Cybersell Response to Virtual Mall
Zbigniew J. Tyrlik
Lotsa of slime-speak deleted.
Since he is posting from compuserve - if I send him a reply
there, he is going to payfor it ?
Can someone confirm it ?
>Laurence A. Canter
>Martha S. Siegel
>Cybersell (tm)
>--
>Cybersell, Inc.
>10245 E Via Linda, Ste 222
>Scottsdale AZ 85258
_zjt
--
Zbigniew J. Tyrlik DoD# 0759 FJ1200 `89-Silver... zb...@wariat.org
APK on the move New Phone - 216-241-7541 active Jan 09.95
Feeds, shell, FTP, telnet, SL/IP,PPP Uniboard distribution point
Ken Hollis
In article <3jhnln$3ra$1...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> At the
> time Mr. Boyle contacted Cybersell, he had already established his own Web
> mall, replete with paying customers, and was not in any manner unfamiliar
> with the Internet. Indeed, his objective in mass posting was to draw
> traffic to his Web site which, without doubt, he succeeded in doing. Mr.
> Boyle personally selected nearly 5,000 Usenet groups as objects of his
> posting. During the process, he consulted with Cybersell for many hours.
... <snip> ...
> the
> possible consequences were discussed frequently and in full detail with
> him as well as with his representatives from System 5.
Actually, this makes sense & I believe the above. Why? It did take one week
for the "apology" to come from Mr. Boyle, and since he already had his "virtual
mall" already set up (and was the site admin) he should have had at least a
cursory knowledge of the 'net. I suspect what happened is that he caught more
flak than he thought he would & decided to try to divert some to C&S.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Official disclaimer : I don't talk officially for NASA, and they
don't make any commitments for me. Seemed like a fair deal.
INTERNET: HOL...@TITAN.KSC.NASA.GOV SPAN/HEPnet: KSCP00::HOLLIS
Given enough Bureaucrats and any small piece of information (no matter how
trivial) one of the Bureaucrats will object to that piece of information being
made publicly available...
Pete Hartman
Perhaps Larry & Martha ought to join the Church of Scientology
in Holy War against the "Net.Terrorists" who are only trying to stop
them from killing the golden goose.
But of course, I'm sure that they don't have the first clue what
that old fable meant.
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University p...@bradley.bradley.edu
The Conclusion You Jump To May Be Your Own.
gent...@xmission.com
zb...@junior.wariat.org (Zbigniew J. Tyrlik) wrote:
}In <3jhnln$3ra$1...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> Laurence A Canter
<73450...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
}
}Lotsa of slime-speak deleted.
}Since he is posting from compuserve - if I send him a reply
}there, he is going to payfor it ?
}
}Can someone confirm it ?
}
Regards,
The Gentleman
"I may be gibbering, but I don't feel I am wrong"
--Mike Falkner
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
[Various cybersell ramblings deleted]
>In this regard, an
>investigation of MIT and their flagrant negligence in turning a blind eye
>to the misuses of their system is long overdue.
As a lawyer Laurence Canter should beware making accusations against an
institution such as MIT. Were they to consider the remarks defamatory they
might chose to take action.
As for "misuse" there are few institutions in such a position as MIT when
it comes to differentiating between acceptable and unacceptable use.
Comming soon - a method of fixing C&S style spam good and proper!
--
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
Not Speaking for anyone else.
Winston Edmond
>Since he is posting from compuserve - if I send him a reply
>there, he is going to payfor it ?
Internet mail to a Compuserve address arrives "postage due", but the
recipient has the option of refusing the message and thus not being charged.
-WBE
Karl_Kl...@cs.cmu.edu
> }Since he is posting from compuserve - if I send him a reply
> }there, he is going to payfor it ?
> Unless CServe has changed, they charge .25 per email recieved.
CServe users are able to delete Internet mail unread, in which case it
is not charged. I would guess that Canter is methodically deleting
every single reply.
--
Fight crime. Shoot back.
Pete Hartman
>daniel r. reitman, attorney to be <drei...@oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>>As I read this, I wonder whether C&S may have committed liable? :-)
>Dear Mr. Attorney To Be:
>Don't you mean LIBEL?
