate Features * Poor Customer Service * False Advertising *
Net Leach Philosophy * Frivolous Legal Threats to Critics
http://www.cloud9.net/~jegelhof
Ken Williams
tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT) wrote:
>Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
>WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
I find that VERY odd coming from a person who has publicly defended
AOL's _absolute_ right to censor. *AOL* is doing this to Wrightburk,
not anyone else. While my opinion is that netcopping Wrightburk was
NOT necessary, AOL *is* to blame for actually TOSing him. THEY chose
to censor Wrightburk.
In one of your posts to this newsgroup, you said:
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: AOL is okay.
From: tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT)
Date: 27 Dec 1995 07:27:47 -0500
Message-ID: <4bre43$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
"...All this moaning about censorship on AOL is ludricous.
It's a commercial service, run for profit, and you are
apprised of your rights and responsibilities before you
sign on. If anyone takes the time to read the TOS, what
it boils down to is this: Don't be a jerk, don't use foul
language in public [note: do you really need to see the
"list" to know what is and isn't appropriate? It's called
common sense. Look into it..."
Now that it is someone you like, it's a lot different isn't it?
Who's 'moaning' now? Do you still agree with AOL's policy?
Whether Mimi and others were wrong or right in your mind (or mine)
doesn't matter at all. AOL, Inc. weighed Wrightburk's posts against
TOS and found him UNACCEPTABLE according to AOL's standards and, as a
result, guilty of _402_ AOL violations.
You can try to shift the blame all that you want, but it is an
undisputable FACT that the people you WORK for did this. If you are
really upset about what has happened, why not take it up with AOL
instead of blaming other people for what AOL did?
--
Ke...@sojourn.com Speed kills. Switch to Windows95
Super...@aol.com <http://www.sojourn.com/~kenw/web/index.html>
Ig...@eskimo.com Finger for PGP Public Key
Clair Hancock
writes:
>Very true. Mimi reinforces the stereotype of Ashkenazi Jews as
thought
>police (so does Howie). The easiest way to manipulate Mimi is to
>have a female
>and/or Jew post; she'll accept whatever is said without complaining.
>(The Dianna troll was a left-wing Jewphile posing as the Xtian right,
>a cowardly passive-aggressive attack on nonwhites by a leftie, pinned
>on the right. The right needs no help in maintaining a racist image).
>Knowing Mimi's weaknesses,
>I mentioned the Holocaust to punish her for her pollution of Usenet.
>and Netcom lets Mad Max post his "offensive" stuff, and Bob Reptile's
ISP
>lets him post cool stuff like the "Mimi Kahn: A Jew's Story" thread,
that
>shows ISPs are pro-free-speech while AOL is thought police.
(Ashke)Nazis
>such as Mimi and Howie might be better off on AOL.
> That, combined with her "send me money" is a perfect opportunity
>for a Jewish penny-pinching joke since Mimi is Jewish and
>materialistic.
>How was copper wire invented? Two Jews fighting over a penny!
>How was the Grand Canyon formed? A Jew dropped a quarter in a gopher
hole!
>How many Jews does it take to change a lightbulb? None; they're all
too
>cheap to buy a replacement bulb!
Correct me if I am wrong, but am I the only one here who thinks this
sicko has a real problem with Jews?? His entire post consisted of all
these little Jew mentionings. Not to mention the really sick
Jew-bashing hatefull downright pathetic E-Mail he has been sending
since I flamed him for being a complete dick?? Ah... maybe I'm just
imagining things.
Foxie
Women that strive to be equal to men, are lacking in ambition.
Cory
>In article <312c9e72....@news.hooked.net>, njk...@hooked.net (Mimi
>Kahn) writes:
>>Wright-Burke has been terminated again. And the person who
>>UNterminated him without reading the account history is going to have
>>a little talk with his or her supervisor....
>>
>>Mimi the Troll-Slayer
>>
>>P.S. Anybody who has been forwarding his spew to AOL can stop now --
>>I don't think we'll have a "Friday the 13th Part III." :^)
>Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
>WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
>Mimi has claimed to disagree with AOL's "censorship" policy, yet she ran
>and hid behind it when she couldn't handle what he was posting. Why was
>WrightBurk net-copped? Because his posts were "offensive"? Because he
>insulted someone? What about Ahti? His posts are FAR more hateful than
>anything WrightBurk ever wrote.
>This is a sad day for Usenet.
>Patricia
><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>Where am I and how did I end up in this handbasket?
Appalled? no. I find it humorous that such a staunch AOL supporter was
terminated simply because of what he said. Any time an AOL opponent
has complained about AOL policies involving these acts of censorship,
there has been an AOL proponent there to answer, maintained that it is
their right; they are a business after all. We have been hearing the
AOL supporters cry 'Prove it!' every time someone claimed to be
screwed by AOL. It appears that a few a.a-s members have taken
advantage of AOL's policies and provided everyone with the proof they
demanded.
To say that this is the fault of Mimi, or any other a.a-s member is
completely wrong. It was AOL's policies that made this possible, not
Mimi. I'm sure that Mimi, Dawn, and others have been net.copped before
and you see that they are still here. Their ISP didn't decide to
terminate them because of their posts. AOL opponents won't be
appalled. We all knew AOL does this sort of thing every day.
It is not a sad day for Usenet, it is business as usual at AOL
Cory
tre...@slip.net
>Correct me if I am wrong, but am I the only one here who thinks this
>sicko has a real problem with Jews??
Naw, that's just Ahti, our crazed half Doberman/half pit bull.
Before he got hit by that truck, he was a good attack dog. His body
recovered ok, the scarring much improving his appearance, but his brain
didn't work so good no more.
He still attacks AOL but, since the truck incident, he has also bitten the
kids, and he has even barked at grandma. So we try to keep him pointed at
AOL, even though it means we have to look at his butt.
m
>Correct me if I am wrong, but am I the only one here who thinks this
>sicko has a real problem with Jews?? His entire post consisted of all
>these little Jew mentionings. Not to mention the really sick
>Jew-bashing hatefull downright pathetic E-Mail he has been sending
>since I flamed him for being a complete dick?? Ah... maybe I'm just
>imagining things.
>Foxie
Ahti's got a real problem, period. Stick around for a while, and
you'll see.
Frizz
(Trivia) wrote:
^^^^^^ <------------ Spell checker did this!
>Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
>WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
Hey, Trivia! Your beloved AOL canceled his account, not us.
You're stupid, you know that?
=FRIZZ= Member alt.aol-sucks Troll Patrol(tm), Goon Squad Division
Finger for PGP 2.6.2 Public Key. Unsolicited *commercial* email is
subject to download/archival fee of $200 US per message. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms. (My mailbox - a spam free zone!)
Dave Krieps
<snip TriciaJT nonsense>
>If you were in a movie theater an Wright-Burke were being continually
>loud, abusive and disruptive, would you say his free-speech rights were
>being violated when the ushers throw his ass out in the street? The only
>difference is, his behavior took place in a.a-s instead of a theater.
A movie theater is a public place over which an individual has no
control over another individual's behavior. In a newsgroup we have
the ability to selectively read which posts we want to without being
forced to read a post from any individual we recognize and despise.
<snip more TriciaJT stuff>
>True, but Ahti's total posts to date are equal to about one day's worth of
>Wright-Burke's.
Unfortunately, the value of Ahti's posts rated admittedly by
"my_hate_scale" multiplied by the number of his posts far exceeds the
value of W-B's posts rated at the same scale multiplied by the number
of his posts. In other words, I find Ahti's post more offensive (by a
least an order of magnitude) than W-B's.
At least W-B's rancor was aimed at anything anti-AOL, or at least at
individuals. Being an AOLer is something you have a choice in, unlike
race or heritage. Ahti's attacks seem to be based in racial or
religious grounds, a totally despicable point of view IMHO.
>All the trolls are mourning their fallen brother.
I do not mourn W-B's passing, but I am not proud to post among those
that are proud to have done him in.
>+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
>"There is a type of personality that needs to be abused by
>authority, who needs to be censored, that enjoys this crap."
> -The legendary DAwn McGatney, commenting on America Online
>http://www.macatawa.org/~abbafan/
W-B had to have skin about as thick as an Elephant or a rhino. His
skin was not close to as sensitive as those animals either. He was as
abrasive an individual as I have ever encountered on the Internet.
The shear arrogance of the individual astounds me. I do not think it
a happy thing to see even one such as he be downed by AOL. Hopefully
we all will learn the lesson from this that AOL truly sucks!
Dave Krieps
"Ours is the age which is proud of machines that think, and suspicious
of men who try to." Howard Mumford Jones
Rich Jankowski
<...>
>Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
>WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
I hear violins. But, Writeburk did violate netiquette, something that
ISPs, and maybe even AOL, take seriously. I'm glad his account got
canceled. If I trolled another newsgroup the way he did, I'd be
canceled too. Free speech doesn't include harassment, you can't badger
disabled people and cry the First Amendment when caught.
>Mimi has claimed to disagree with AOL's "censorship" policy, yet she ran
>and hid behind it when she couldn't handle what he was posting. Why was
>WrightBurk net-copped? Because his posts were "offensive"? Because he
>insulted someone? What about Ahti? His posts are FAR more hateful than
>anything WrightBurk ever wrote.
Well, net cop him and maybe he'll be canceled also.
>This is a sad day for Usenet.
Let us know when you know Usenet netiquette, and have more than 5
hours total Usenet time, then maybe netizens will let you decide
what's a sad day and what isn't.
[posted and e-mailed]
_________
Rich Jankowski
ri...@superlink.net
J W Lundy
> In article:<4gjrtr$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
> tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT) wrote:
>
> >Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
> >WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
>
I would say that the people that "net.copped" him are just
"aol.tos.guide.wannabes", and essentially hypocrites. While the screening
procedures for Guides on AOL may be lacking, here they are non-existant.
Any old sanctimonious net.nazi can surveill for AOL out here and feel
self-righteous about it. (When fighting monsters, one must avoid becoming one.)
[Thread terminated per Godwin...]
Cheers,
--
Jerry
<jwl...@metronet.com>
tre...@slip.net
>Appalled? no. I find it humorous that such a staunch AOL supporter was
>terminated
I know! It's like the best of win-win situations. We proved a point (that
AOL is NOT grateful to those who defend it), and we got rid of a troll.
>I'm sure that Mimi, Dawn, and others have been net.copped before and you
>see that they are still here. Their ISP didn't decide to terminate them
>because of their posts.
Yes, we have, and by someone who, at the time, was an AOL staff member.
We're talking, of course, about Gene Steinberg.
J W Lundy
cj...@concentric.net (CJ) wrote:
> In article <4gjrtr$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT)
> wrote:
>
>
> > Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
> > WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
> >
> > Mimi has claimed to disagree with AOL's "censorship" policy, yet she ran
> > and hid behind it when she couldn't handle what he was posting. Why was
> > WrightBurk net-copped? Because his posts were "offensive"? Because he
> > insulted someone? What about Ahti? His posts are FAR more hateful than
> > anything WrightBurk ever wrote.
> >
> > This is a sad day for Usenet.
> >
> > Patricia
>
>
>
> No, Patricia. This is an *enlightening* day for the readers of
> alt.aol-sucks. Enlightening in that the posters to this group as well as
> the lurkers have been able to witness, first hand, that what we've been
> saying all along about AOL is the absolute truth. AOL is, and has always
> been, inconsistent and unpredictable in enforcing TOS. What is cause for
> termination for one customer's account is not necessarily cause for the
> termination of another's. And this couldn't have been demonstrated more
> beautifully than it was with AOL's reckless
> termination/reinstatement/termination of Wrightburk's account. Such
> incredible irony here. I love it. :)
>
Yeah, it is an enlightening day. All these "free-speech former AOLers" show
that being a lamer is genetic and not determined by one's net-access.
If you don't see that net.copping outside of usual USENET tradition is *worse*
than AOL's sandbox TOS, then you need to learn the meaning of hypocrisy (start
by looking in a mirror-->that's a hypocrite).
Get a clue. Get a killfile. Get a life.
Cheers,
--
Jerry
<jwl...@metronet.com>
Brian Penix
enlightened us with:
>On 23 Feb 1996 02:55:39 -0500, tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT) wrote:
>
>>Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
>>WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
>
>Take it up with your employer. *AOL* terminated him, not anybody in
>this newsgroup. He was terminated for 402 instances of
>"inappropriate" posting.
I agree. But 402 inappropriate posts was not all he did. After posting
a question to one of his posts, I had to shovel him out of my
mailbox.I netcopped him for that. He wasn't just replying to my
messages, he was trying to hold nonsense disscussions via e-mail. At
the hight of this, I got 32 e-mails from him in one day! 10 were exact
copies of each other. He refused to stop, so I forwarded ALL his
e-mails to me to postm...@aol.com. I don't consider an e-mail
response to posts as a problem. Even if they are from someone like WB.
It's when I have to break out the snowblower for my mailbox that I
begin to object.
>>Mimi has claimed to disagree with AOL's "censorship" policy, yet she ran
>>and hid behind it when she couldn't handle what he was posting. Why was
>>WrightBurk net-copped? Because his posts were "offensive"? Because he
>>insulted someone? What about Ahti? His posts are FAR more hateful than
>>anything WrightBurk ever wrote.
>
>I "hid"?
>
>Wright-Burke was netcopped, by me and others, *not* because his posts
>were "offensive," although they were, but because they were
>inappropriate to this newsgroup and were designed *only* to disrupt
>this newsgroup. Evidently AOL agreed.
>
>If you find Ahti hateful (as I do), feel free to netcop him.
Or ignore his posts. (AKA: *PLONK*) but when they get into your
e-mail, and stay there, that is where I draw the line!
>>This is a sad day for Usenet.
>
>No, it isn't. If people like Wright-Burke were allowed to disrupt a
>newsgroup on a whim, *that* would be a sad day for Usenet. Usenet and
>its users have a right to protect themselves from sad individuals like
>Wright-Burke who are intent on destroying it.
AMEN! (ME TOO, for you AOLers)
>This is not a free speech issue. As has been explained to you before,
>each newsgroup has its focus, its thrust. Posting contrary to that
>focus is inappropriate. You should not go into alt.creationism and
>speak for evolution or to alt.evolution and speak for creationism. To
>do so is inappropriate and disruptive.
>
>Wright-Burke was not merely posting inappropriately and disruptively,
>but he was doing so constantly. He was cited for 402 inappropriate
>posts -- the largest such number I've ever seen listed in
>alt.news.admin.net-abuse.announce. This was AOL's count, not mine.
>If you don't like AOL's decision in this case, take it up with
>atr...@aol.com.
>
>Most trolls wander off when *plonk*ed. As you know, we tried
>*plonk*ing Wright-Burke. It didn't have any noticeable effect. To my
>way of thinking, it was either netcop Wright-Burke or let him take
>down this newsgroup. I happen to believe that this newsgroup is worth
>preserving.
>
>But, as I've said before, the ultimate decision to terminate his
>account was AOL's. We can report Usenet abuse, but that's *all* we
>can do. If we didn't have a valid complaint, Wright-Burke would still
>be among us. I, for one, am grateful that he is not.
>
>
>Mimi
>
>"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
>
> --Pablo Picasso
>
Thank you Mimi! I agree whole heartedly with your above post. I also
questioned atropos when he came back. (As seen from my eirlier post-
wrightburke def. dead)
This post has been e-mailed to both parties above as well as posted.
B.
____| ____| \ | ____|__ __|
__| __| \ | __| | A great place to be!
| | |\ | | | Visit us at:
_____|_____|_)_| \_|_____| _| HTTP://WWW.EE.NET
rjo...@pe.net
name let alone what I might have said months ago. Anyway, you didn't remember
what I said very well. This may actually look like I care what you say or
think...for the record, I don't. Here is what I remember:
From Auntie Eric:
>>While I'm at it, I'll take a delusion from Mimi. Mimi seems to think Rick
>>Jordan is her friend. RJ used a conflict between me and Mimi to troll her
>>into thinking he was helping her. According to Mimi, RJ told Mimi _I_ had
>>netcopped Mimi instead of vice versa (how the hell would someone on GNN
>>know who sends stuff to hooked!) Anyway, Mimi was trolled by RJ.
Auntie Eric, you sent me e-mail asking me to help you net-cop Mimi. I guess in
order to gain my confidence, you described her using various female and Jewish
stereotypes...but only offensive ones...your reputation is safe.
You said that since I had been the target of net-copping by several others on
aas, I must have some experience with it. I forwarded your e-mail to Mimi so
that she could deal with it as she saw fit. I didn't try to make Mimi think
anything. I believe I forwarded it to her without comment as Mimi and I were not
on real good terms at the time. You told me directly...it wasn't masterful
detective work from GNN.
>>Now Mimi is forced to realise RJ doesn't like her either (Mimi sent RJ
>>tons of vulgar emails; hey RJ, be sure to net-cop Mimi for telling you to
>>do X-rated things with your body!)
During the Summer of Me Too, she responded to several cross-posted notes that
ended up, unknown to her, in another newsgroup that I subscribed to. I e-mailed
her asking her to stop. I got ONE e-mail back from her, not a "ton". Her note
made me aware of alt.aol-sucks for the first time, and I decided to investigate.
I don't remember that her e-mail was all that vulgar, either, esp. given the
baseline of vulgarity on aas, and the universally offensive posts that come from
you. It wasn't a nice note, though. I posted it on aas several months ago. She
didn't tell me to do anything with my body...I might have liked that...
Are Mimi and I friends? I don't know...we both own and love hounds. Lifelong
friendships have been based on less.
RJ
Dave Krieps
>spl...@ix.netcom.com(Clair Hancock ) wrote:
>>Correct me if I am wrong, but am I the only one here who thinks this
>>sicko has a real problem with Jews??