I'm sure he did.
Of course, he was making use of the irony of the fact that Mr. Canter
IS an attorney and posted some drivel making the exact same mistake in
usage.
Lance Purple
[ Justification of spamming, character attacks on Ron Newman deleted ]
>In spite of the reprehensible tactics of the MIT thugs, mass posting to
>USENET remains a profitable way to market to the huge majority of people
>on the Internet who do not share the warped MIT mentality. Every day more
What? The mentality that when I sit down to read rec.gardening that I won't
be assailed with hundreds of advertisements, flogging everything from hard
disk drives to legal services, none of which have anything to do with the
newsgroup topics?
>The public is becoming increasingly aware and intolerant of academic
>institutions who [ ... ] act sociopathically in response to advertising.
On the contrary, sir. The American public is sick to death of telemarketing.
That is what your "Cybersell" venture is. The advertising you want to paste
all over the 'Net is every bit as intrusive as a telephone call at the
dinner table, hawking aluminium siding or magazine subscriptions. If we
want your services, we will contact YOU. Until then, please go away.
L. Purple (lpu...@netcom.com)
Karl_Kl...@cs.cmu.edu
> I'm not sure but I just did a lookup on CIS and there is a Laurance
> A Canter except this one has got a different Compuserve number to
> the one that posted to USENET.
Yup. That's not Martha's account, either:
CANTER, LAURENCE A SCOTTSDALE, AZ 76636,443
SIEGEL, MARTHA S SCOTTSDALE, AZ 73032,164
It's considerably more than merely possible that they have acquired
new account(s) on CServe expressly to keep (what they seem to regard
as) crap away from their "regular" accounts, and that these new
accounts have been removed from directory searchability. (It's a user
choice on CServe.)
Tim Skirvin
Not only did C&S screw up, but they posted it TWICE.
*snicker*
- Tim Skirvin
[followups redirected. Again.]
--
Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
"I have, for many years, longed for the coveted title of net.kook -- but
as you are making clear to me, the competition is just too tough."
-- Lizard (liz...@mercury.interpath.net)
Petrea E. Mitchell
> Path: cmcl2!panix!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!uunet!
> news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news
[...]
> Organization: Cybersell
[...]
> Message-ID: <3jhnln$3ra$1...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>
Does CI$ allow people to change the organization header? And does
their news really go straight to UUNet?
--
/ <|> <|> <pr...@mvp.com> <pr...@gm.dev.com>
Petrea Mitchell <pem...@is.nyu.edu>
New to the net? Got some questions, and don't know where to ask them?
Check out news.announce.newusers and news.newusers.questions.
Matthew Paul Cline
In <3jhnln$3ra$1...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
[drivel deleted]
Why are C&S posting this from compuserve rather than cyber.sell.com?
I believe that they have set up an nntp server on it, even if they
no longer spam from it. Since it is a great break of character for them
to post something (personaly, in a non-spamish manner) to USENET, I
won't believe any posts like this until they come directly from
cyber.sell.com (with a path that indicates it's not forged).
--
Poodles have no honor. Have you hugged your shoggoth today?
GE d? -p+ c++(+++) l++ u++ e+ m+ s/- n+(-) h+ f !g w+ t+ r y?
Ian A. York
>br...@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>
>>So in other words that posting was a troll, whether it was from Canter or
>>not. If you like to get caught by trollers, go ahead.
> But writing about it here isn't going to hurt anything, and it
>might get something done (again). Especially the pseudo-"liable" about
I agree with Brad, although Tim has a point too. Seems to me this is
probably from Canter. Consider his recent career, and the outlook for
future income:
-add up the income from the spams you know he's implemented
-consider the likelihood of his getting any repeat business (if
this is really what happened with this customer, what kind of customer
satisfaction do you think he has induced?)
-consider the word-of-mouth business he's going to be getting
(again, customer satisfaction)
-add in his income from the book; most unlikely that it has paid
back the advance he got on it, so I doubt he's seeing anything from that
-think about how long he's going to be able to spam from Sprint,
even if he can get away with it once - they are already alerted
Now, ask yourself if you guess he and Siegal have made a decent
income over the last year. Ask yourself if he and Siegal are going to
make as much next year. My guess is that they are probably hovering near
the poverty line.