>Naw, that's just Ahti, our crazed half Doberman/half pit bull.
>Before he got hit by that truck, he was a good attack dog. His body
>recovered ok, the scarring much improving his appearance, but his brain
>didn't work so good no more.
>He still attacks AOL but, since the truck incident, he has also bitten the
>kids, and he has even barked at grandma. So we try to keep him pointed at
>AOL, even though it means we have to look at his butt.
ROTFLMAO! That about captures the moment! Yep that's it! LMAO!
The Toe
tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT) wrote:
>In article <312c9e72....@news.hooked.net>, njk...@hooked.net (Mimi
>Kahn) writes:
>
>>Wright-Burke has been terminated again. And the person who
>>UNterminated him without reading the account history is going to have
>>a little talk with his or her supervisor....
>>
>>Mimi the Troll-Slayer
>>
>>P.S. Anybody who has been forwarding his spew to AOL can stop now --
>>I don't think we'll have a "Friday the 13th Part III." :^)
>
>WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
And they should show their disgust by cancelling their account with
AOL, the online service that terminated Wrightburke. Anything less would
be, well, very Trish-like.
>Mimi has claimed to disagree with AOL's "censorship" policy, yet she ran
>and hid behind it when she couldn't handle what he was posting. Why was
>WrightBurk net-copped? Because his posts were "offensive"? Because he
>insulted someone? What about Ahti? His posts are FAR more hateful than
>anything WrightBurk ever wrote.
Hmm, maybe I'm missing something. I thought that AOL pulled the plug on
WB. Mimi did it? Wow, that's quite a trick. Well, Trish, now that you
know that TOS sucks, I'm repeating my above invitation to walk the walk
and cancel your AOL account.
>This is a sad day for Usenet.
Any day you post is a sad day for Usenet, Trish.
>Patricia
>
><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>Where am I and how did I end up in this handbasket?
The Toe
ni...@hevanet.com
Mimi Kahn
wrote:
>Correct me if I am wrong, but am I the only one here who thinks this
>sicko has a real problem with Jews?? His entire post consisted of all
>these little Jew mentionings. Not to mention the really sick
>Jew-bashing hatefull downright pathetic E-Mail he has been sending
>since I flamed him for being a complete dick?? Ah... maybe I'm just
>imagining things.
I carefully read Mr. Rovainen's latest opus looking for one shred, one
scintilla, of truth. Unfortunately, there was none.
He didn't even get my husband's name right. You see, I'm one of those
femiNAZIs who kept my own name when I got married.
And as for my friends, when all of them are gone, as Ahti predicts,
I'll still have Howard and Deborah. You know how clannish we Jews
are.
Shalom,
Mimi
P.S. GNN might not know what was sent to Hooked, but Hooked knows.
(No, Ahti, I didn't say "hooked nose.")
P.P.S. Yes, Ahti *does* have real problems, but they're not limited
to Jews.
DAwn McGatney, (hv)
pmp...@crl.com (Ahti Eric Rovainen) wrote-->
>
>Trish The Dish (tric...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
>: WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
>
>BZZZZZT! Wrightburk was in violation of AOL's TOS and should have known
>what he/she was getting into by pissing people off on Usenet. Mimi is a
>wolf-crying net-cop from hell, but many others probably complained about
>Wrightburk; their complaints had merit.
>
>: Mimi has claimed to disagree with AOL's "censorship" policy, yet she ran
>: and hid behind it when she couldn't handle what he was posting.
>
>Very true. Mimi reinforces the stereotype of Ashkenazi Jews as thought
>police (so does Howie). If a male Gentile says something that upsets
DAwn Replies----->>>
Bottom line time-->
Burke didn't need to be net.copped, didn't deserve it. His purpose was
not to render alt.aol-sucks dysfinctional, to be disruptive.
Ahti does need to be net.copped, does deserve it. Here is someone who
posts with no other purpose in mind than chat room disruption.
IMO, the wrong guy was net.copped.
-----DAwn McGatney
mcga...@access.digex.net
AOLers... NOW THERE'S *NO* EXCUSE--> http://www.access.digex.net/~mcgatney/
DAwn McGatney, (hv)
23:44:35 GMT, dav...@worldnet.att.net (Dave Krieps) wrote-->
>
>ABB...@hayburn.com (Gary Kirchherr) wrote:
>
><snip TriciaJT nonsense>
>>If you were in a movie theater an Wright-Burke were being continually
>>loud, abusive and disruptive, would you say his free-speech rights were
>>being violated when the ushers throw his ass out in the street? The only
>>difference is, his behavior took place in a.a-s instead of a theater.
DAwn Replies----->>>
He's only disruptive if you read his posts, right?
And no one forced you to go on reading his posts after the first.
And no one forced anyone to RESPOND to his posts.
You don't like posts, don't read them, don't respond to them.
As someone wrote me (picking up your movie theatre non-analogy),
Burke never yelled "Fire" in a crowded theatre. He was simply
the offensive and boring movie.
You find a cable TV show violent, vulgar, offensive? Change the
channel. Others might like the same show.
Burke didn't deserve to be net.copped.
AOL is fully the blame for creating an insane system of censorship
misnamed TOS.
If Burke made a mistake, it was chosing AOL as an Internet access
provider.
Or perhaps Burke just wanted to see how many posts he could accumulate
before getting TOSsed; perhaps it was a game. Perhaps it was a bet.
tre...@slip.net
>I would say that the people that "net.copped" him are just
>"aol.tos.guide.wannabes", and essentially hypocrites. While the screening
>procedures for Guides on AOL may be lacking, here they are non-existant.
Yea, you would say that, since you apparently haven't lurked, and are just
coming it, quickly aligning yourself, and shooting without aiming.
>Any old sanctimonious net.nazi can surveill for AOL out here and feel
>self-righteous about it. (When fighting monsters, one must avoid becoming
>one.)
Either Usenet is an anarchy where anyone can do what they want, including
Netcopping, or it does have certain rules, in which case WB broke them and
Netcopping him was almost a civic duty.
You can't logically say it's an anarchy for those who want to disrupt, and
a place with rules (like "don't Netcop disrupters") for those who want to
participate in Usenet without the disruption.
>[Thread terminated per Godwin...]
Godwin's law can't be deliberately invoked.
The Usenet Cabal (There Is No Cabal[tm]) will be handing out free clues at
the March gathering. Email now to reserve your place, and get there before
the line gets too long.
tre...@slip.net
>tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT) wrote:
>>Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
>>WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
>If you were in a movie theater an Wright-Burke were being continually
>loud, abusive and disruptive, would you say his free-speech rights were
>being violated when the ushers throw his ass out in the street?
You know, I get so sick and tired of morons raising the Freedom of Speech
flag when they can't act out each and every infantile prank and tantrum
that their dysfunctional psyche urges them to.
Freedom of speech guarantees to the people the right to express themselves
negatively about the government. That, as far as I know (scholars, feel
free to step in), was all that was on the Framers' minds when they drafted
the First Amendment. Back in those days, saying "The King's a fink" got you
in beaucoup trouble.
Even today, freedom of speech does not let you go around saying you're
going to kill the President, nor does it let you advocate the violent
overthrow of the US government, nor does it let you yell "Theater!" in a
crowded firehouse.
And it certainly doesn't let some moron disrupt a Usenet newsgroup.
Art Stone
>Hmm, maybe I'm missing something. I thought that AOL pulled the plug on
>WB. Mimi did it? Wow, that's quite a trick. Well, Trish, now that you
You've overlooked the possibility that Mimi may be Dave O'Donnell.
Art Stone
--
Cap'n Kirk - I can't hold 'er together much longer.
She's gonna blow any second!
Mimi Kahn
(hv)) wrote:
> Bottom line time-->
>
> Burke didn't need to be net.copped, didn't deserve it. His purpose was
> not to render alt.aol-sucks dysfinctional, to be disruptive.
So, Dawn -- what *was* Wright-Burke's purpose?
> Ahti does need to be net.copped, does deserve it. Here is someone who
> posts with no other purpose in mind than chat room disruption.
>
> IMO, the wrong guy was net.copped.
So netcop the *right* guy. *I* certainly won't stand in your way.
Mimi
http://www.hooked.net/uers/njkahn/
Vinny Hrovat
>In article <312c9e72....@news.hooked.net>, njk...@hooked.net (Mimi
>Kahn) writes:
>>Wright-Burke has been terminated again. And the person who
>>UNterminated him without reading the account history is going to have
>>a little talk with his or her supervisor....
<...>
>Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
>WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
>Mimi has claimed to disagree with AOL's "censorship" policy, yet she ran
>and hid behind it when she couldn't handle what he was posting. Why was
>WrightBurk net-copped? Because his posts were "offensive"? Because he
>insulted someone? What about Ahti? His posts are FAR more hateful than
>anything WrightBurk ever wrote.
>This is a sad day for Usenet.