Finally, ask yourself what could save their necks for another
year. The only answer is publicity - become seen as a victim so that
Sprint can't cut their connection, so they get renewal on their newspaper
columns, get the attention of more new and unaware customers, get written
up, sell more books.
And ask yourself, what's the worst thing you could do to them
right now.
As for me, I'm going to ignore them.
And next time they spam - make sure their client knows who was
responsible for the disaster they're seeing.
Ian
--
Ian York (yo...@mbcrr.harvard.edu)
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney St., Boston MA 02115
Phone (617)-632-4328 Fax (617)-632-2627
Cat
> Cat wrote:
> Dear Mr. Attorney To Be:
> Don't you mean LIBEL?
>spelling. :-)
D'oh!
As many of you have pointed out, C&S made this stupid error and
the other guy (Mr. Lawyer to Be) was just parodying them. I
recall reading that awhile back, now that it's been mentioned
to me. Sorry. I stuck my size 9's right in my mouth.
I'd better go now, before C&S sue me for deformation of caricature.
(That's probably what they'd call it at least.)
Cat
Cat ----------------------------------------- |\ _,,,--,,_ ,) ---------
c...@rumpleteazer.feline.org /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
c...@va.pubnix.com |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
http://www.feline.org/~feline/ -------------'---''(_/--' (_/-' -----F.Lee----
Alma Engels
>Xref: news.indirect.com alt.culture.internet:9099
>alt.current-events.net-abuse:22110 alt.internet.services:44825
>news.admin.misc:34222 news.admin.policy:26011
>Path:
>news.indirect.com!news.Direct.CA!hookup!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!news.mathwork
>s.com!newshost.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!news.xmission.com!slc46
>From: gent...@xmission.com
>Newsgroups:
>news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,alt.culture.internet,alt.current-events.net-ab
>use,alt.internet.services
>Subject: Re: Cybersell Response to Virtual Mall
>Date: Tue, 07 Mar 95 18:26:28 GMT
>Organization: What' that?
>Lines: 18
>Message-ID: <3ji8gk$am0...@slc46.xmission.com>
>References: <3jhnln$3ra$1...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>
><3jhpnf$5...@junior.wariat.org>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: slc46.xmission.com
>X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #3
>Regards,
> The Gentleman
Actually it is .15 per email and he can refuse to pay for it and receive it.
Joe Buck
>As a lawyer Laurence Canter should beware making accusations against an
>institution such as MIT. Were they to consider the remarks defamatory they
>might chose to take action.
But then, Mr. Canter is not a very good lawyer; he was run out of the
state of Florida by the bar association; he has a history of running con
games (some legal, some evidently not) against immigrants, exploiting the
fact that they don't know better.
Unlike Mr. Canter's allegations against MIT, I can actually back this one
up (with documentation from the Florida bar, together with the original
Green Card ad which advertised a completely unnecessary and useless
service), so don't bother huffing and puffing about libel, as I will just
laugh at you.
--
-- Joe Buck <jb...@synopsys.com> (not speaking for Synopsys, Inc)
Phone: +1 415 694 1729
Laurence A Canter
Cybersell's Response to Virtual Mall
The posting of a public apology by Chuck Boyle concerning his Virtual Mall
and the attendant remarks regarding Cybersell require a public response.
Mr. Boyle contracted with and paid Cybersell specifically to mass post.
Cybersell at all times acted at his request, using his account. At the
time Mr. Boyle contacted Cybersell, he had already established his own Web
mall, replete with paying customers, and was not in any manner unfamiliar
with the Internet. Indeed, his objective in mass posting was to draw
traffic to his Web site which, without doubt, he succeeded in doing. Mr.
Boyle personally selected nearly 5,000 Usenet groups as objects of his
posting. During the process, he consulted with Cybersell for many hours.
with personnel from System 5, the suppliers of Mr. Boyle's Web service and
Internet connection. Over a period of two weeks of planning for this mass
post, during which Mr. Boyle was at all times an active participant, the
possible consequences were discussed frequently and in full detail with
direct result of being fully informed, set up a "disposable" account with
CRL in specific anticipation of the possible consequences and in a
concerted effort to avoid any deleterious effects on his System 5
connection as well as an additional personal account he maintained with
Netcom. Mr. Boyle also signed a detailed release of liability, absolving
Cybersell of responsibility for possible consequences. In addition, Mr.
Boyle informed Cybersell that System 5 personnel had advised him of the
possible consequences and recommended he not proceed. He decided to go
forward anyway. Mr. Boyle had also read the book How To Make A Fortune on
the Information Super Highway by Cybersell's Canter & Siegel, which
details at length the possible consequences of mass posting, and, in fact,
Mr. Boyle informed Cybersell personnel that it was his reading of the book
which prompted him to call Cybersell initially.
Given the above facts, the credibility of Mr. Boyle's current claim that
he did not realize the full implication of his decision to mass post is
open to serious question. It would seem more likely that Mr. Boyle, having
accomplished in a completely knowing manner his goal of drawing attention
to his Web site, is now making a calculated attempt to shift any negative
feedback away from himself and onto Cybersell. We realize it serves the
ends of certain individuals to readily accept Mr. Boyle's statements as
true, no matter how unlikely they may be. The opinions of such
individuals have no more credibility than does Mr. Boyle's claim of
ignorance.
We are well aware that anyone who mass posts to USENET will be the object
of vicious threats, harassment, bullying, coercion, vandalism, obscene
phone calls, mail fraud, and assorted other illegal tactics. Indeed there
are many thousands of copies of our book in circulation worldwide that
clearly so state. We do not doubt Mr. Boyle experienced this first hand
and we suspect it has weighed heavily in his sudden change of heart. It's
now well established that every time there is a new mass post there is
also a set program of intimidation that appears to be initiated by Ron
Newman and/or others affiliated with the MIT Media Lab. This behavior
speaks volumes, not about mass posting, but about the failed character of
the intimidators. Attempts to pass off this well organized effort by a
few reprehensible individuals as a spontaneous grass roots reaction are
completely transparent. Mr. Newman and/or his cohorts have at this point
created an impressive record of either committing or publicly advocating
commission of countless civil and criminal wrongs, all with the apparent
knowledge and tacit sanction of MIT officials. The group of common thugs
Mr. Negraponte appears to be harboring are a disgrace to themselves and
their university. We can only wonder if Mr. Negraponte with his much-
vaunted expertise, had a hand in training them.
We regret that Sprint is experiencing the same sort of despicable gang war
behavior from MIT that was visited on Mr. Boyle. We also know that, in
addition, MIT students or personnel are engaged in massive, behind the
scenes influence brokering, contacting everyone from access providers to
our own employees in an effort to silence us. These people, in spite of
their campus affiliation, operate as gutter snipes. The use of university
time and facilities for this purpose should and will be brought to public
attention. In any event, we are confident that Sprint will not be as
intimidated as Mr. Boyle seems to have been. Corporations such as IBM, who
are heavily involved with MIT in a number of ventures, would do well to
reconsider the advisability of affiliation with an organization like MIT
whose students and/or personnel flout the law on a regular basis.
In spite of the reprehensible tactics of the MIT thugs, mass posting to
USENET remains a profitable way to market to the huge majority of people
on the Internet who do not share the warped MIT mentality. Every day more
is particularly beneficial to small businesses, which our government has
an interest in fostering. If Cybersell's connection to the Internet were
to be eliminated, the advertising posted to USENET every day would still
continue and grow. Our company would also continue on, advising
businesses of how to advertise through their own accounts, just as Mr.
Boyle did.
The public is becoming increasingly aware and intolerant of academic
commission of computer crimes as exercises in free speech but act
sociopathically in response to advertising. This set of values is not
reflective of the beliefs of most Americans. In this regard, an
investigation of MIT and their flagrant negligence in turning a blind eye
stands behind all its actions as being both legal and highly successful
business pursuits. We continue to encourage others to follow the path we
are cutting through this virtual war zone.