The most offensive and abusive thing i ever heard from Wrightburk was the
"your friend" salutation in his signature. Everything else from him was
either idiocy or rhetorical idiocy. Of course i can't say for sure, as i
haven't read his posts in weeks. However, i have seen nothing exhibited in
the TORRENT of replies, followups, and quotes that would've justified his
censorship to me.
Apparently some people felt otherwise, though. So, after egging him on for
weeks, one regular or group of regulars in this newsgroup works paradoxically
with the Internet censors at AOL to cut off his access. (Of course, Mimi
likes to snitch . . . anyone remember the time she snitched about "The
Cabal?") Meanwhile, other aas-ers offer him more Usenet recognition he
doesn't deserve in naming a facetious newsgroup after him (alt.wb.sucks).
You guys have made Wrightburk into this winter's Nakata troll. Give
yourselves a pat on the back.
---
* (@) * "Counting stars by candlelight . . . . "
. |~| * .
| | . * . Vinny Hrovat|pil...@teleport.com
* | | * http://www.teleport.com/~pilgrim/
C\_|_|_/ . . (opinions herein are mine, etc.)
TriciaJT
writes:
>To say that this is the fault of Mimi, or any other a.a-s member is
>completely wrong. It was AOL's policies that made this possible, not
>Mimi. I'm sure that Mimi, Dawn, and others have been net.copped before
>and you see that they are still here. Their ISP didn't decide to
>terminate them because of their posts. AOL opponents won't be
>appalled. We all knew AOL does this sort of thing every day.
>
>
I am not about to defend AOL's actions in this case, as I believe they
were wrong, wrong, wrong. I am also NOT about to cancel my account in a
blaze of profanity and start posting that AOL SUX, simply because they
made a decision that I don't agree with. To do so, after all the things I
have said in defense of AOL, would be extremely hypocritical of me.
The point that I am trying to get across is how *incredibly* hypocritical
it was of Mimi and the others who net-copped WrightBurk to have done so
while at the same time decrying the censorship of AOL. You see, while I
might *personally* disagree with AOL in this situation, I nonetheless
recognize that they do, in fact, have a right to do what they did.
However, since I DO disagree with their actions in this case, I certainly
wouldn't try to use those actions to my own advantage.
Yes, I KNOW it was AOL who cancelled WrightBurk. I also KNOW that they
wouldn't have done so had not Mimi and others forwarded WB's posts to TOS.
Mimi and those who net-copped WB also *know* this, and it is this that I
find so contemptible.
Rich Jankowski
wrote:
<...>
>Whether Mimi and others were wrong or right in your mind (or mine)
>doesn't matter at all. AOL, Inc. weighed Wrightburk's posts against
>TOS and found him UNACCEPTABLE according to AOL's standards and, as a
>result, guilty of _402_ AOL violations.
How true. Tricia thinks censoring is good if the person being censored
is disrupting a newsgroup that she believes in. If she doesn't agree
with the newsgroup, she believes that trolls should be able to disrupt
it; look at what she's trying to do here. She's thrown the word
"hypocrite" around a lot lately, too bad she's not bright enough to
see that it applies to her.
>You can try to shift the blame all that you want, but it is an
>undisputable FACT that the people you WORK for did this. If you are
>really upset about what has happened, why not take it up with AOL
>instead of blaming other people for what AOL did?
After she called me a hypocrite by e-mail, I suggested this to her in
an e-mail in which she didn't reply to...
Emilie
pil...@teleport.com (Vinny Hrovat) wrote:
>In our last episode, tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT) spoke thusly:
>
>>In article <312c9e72....@news.hooked.net>, njk...@hooked.net (Mimi
>>Kahn) writes:
>
>>>Wright-Burke has been terminated again. And the person who
>>>UNterminated him without reading the account history is going to have
>>>a little talk with his or her supervisor....
><...>
>
>>Anybody who *truly* believes in free speech should be appalled at
>>WrightBurk's termination because of his posts to this ng.
>
[snip]
> However, i have seen nothing exhibited in
>the TORRENT of replies, followups, and quotes that would've justified his
>censorship to me.
>
>Apparently some people felt otherwise, though. So, after egging him on
for
>weeks, one regular or group of regulars in this newsgroup works
paradoxically
>with the Internet censors at AOL to cut off his access. (Of course, Mimi
>likes to snitch . . . anyone remember the time she snitched about "The
>Cabal?") Meanwhile, other aas-ers offer him more Usenet recognition he
>doesn't deserve in naming a facetious newsgroup after him (alt.wb.sucks).
>
>You guys have made Wrightburk into this winter's Nakata troll. Give
>yourselves a pat on the back.
>
The ease with which otherwise normal, likeable people can fall into a
lynch mob mentality has always seemed to me about the scariest aspect of
human nature. It's as if a basically healthy instinct to be a part of
something larger than ourselves becomes corrupted, and a mindless feeding
frenzy takes over.
I have no interest in making this Wrightburk character a martyr - what
little i read by him bored me. (When a writer consistently bores me, I
don't read them.) I think its not impossible that Wrightburk was a troll
designed specifically to do what he did - point out hypocrisy and start a
big thing. If this was the case, the perpetrator hasn't proved anything
new or startling, at least to me.
If he wasn't a troll, he certainly has a solid grievance against AOL, imo,
who apparently bumped his account without investigation of the validity of
the complaints against him. "Inappropriate posting"? Please.
Emilie
ecar...@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~ecartoun/
"Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads for their real heads." (TMBG)
Alison Rosenstengel
TriciaJT <tric...@aol.com> wrote:
>The point that I am trying to get across is how *incredibly* hypocritical
>it was of Mimi and the others who net-copped WrightBurk to have done so
The difference is that WB wasn't cancelled because of his pro-AOL
opinions, etc. He was cancelled for making FOUR HUNDRED AND TWO
blatantly inappropriate posts. He was here to disrupt and newsgroup
disruption is net abuse, no debating it.
>Yes, I KNOW it was AOL who cancelled WrightBurk. I also KNOW that they
>wouldn't have done so had not Mimi and others forwarded WB's posts to TOS.
Why should the readers of a newsgroup not be able to complain to a
disruptive poster's service, whether it be America Online, Prodigy,
Netcom, or some small service in the hills of Sweden? Why is it the
victims' fault for trying to end abuse of resources? Do you honestly
expect the readers of a newsgroup to sit idly by and ignore FOUR HUNDRED
AND TWO inappropriate posts? At that point, you're at abuse that
surpasses the usefulness of a killfile. In the larger picture, four
hundred and two messages from one bloated egotistical disruptive entity
were sitting in all of our newsservers, adding to the load which slows
processing on our services.
> Mimi and those who net-copped WB also *know* this, and it is this that I
> find so contemptible.
Why are they comtemptible for taking actions to notify a service of a
disruptive and abusive poster? I don't understand.
-- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * --
BOYCOTT AMERICA ONLINE
Censorship * Excessive Pricing Schemes * Unfair Employment Practices
* Inadequate Features * Poor Customer Service * False Advertising *
Net Leach Philosophy * Frivolous Legal Threats to Critics
http://www.cloud9.net/~jegelhof
Frizz
wrote:
>Even today, freedom of speech does not let you go around saying you're
>going to kill the President, nor does it let you advocate the violent
>overthrow of the US government,
[snip]
Advocating violent overthrow of the US g'vt is protected speech. _The
Communist Manifesto_ is a good example to illustrate this concept.
Dawn McGatney, (cv)
arts...@pop3.concentric.net says-->
>
>The Toe <ni...@hevanet.com> wrote:
>
>>Hmm, maybe I'm missing something. I thought that AOL pulled the plug on
>>WB. Mimi did it? Wow, that's quite a trick. Well, Trish, now that you
>
>You've overlooked the possibility that Mimi may be Dave O'Donnell.
DAwn Replies----->>>
What in the night bumps "Dave O'Donnell? Who in the hell he be?
(Just another Irish name drifting through the lonely winter ice-nights?
Some bloke that only an anti-body could love? Who? Who? Who?)
-----DAwn McGatney
mcga...@access.digex.net
How to get on an ISP right--> http://www.access.digex.net/~mcgatney/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dawn McGatney, (cv)
>
>In article <4glvdg$i...@homer.alpha.net>, scchri...@wisenet.net (Cory)
>writes:
>
>>To say that this is the fault of Mimi, or any other a.a-s member is
>>completely wrong. It was AOL's policies that made this possible, not
>>Mimi. I'm sure that Mimi, Dawn, and others have been net.copped before
>>and you see that they are still here. Their ISP didn't decide to
>>terminate them because of their posts. AOL opponents won't be
>>appalled. We all knew AOL does this sort of thing every day.
>>
>>
>
>I am not about to defend AOL's actions in this case, as I believe they
>were wrong, wrong, wrong. I am also NOT about to cancel my account in a
>blaze of profanity and start posting that AOL SUX, simply because they
>made a decision that I don't agree with. To do so, after all the things I
>have said in defense of AOL, would be extremely hypocritical of me.
>
>it was of Mimi and the others who net-copped WrightBurk to have done so
>might *personally* disagree with AOL in this situation, I nonetheless
>recognize that they do, in fact, have a right to do what they did.
>However, since I DO disagree with their actions in this case, I certainly
>wouldn't try to use those actions to my own advantage.
>
>wouldn't have done so had not Mimi and others forwarded WB's posts to TOS.
>find so contemptible.
>
DAwn Replies----->>>
Among the posters here, the question is not one of right or wrong.
The issue is subjective. In my OPINION, Burke didn't need to be
net.copped; I didn't find him that offensive or disruptive.
In the OPINION of others, he was sufficiently offensive and
disruptive to warrant net.copping. They surely have a right to
their opinion, as I have a right to mine.
We don't have here an issue of FACT; we have opinions. I have
expressed my opinion, others have expressed theirs.
I turned over the threats I received from DrMirage(69) to his
provider (I net.copped him). Others may have thought it was
harmless puff. Again, opinion. I net.copped the O'N Entity;
I thought he warranted it. Others may have thought differently.
When you feel that someone has "crossed the line" in some respect,
you dump the e-mail or the post to his postmaster.
The problem here is that we're dealing with the postmaster of
an organisation which is "different," which thrives on this crap,
an organisation which gets off on cancelling its own members,
without investigation. Insinuation = guilt in AOL-land.
To outsiders, to the unknowing, as a result, we look hypocritical.
I think that appearance is inaccurate, but it's there.
This is no one's fault other than AOL's, but we now exude the look
of hypocrisy, IMO.
Because, in my opinion, Burke didn't need a net.copping; and because
of the weird online service with whom we're dealing in this case and
the APPEARANCE of hypocrisy, I think it was inexpedient to net.cop
Burke to AOL. NOT "wrong." My opinion.
Now, this thing is taking on a life of its own, however. Nothing
was so interesting about Burke in his life (he was boring) as its
ending.
Therefore, IMO again, I think I've wasted enough time on the Burke
incident. I think we all know each other's opinions at this point.
I don't think too much more can be said, and this is the kind of
nothing-thing that can lead to a long-term dispute. I didn't
agree with the n.c, but I'd hate like hell to see Burke succeed
in death with what he could not accomplish while alive, speaking
figuratively.
For me, I'm all Burked-out.
-----DAwn McGatney
mcga...@access.digex.net
AOLers... time for a cool ISP--> http://www.access.digex.net/~mcgatney/
TriciaJT
(Rich Jankowski) writes:
>How true. Tricia thinks censoring is good if the person being censored
>is disrupting a newsgroup that she believes in. If she doesn't agree
>with the newsgroup, she believes that trolls should be able to disrupt
>it; look at what she's trying to do here. She's thrown the word
>"hypocrite" around a lot lately, too bad she's not bright enough to
>see that it applies to her.
Do please go find something, anything, to back up your claim that I "think
censoring is good if the person being censored is disrupting a newsgroup
[I] believe in." No, Rich, what I am doing is pointing the finger at
those who net-copped WB for doing exactly what you claim *I* am doing.
I have never, ever, advocated censorship. Ever. What I have said is that
AOL *has the right* to censor if they so choose, as they are a private
company. That doesn't mean that I PERSONALLY believe in censorship.
As I've said, if I don't agree with a policy, I'm sure as hell not going
to try to use it to my own advantage, which is EXACTLY what Mimi and the
others who net-copped WB did.
THAT is hypocrisy.
tre...@slip.net
>But 402 inappropriate posts was not all he did. After posting a question
>to one of his posts, I had to shovel him out of my mailbox.I netcopped him
>for that. He wasn't just replying to my messages, he was trying to hold
>nonsense disscussions via e-mail. At the hight of this, I got 32 e-mails
>from him in one day! 10 were exact copies of each other.
Good you brought that up. That's borderline mail bombing.
Mimi Kahn
Stone) wrote:
>The Toe <ni...@hevanet.com> wrote:
>
>>Hmm, maybe I'm missing something. I thought that AOL pulled the plug on
>>WB. Mimi did it? Wow, that's quite a trick. Well, Trish, now that you
>
>You've overlooked the possibility that Mimi may be Dave O'Donnell.
ROTFLMAO!
Can't be because I don't have an AOL account. Sorry.
If I *were* Dave O'Donnell, there would be a few other AOLers gone
from this newsgroup.... :^)
Mimi
http://www.hooked.net/users/njkahn/
Stan Parker
> Burke didn't deserve to be net.copped.
>
You, ME and all the others that post here Liars. He then when
I suggested that he was boardering on Libel he went on to
call me a Pedophile on the Internet simply because someone at
AOL gave a cute ASCII Picture to go with my screen name.
I was preparing to file papers on Wright-Burke when I didcovered
his account was gone, I may still do that, Wright-Burke, is
lucky if being terminated by AOL is all that happens to him.
There ARE limits of free speach and Libel and Slander are out-
side of free speach.
Stan Parker
Art Stone
>
> What in the night bumps "Dave O'Donnell? Who in the hell he be?
>
> (Just another Irish name drifting through the lonely winter ice-nights?
> Some bloke that only an anti-body could love? Who? Who? Who?)
>
>Screen Name: PMDAtropos
>Member Name: David B. O'Donnell
>Location: Vienna, VA
>Birthdate: 11 Oct 67
>Sex: Male
>Marital Status: Married
>Computers: HP 9000/715; Stratus; IBM 9000ES; PowerBook 520c; Gateway 2000
>Hobbies: r
>Occupation: America Online Internet Feedback/Response/Information Team Manag
>Quote: Be careful for what you wish; it might come true.
Dave used to be (maybe still is) AOL's Postmaster. He is the person
who gets the "emergency" Usenet problems fixed. He is now in charge
of cleaning up AOL's image on the Internet.
Mimi indicated Dave is who reterminated WB's account, which is
entirely logical.
I've always wondered what the screen name meant... 8^)
Ken Williams
tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT) wrote:
>In article <3131e7db...@news.superlink.net>, ri...@superlink.net
>(Rich Jankowski) writes:
>
>>How true. Tricia thinks censoring is good if the person being censored
>>is disrupting a newsgroup that she believes in. If she doesn't agree
>>with the newsgroup, she believes that trolls should be able to disrupt
>>it; look at what she's trying to do here. She's thrown the word
>>"hypocrite" around a lot lately, too bad she's not bright enough to
>>see that it applies to her.
>
>Do please go find something, anything, to back up your claim that I "think
>censoring is good if the person being censored is disrupting a newsgroup
>[I] believe in." No, Rich, what I am doing is pointing the finger at
>those who net-copped WB for doing exactly what you claim *I* am doing.
>I have never, ever, advocated censorship. Ever.
Hmmmm......
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: AOL is okay.
From: tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT)
Date: 27 Dec 1995 07:27:47 -0500
Message-ID: <4bre43$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
"Really...I honestly need for someone to explain why they
are such fierce champions of people's "right" to be potty
mouths. And don't give me the "free speech" argument, because
you no more have the "right" to stand on the corner and hurl
obscenities at passersby than you do on AOL..."
--
Ke...@sojourn.com Speed kills. Switch to Windows95
Super...@aol.com <http://www.sojourn.com/~kenw/web/index.html>
Ig...@eskimo.com Finger for PGP Public Key
Ken Williams
<cut>
I find the following exchange one of the most interesting of what
Tricia has posted so far. She says MUCH more than she realizes.
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: Macy's? Sheesh... (Was Re: Comparisons (WAS: AOL
Attorneys Strong Arm Net..
From: tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT)
Date: 29 Jan 1996 09:42:05 -0500
In article <4ehk8i$b...@slip.net>, tre...@slip.net writes:
Trebor:
>So, in the real world, you wouldn't feel the slightest
>apprehension about approaching a group of strangers, and
>interrupting their obviously passionate discussion to give
>them your opposing opinions?
>When was the last time you did that?
Tricia:
Well, Trebor, you have a good point. The fact is, I never
have. Not because I'd be afraid to (okay..maybe if they
were bigger than I and looked like they might be armed, I'd
think twice), but because the opportunity hasn't ever presented
itself to me. I don't come across people discussing anything
passionately in public. If I did, though, and they were saying
things that I knew were simply not true, I'd like to think I'd
have enough character to speak up. And I think I'd do so in
pretty much the same tone as I've done here.
*~*End*~*
DAwn McGatney, (hv)
GMT, njk...@hooked.net (Mimi Kahn) wrote-->
>
>On 25 Feb 1996 22:32:52 GMT, mcga...@access.digex.net (DAwn McGatney,
>(hv)) wrote:
>
>> Bottom line time-->
>>
>> Burke didn't need to be net.copped, didn't deserve it. His purpose was
>> not to render alt.aol-sucks dysfinctional, to be disruptive.
>
>So, Dawn -- what *was* Wright-Burke's purpose?
DAwn Replies----->>>
IMO, Burke's purpose here was to provoke us to the point that we
would ask AOL to remove him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Ahti does need to be net.copped, does deserve it. Here is someone who
>> posts with no other purpose in mind than chat room disruption.
>>
>> IMO, the wrong guy was net.copped.
>
>So netcop the *right* guy. *I* certainly won't stand in your way.
DAwn Replies----->>>
I won't netcop Ahti; he's not "Ahti." He does deserve it though.
He's taken a simple troll and made it into a long-term hobby. I
think quite a few on here know Ahti's "other" name. Ahti is best
known simply by looking at those who are not critical of him and
whom he has never attacked.
-----DAwn McGatney
mcga...@access.digex.net
AOLers... NOW THERE'S *NO* EXCUSE--> http://www.access.digex.net/~mcgatney/
>
>
>Mimi
>
>http://www.hooked.net/uers/njkahn/
>
>
>
DAwn McGatney, (hv)
02:07:05 GMT, arts...@pop3.concentric.net (Art Stone) wrote-->
DAwn Replies----->>>
I don't think there's much doubt about what the screen name
can mean, which makes my previous suspicions even more
suspicious.
-----DAwn "Paranoia" McGatney
DAwn McGatney, (hv)
tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT) wrote-->
>I am not about to defend AOL's actions in this case, as I believe they
>were wrong, wrong, wrong. ...
>
>The point that I am trying to get across is how *incredibly* hypocritical
>it was of Mimi and the others who net-copped WrightBurk to have done so
>while at the same time decrying the censorship of AOL. ...
DAwn Replies----->>>
I really think we're running Burke into the ground (nothing in his
life was so noble as his demise, etc.)
Nonetheless, I'll comment yet again.
If anyone feels that e-mail or posts have "crossed the line,"
s/he has the right to complain to the author's Internet Provider.
Not to complain to AOL because they have some very strange minds
would be to allow AOLers more reign than others in disruption,
spams, personal threats, etc.
What we're dealing with is opinions. In the opinion of some (including
me), Burke didn't warrant contacting his provider. I didn't see him
as disruptive.
In the opinion of others, Burke was disruptive. They complained to
his provider, just as I complained to Netcom about O'Neil.
With opinions, there's no right or wrong.
However, in the case of Burke, I think there are two fairly ectopic
factors-->
1.) Burke was not a total idiot; he knew eventually he'd be TOSsed.
IMO, and based on our correspondences, he wanted to be TOSsed.
2.) If anyone feels someone has "crossed the line," they have the
right to go to his provider. Because AOL has a lot of strange
mindsets (like there are folks there who become orgasmic over
the prospect of killing one of their own), it might have been
better if AOL had been contacted with less fanfare by those
in whose opinion Burke had crossed the line.
And now I'm surely Burked-out (I hope).
-----DAwn McGatney
DAwn McGatney, (hv)
tedi...@westworld.com (Stan Parker) wrote-->
>> Burke didn't deserve to be net.copped.
>>
>I disagree with you on this on DAwn,
DAwn Replies----->>>
That's you privilege, but it almost surely guarantees
you're gonna be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Wright-Burke called Mimi,
>You, ME and all the others that post here Liars. He then when
>I suggested that he was boardering on Libel he went on to
>call me a Pedophile on the Internet simply because someone at
>AOL gave a cute ASCII Picture to go with my screen name.
DAwn Replies----->>>
Ok, so in your opinion he committed net abuse; in my opinion
he didn't. These aren't facts, they're opinions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>I was preparing to file papers on Wright-Burke when I didcovered
>his account was gone, I may still do that, Wright-Burke, is
>lucky if being terminated by AOL is all that happens to him.
>There ARE limits of free speach and Libel and Slander are out-
>side of free speach.
DAwn Replies----->>>
C'mon Stan. This is a flame group. People get called liars and
idiots. How many times has Ahti called me a Pedophile? Who is
always calling me a bitch... "Ned Kelly." That's the way Usenet
works. We don't file law suits against those who flame us. If
we feel there was net abuse, we contact the guy (or gal's) provider.
If it's not AOL, usually they have a chat with the alleged offender,
and he's wiser afterwards but knows what he did wrong and still has
his account.
If it's AOL, he finds he can no longer sign on and wonders why half
the time.
Burke made some comment about your bear attracting kids. How are you
going to show damages?
I really think everybody has said what they think about the Burke
termination (probably including Burke).
I also think that, for a variety of possible reasons, Burke wanted
to be terminated (though in MY OPINION, his biggest offence was
boredom; I see no net abuse, IN MY OPINION. Others differ.
That's what makes the world go round; that's how Usenet works. We
don't always agree.
My concern now is that after everyone has stated his opinion, and
there are few points left to be made, we're going to leave with
long-term resentments, giving Burke in absentia what he couldn't
have when here. Like we'll begin flaming ourselves. Again.
And don't think Burke isn't reading this and chuckling. He'll be
back, in some form, with some provider.
Too much said, DAwn, shut up, woman.
Mimi Kahn
>Mimi indicated Dave [O'Donnell] is who reterminated WB's account, which is
>entirely logical.
He actually terminated it the first time as well. The Customer
Service person who reactivated it did so without looking at
O'Donnell's notes.
Mimi
http://www.hooked.net/users/njkahn/
Gary Kirchherr
arts...@pop3.concentric.net (Art Stone) wrote:
<snip>
> Dave [O'Donnell] used to be (maybe still is) AOL's Postmaster. He is
the person
> who gets the "emergency" Usenet problems fixed. He is now in charge
> of cleaning up AOL's image on the Internet.
>
<snip>
Now _that's_ a job I wouldn't wish on _anybody!_
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
"There is a type of personality that needs to be abused by
authority, who needs to be censored, that enjoys this crap."
-The legendary DAwn McGatney, commenting on America Online
Phillip Temple
> mcga...@access.digex.net (DAwn McGatney, (hv)) wrote:
> >Wright-Burke's only disruptive if you read his posts, right?
> > Burke didn't deserve to be net.copped.
> >
> I disagree with you on this on DAwn, Wright-Burke called Mimi,
> You, ME and all the others that post here Liars. He then when
> I suggested that he was boardering on Libel he went on to
> call me a Pedophile on the Internet simply because someone at
> AOL gave a cute ASCII Picture to go with my screen name.
So you set yourself up for that insult. AOL well known as a
pedophile haven and you having a cute little teddy bear as your
.sig. He didn't accuse anyway, he only insinuated.
> I was preparing to file papers on Wright-Burke when I didcovered
> his account was gone, I may still do that, Wright-Burke, is
> lucky if being terminated by AOL is all that happens to him.
> There ARE limits of free speach and Libel and Slander are out-
> side of free speach.
Please WrightBurke come back, even if under another screen name, and
take up the guy on this one. I need a good laugh. So what damages
do you think you can claim? What would you estimate your loss of
earnings as? I don't think name-calling in a flame group would get
very far in the high court.
PS it's free _speech_.
--
_________________________
| Phillip Temple | http://sunacm.swan.ac.uk/~horza/acorn.html
|ho...@gu228uq.demon.co.uk| FreeMail != !FreeMail (bloody aolers)
|_________________________| FreeNet starter pack Acornet0.05g.spk ftp:
on his RiscPC ftp.dsse.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pub/Acorn/freenet/p.temple
TriciaJT
Williams) writes:
>Hmmmm......
>
>Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
>Subject: Re: AOL is okay.
>From: tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT)
>Date: 27 Dec 1995 07:27:47 -0500
>Message-ID: <4bre43$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>
> "Really...I honestly need for someone to explain why they
> are such fierce champions of people's "right" to be potty
> mouths. And don't give me the "free speech" argument, because
> you no more have the "right" to stand on the corner and hurl
> obscenities at passersby than you do on AOL..."
>
>
Nice try, Ken...but what I wrote above hardly qualifies as "support of
censorship" in general.
Perhaps it stems from my interpretation of the word "censorship." To me,
true censorship is the act of denying someone the opportunity to express
himself.
At any rate, as I've said before, AOL is within its rights to make
whatever rules it wants to, and to reprehend people who break those rules.
That doesn't mean I think what they did is right.
Still, I think what the net-cops did was worse.
TriciaJT
(Rich Jankowski) writes:
>Please stop holding everything to Jeff Carp's "burden of proof". We
>can sure as hell see right through your little ploy. You claimed that
>if you weren't a "jerk", AOL wouldn't cancel your account. Writeburk
>had 400+ inappropriate posts, he was canceled, but you protested the
>decision to net-cop him. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what
>is.
>
>
Yes, I DID say that, nimrod, and that is why I am NOW saying that AOL's
actions were WRONG.
Speakie Engie?
Clair Hancock
(Phillip Temple) writes:
>
>In message <4gtik9$2...@mothra.westworld.com> Stan Parker wrote:
>
>> mcga...@access.digex.net (DAwn McGatney, (hv)) wrote:
>> >Wright-Burke's only disruptive if you read his posts, right?
>> > Burke didn't deserve to be net.copped.
>> >
>> I disagree with you on this on DAwn, Wright-Burke called Mimi,
>> You, ME and all the others that post here Liars. He then when
>> I suggested that he was boardering on Libel he went on to
>> call me a Pedophile on the Internet simply because someone at
>> AOL gave a cute ASCII Picture to go with my screen name.
>
>So you set yourself up for that insult. AOL well known as a
>pedophile haven and you having a cute little teddy bear as your
>.sig. He didn't accuse anyway, he only insinuated.
>
>> I was preparing to file papers on Wright-Burke when I didcovered
>> his account was gone, I may still do that, Wright-Burke, is
>> lucky if being terminated by AOL is all that happens to him.
>> There ARE limits of free speach and Libel and Slander are out-
>> side of free speach.
>
>Please WrightBurke come back, even if under another screen name, and
>take up the guy on this one. I need a good laugh. So what damages
>do you think you can claim? What would you estimate your loss of
>earnings as? I don't think name-calling in a flame group would get
>very far in the high court.
>
>PS it's free _speech_.
So you wouldn't be offended if I called you a pedophile and a child
molester? Puleeze. That kind of name-calling, be it insinuated or
actual, is or should be highly offensive to the one who is at the focus
of it. If you think that kind of free speech is okay, you have a big
problem. I really would like to see how you would react if someone came
up to you in a bar or wherever you hang out, and told you that you
molested thier child? You would say "oh thats okay, it's a free country
you can say whatever you want" I don't think so.
Foxie
Phillip Temple
> So you wouldn't be offended if I called you a pedophile and a child
> molester? Puleeze. That kind of name-calling, be it insinuated or
> actual, is or should be highly offensive to the one who is at the focus
> of it. If you think that kind of free speech is okay, you have a big
> problem. I really would like to see how you would react if someone came
> up to you in a bar or wherever you hang out, and told you that you
> molested thier child? You would say "oh thats okay, it's a free country
> you can say whatever you want" I don't think so.
Let's keep like with like, please. If WrightBurke came into the news-
group and accused Stan of molesting his child sexually the sure he
would have a good case. He did nothing of the sort what-so-ever. It's
more like Stan coming into a rough bar carrying a teddy bear, and
one of the locals shouting out, "Hey, is that to attract the kiddies?"
FYI that kind of thing happens, and there is not a lot the 'victim'
can do apart from ignore it. That is RL, and I don't see VR being
different.
Frizz
wrote:
>bpe...@ee.net (Brian Penix) wrote:
. . . But per se harassment/abuse.
Emilie
tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT) wrote:
>I am not about to defend AOL's actions in this case, as I believe they
>were wrong, wrong, wrong. I am also NOT about to cancel my account in a
>blaze of profanity and start posting that AOL SUX, simply because they
>made a decision that I don't agree with. To do so, after all the things I
>have said in defense of AOL, would be extremely hypocritical of me.
How is changing one's mind hypocritical? How many such decisions would AOL
need to make for you to cancel your account?
>The point that I am trying to get across is how *incredibly* hypocritical
>it was of Mimi and the others who net-copped WrightBurk to have done so
>while at the same time decrying the censorship of AOL.
And? If your point is that Mimi sucks, you are certainly free to start a
newsgroup to that effect.
>You see, while I
>might *personally* disagree with AOL in this situation, I nonetheless
>recognize that they do, in fact, have a right to do what they did.
>However, since I DO disagree with their actions in this case, I certainly
>wouldn't try to use those actions to my own advantage.
Huh? Are you saying that *you* wouldn't have netcopped, and hence are
better than Mimi in some way? You want to look out for all that
righteousness, Patricia. It arouses resistances in others that they'll
freely express to you, then you get to be even more righteous and they get
to be more contrary and it never ends. Do you see how that works? I mean,
what's the point?
>Yes, I KNOW it was AOL who cancelled WrightBurk. I also KNOW that they
>wouldn't have done so had not Mimi and others forwarded WB's posts to TOS.
> Mimi and those who net-copped WB also *know* this, and it is this that I
>find so contemptible.
Not all Internet service providers will summarily cancel a customer's
account on the basis of a few complaints. Many of them will look into the
charges, and communicate the grievances to the person involved.
As far as your being so upset about Mimi's perceived hypocrisy, I myself
find it most useful, when I get very annoyed with someone, to look at
myself to understand what it is about me that identifies so strongly with
that person. Righteous indignation is a particularly sneaky form of
intolerance.
>Patricia
>
><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>Where am I and how did I end up in this handbasket?
Emilie
The Toe
tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT) wrote:
>In article <31336e3a...@news.superlink.net>, ri...@superlink.net
>(Rich Jankowski) writes:
>
>>Please stop holding everything to Jeff Carp's "burden of proof". We
>>can sure as hell see right through your little ploy. You claimed that
>>if you weren't a "jerk", AOL wouldn't cancel your account. Writeburk
>>had 400+ inappropriate posts, he was canceled, but you protested the
>>decision to net-cop him. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what
>>is.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, I DID say that, nimrod, and that is why I am NOW saying that AOL's
>actions were WRONG.
In other words, you are admitting that you are a pathetic, hypocritical,
worthless little troll, yes?
>Speakie Engie?
Si, idiot!
>Patricia
>
><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>Where am I and how did I end up in this handbasket?
The Toe
ni...@hevanet.com
The Toe
tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT) wrote:
>In article <3132945d...@news.sojourn.com>, Ke...@sojourn.com (Ken
>Williams) writes:
>
>>Hmmmm......
>>
>>Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
>>Subject: Re: AOL is okay.
>>From: tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT)
>>Date: 27 Dec 1995 07:27:47 -0500
>>Message-ID: <4bre43$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>>
>> "Really...I honestly need for someone to explain why they
>> are such fierce champions of people's "right" to be potty
>> mouths. And don't give me the "free speech" argument, because
>> you no more have the "right" to stand on the corner and hurl
>> obscenities at passersby than you do on AOL..."
>>
>>
>Nice try, Ken...but what I wrote above hardly qualifies as "support of
>censorship" in general.
Nice try, troll, but that's not what you said earlier. In your previous
post, you did not say that "I've never supported censorship in general".
You said, "I have never, ever, advocated censorship. Ever."
There's a big difference in not supporting censorship "in general", and
not supporting censorship "ever". Not supporting censorship "ever" (as
you stated before) would mean that you do indeed support someone's right
to hurl obscenities.
You said "...I honestly need for someone to explain why they are such
fierce champions of people's 'right' to be potty mouths. And don't give
me the 'free speech' argument, because you no more have the 'right' to
stand on the corner and hurl obscenities than you do on AOL..."
If you are not in favor of someone's "right" to be a "potty mouth" (which
is implied in your post) then you are not a supporter of unequivical free
speech. This means that you do indeed support censorship on occassion.
This does not jibe with your statment that "I have never, ever, advocated
censorship. Ever."
The quotes attributed to you above show that you do indeed support
censorship on occassion (as in not having a right to "hurl obscenities"
or be a "potty mouth"). This proves you to be not only a fucking
hypocrite, not only a fucking idiot, but now you are a fucking liar as
well. Congratulations! (Better watch my potty mouth. Wait, there's no
TOS where I'm posting from. Whew!)
>Perhaps it stems from my interpretation of the word "censorship." To me,
>true censorship is the act of denying someone the opportunity to express
>himself.
Oh, Christ. Just shut the fuck up, okay? You've already damned yourself
with your own words, so please at least have the dignity to own up to
them, allright?
>At any rate, as I've said before, AOL is within its rights to make
>whatever rules it wants to, and to reprehend people who break those rules.
So then what are you bitching about? AOL terminated Wrightburke. We
didn't. Go bitch to AOL, not to us.
> That doesn't mean I think what they did is right.
Trish, I don't think anyone here gives a shit about what you think about
anything.
>Still, I think what the net-cops did was worse.
Again, tell it to someone who cares.
>Patricia
>
><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>Where am I and how did I end up in this handbasket?
The Toe
ni...@hevanet.com
Should I *plonk* Trish, or should I keep making her look bad (not that
she needs my help with this)?
DAwn McGatney, (hv)
tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT) wrote-->
>
>In article <3132945d...@news.sojourn.com>, Ke...@sojourn.com (Ken
>Williams) writes:
>
>>Hmmmm......
>>
>>Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
>>Subject: Re: AOL is okay.
>>From: tric...@aol.com (TriciaJT)
>>Date: 27 Dec 1995 07:27:47 -0500
>>Message-ID: <4bre43$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>>
>> "Really...I honestly need for someone to explain why they
>> are such fierce champions of people's "right" to be potty
>> mouths. And don't give me the "free speech" argument, because
>> you no more have the "right" to stand on the corner and hurl
>> obscenities at passersby than you do on AOL..."
>>
>>
>
>Nice try, Ken...but what I wrote above hardly qualifies as "support of
>censorship" in general.
>
>true censorship is the act of denying someone the opportunity to express
>himself.
>
>whatever rules it wants to, and to reprehend people who break those rules.
DAwn Replies----->>>
Tricia-
That's the old "we're a business" argument. No, a business CANNOT
make any rules it wants. Can AOL make a rule denying membership to
Jews and Blacks? Can AOL engage in price-fixing with P*? Can AOL
intentionally mis-bill its users? NO WAY.
The Internet was built to a large entent with federal funds; it flows
through scores of countries. There are many who believe that all
censorship, especially in the US, falls by the wayside where the Net
is concerned... that AOL has no right to impose censorship on its
users on the Net, simply because it provides access to the Net.
Can AT&T censor out certain words from Long Distance calls because
it's a business, and it's providing access to long distance service?
What you say? AOL's users agreed? Before saying yes? And are the
terms of their contract sufficiently well-defined to hold in court,
to constitute a contract? Is puching a picture of a button with "yes"
painted on it with a mouse cursor an agreement to a contract?
My point... it is by no means clear that AOL has ANY right to censor
its members on tyhe Internet.
This is a question that someday will be resolved in the Courts, not
on Usenet.
In the meantime, best to leave AOL to those who require restraint
from using evil words. The others... Time for a nice ISP. (No
Censorship.)
(I still don't understand why AOL forbid the use of "breast," yet
features pictures of women with breasts exposed (in what I regard
as degrading poses (no, mine was a cool pose), hidden away under
computer graphics.)
(Interesting sidelight--> I'm told that a few years a go, this
AOL site had lots of women who might have been < age 21. Then
about a year ago, these were reduced to portrait shots via heavy-
handed cropping. And now they're gone.
Would be embarrassing for AOL is the FBI made an arrest, and the
arrested said, Wait, I downloaded that pic from AOL... no, not
ON AOL... FROM AOL. But they're gone now, no probs.)
-----DAwn McGatney
mcga...@access.digex.net
Everything you need to know to move up from AOL to an ISP-->
http://www.access.digex.net/~mcgatney/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Still, I think what the net-cops did was worse.
>
Clair Hancock
(Phillip Temple) writes:
>
>Let's keep like with like, please. If WrightBurke came into the news-
>group and accused Stan of molesting his child sexually the sure he
>would have a good case. He did nothing of the sort what-so-ever. It's
>more like Stan coming into a rough bar carrying a teddy bear, and
>one of the locals shouting out, "Hey, is that to attract the kiddies?"
>FYI that kind of thing happens, and there is not a lot the 'victim'
>can do apart from ignore it. That is RL, and I don't see VR being
>different.
Yes but you are stilling putting that point across, whether you are
implying it, hinting at it or downright shouting it in someones face.
Granted it may not be sufficient cause for a suit (it probably is in
the US though) it still offends and it was obviously said to offend.
Because of that statement, and that statement alone, I am happy
wright-burk was booted off AOL. None of us have the right to imply that
kind of thing without good reason.
Foxie
Phillip Temple
> In <19960229....@gu228uq.demon.co.uk> ho...@gu228uq.demon.co.uk
> (Phillip Temple) writes:
> >
>
> >Let's keep like with like, please. If WrightBurke came into the news-
> >group and accused Stan of molesting his child sexually the sure he
> >would have a good case. He did nothing of the sort what-so-ever. It's
> >more like Stan coming into a rough bar carrying a teddy bear, and
> >one of the locals shouting out, "Hey, is that to attract the kiddies?"
> >FYI that kind of thing happens, and there is not a lot the 'victim'
> >can do apart from ignore it. That is RL, and I don't see VR being
> >different.
>
> Yes but you are stilling putting that point across, whether you are
> implying it, hinting at it or downright shouting it in someones face.
So you don't see any difference between WrightBurke (a known troll and
flamer) saying "Why the teddybear in the .sig? To attract the kiddies?"
and some bloke coming on and accusing him of molesting _their_ child?
> Granted it may not be sufficient cause for a suit (it probably is in
> the US though) it still offends and it was obviously said to offend.
It was said to mock and poke fun.
> Because of that statement, and that statement alone, I am happy
> wright-burk was booted off AOL. None of us have the right to imply that
> kind of thing without good reason.
>
> Foxie
I think that is OTT. So he made fun of Stan's .sig. Big deal. Did all
of us suddenly think "Oh, WrighBurke is right, the guy must be a
pedophile"? I don't think so.
tre...@slip.net
>Yes, I DID say that, nimrod, and that is why I am NOW saying that AOL's
^^^^^^
Oh, Trish... you're *such* a potty-mouth. Tsk, tsk...
DAwn McGatney, (hv)
23:21:37 GMT, ho...@infopark.demon.co.uk (Phillip Temple) wrote-->
>
>In message <4hl413$5...@mothra.westworld.com> Stan Parker wrote:
>
>> ho...@gu228uq.demon.co.uk (Phillip Temple) wrote:
>>
>> >> Because of that statement, and that statement alone, I am happy
>> >> wright-burk was booted off AOL. None of us have the right to imply
that
>> >> kind of thing without good reason.
>> >>
>> >> Foxie
>> >
>> >I think that is OTT. So he made fun of Stan's .sig. Big deal. Did all
>> >of us suddenly think "Oh, WrighBurke is right, the guy must be a
>> >pedophile"? I don't think so.
>> >
>> out of bounds calling me a Pedophile. With the state of things in
>> the United States today, just being accused of such behavior can
>> result in dire consequences. Including the posibility of loss employ-
>> ment. Whether I have a case or not is up to the court, and NOT open for
>> discussion.
>> ()__()
>> ( oo )
>> /^`\%'^\
>> (/( . )\)
>> Q/--\Q
>> TeddiBear
>
>You don't have to post things twice to make things VERY clear, y'know.
>He didn't call you a pedophile (small p). I also doubt WrightBurke
>making a joke about your .sig will lose you your job. You seem to just
>be making big noises to swell your own self-importance.
>
>Whether you have a case is NOT open for discussion? Could I gently
>remind you that it was YOU that originated this thread ASKING people
>if you had a case. Do you not feel mildly silly making that statement?
>
>If you feel aggrieved that much, then stop mouthing off and put your
>money where you mouth is. Sue him. If you even win $1 then I will
>gladly eat humble pie.
DAwn Replies----->>>
Stan, grow up.
I have been called a pedophile MANY times by Ahti and others. The
strict etiology of pedophile is someone who loves kids, and I qualify
(good thing, too; with three younger sibs, it was good for their
survival chances). I even hope to have kids of my own someday soon,
whom I shall surely love--> pedophilia (but only in the strictest
sense, not a physical love).
This is a flame newsgroup; people get called nasty things. I strongly
suspect that my being a pedophile, in FACT, would cause an immediate
career change for me, considering that I work with children in an
intimate "setting."
I've been called things since Nov. 1994 by some folks in this group.
I'm still "employed" at the same "job." Stan, let it go; you're acting
like a child.
If you wanna play in this newsgroup, read the FAQ. The FAQ states that
this is a flame newsgroup. That gives folks a BIG latitude in what they
can call you.
Besides, even if you somehow were able to sue the guy and win a $1,
you'd be branded a schmuck for life on Usenet. Find a way to sue AOL;
they deserve it, it's probably more valid, and you won't be branded a
schmuck.
The US is far too sue-happy. I have to have a chaperone in the room
when I'm with a male > 11. And that's sad. (Although, it may be to
protect ME, to act as a witness for me, so that when I sue the kid,
I now have a witness...
C'mon, Stan, please be cool.
-----DAwn McGatney
mcga...@access.digex.net
http://www.access.digex.net/~mcgatney/
-EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW TO MOVE UP TO AN ISP.
The Toe
njk...@hooked.net (Mimi Kahn) wrote:
[quotes from previous posts snipped]
>
>But probably our favorite snippety little troll, TriciaJT, will find
>it unconscionable and hypocritical that Brian netcopped Wright-Burke
>for flooding his mail box with stupid, repetitive, and unwanted
>e-mail.
Trish probably thinks we should be "outraged" at Brian's blatant
"censorship" of WB's right to flood his mailbox with "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
posts. Then again, Trish also thinks she's Napoleon. I wonder how the
therapy's going.
>Wonder how many AOLers she's referred to TOS this week....
Only the ones who say "breast" when she's around. They'd be much better
to use the accepted (and PCC Scott approved) AOL spelling of "breat".
>
>Mimi
>
>http://www.hooked.net/users/njkahn/
The Toe
ni...@hevanet.com
Fred Winterer
[Bunch of old stuff snipped]
>_really_ don't understand "digging up" old stuff... it appears this
>newsgroup is relying on old trolls....
>~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>"Hey, it's your world, I just live in it!"
>~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>
So you noticed that when people have nothing better to do in life than
find different ways to say "AOL Sucks" then it does get a little old.
***************************************************************
Fred Winterer bank...@ais.net
"Protect our constitution, it keeps us free!"
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here!"
***************************************************************