Jonathan I. Kamens
<3jgl51$t96$2...@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>, and
<3jhnln$3ra$1...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> (yeah, he posted it three
separate times; I guess gaffes like that are to be expected from Cybersell),
Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
|> Indeed, his objective in mass posting was to draw
|> traffic to his Web site which, without doubt, he succeeded in doing.
Yeah, probably. But how much of the traffic drawn to his Web site was from
interested customers, as opposed to from people annoyed by his spamming and
interested in nothing but overloading his Web site as a form of protest?
|> Given the above facts, the credibility of Mr. Boyle's current claim that
|> he did not realize the full implication of his decision to mass post is
|> open to serious question. It would seem more likely that Mr. Boyle, having
|> accomplished in a completely knowing manner his goal of drawing attention
|> to his Web site, is now making a calculated attempt to shift any negative
|> feedback away from himself and onto Cybersell.
This seems entirely possible. It really pisses you off then someone plays
your own game better then you, eh, Laurence?
Still, whether or not Boyle is intentionally trying to accrue the positive
benefits of his spam while nailing you with the negative benefits, the fact
remains that you and your charming wife have always been, and continue to be,
nothing but parasites to the Usenet.
While I deplore Boyle's spamming, if he planned from the start to do it and
then blame it on you, knowing full well that even if you told everyone the
truth, people would laugh at you, I can't help but admire his chutzpah.
|> We are well aware that anyone who mass posts to USENET will be the object
|> of vicious threats, harassment, bullying, coercion, vandalism, obscene
|> phone calls, mail fraud, and assorted other illegal tactics.
That may be true. But people who spam the Usenet are also the object of many
*legal* retaliatory tactics. While I do not condone the illegal tactics in
which some members of the Usenet engage, I can't help but think that you
deserve everything you get.
|> It's
|> now well established that every time there is a new mass post there is
|> also a set program of intimidation that appears to be initiated by Ron
|> Newman and/or others affiliated with the MIT Media Lab.
Ah ha! Here where this posting first makes me suspect that it's a forgery and
a troll. I can't *believe* that C&S would be so stupid as to claim a
conspiracy, spear-headed and endorsed by the MIT Media Lab, to engage in
illegal tactics against them.
Fact: Messages posted by users at individual sites do not represent the views
of those sites. Sites do not endorse the views posted by their users to the
Usenet.
Fact: Nothing Ron Newman has said or done to or about C&S has been in the
least bit illegal. I'd like to see C&S try to prove otherwise in court.
Fact: MIT has in the past been *very* supportive of the rights of members of
its community to speak freely on the Usenet through MIT's computing resources.
If C&S thinks that he's going to intimidate MIT into silencing Ron Newman by
claiming that Newman or others at MIT are engaging in a conspiracy against
C&S, he is sorely confused. I'm not just Joe Random User saying this -- I
used to be one of the active Usenet administrators at MIT, and I still help
out from time to time.
Fact: MIT has more lawyers at its disposal than C&S can ever dream of.
Laurence, does the term "libel" mean anything to you? Certainly, the
statements you have made about MIT are defamatory, and certainly, you can't
prove a single one of them to the satisfaction of a judge or jury. I would
just *love* to see this escalate to the point where MIT lawyers are forced to
send a "cease and desist" order to C&S. Talk about outclassed!
Surely C&S must realize that they're totally out of their league trying to
take on MIT. Perhaps C&S do not realize that MIT does not cave in to attempts
to pressure them to silence members of their community, but I can assure C&S
that MIT does not, and will not, cave in to such pressure. Give it up,
Laurence, it's not going to work.
|> Attempts to pass off this well organized effort by a
|> few reprehensible individuals as a spontaneous grass roots reaction are
|> completely transparent.
I would like to see some evidence that the massive outcry against C&S is
really a "well organized effort by a few... individuals" at MIT. Yeah, right.
|> Mr. Newman and/or his cohorts have at this point
|> created an impressive record of either committing or publicly advocating
|> commission of countless civil and criminal wrongs,
Prove it.
|> We regret that Sprint is experiencing the same sort of despicable gang war
|> behavior from MIT that was visited on Mr. Boyle.
I've seen many postings from people advocating complaining to Sprint. The
only one from MIT has been from Ron. Where is your evidence that the outcry
against Sprint is originating at MIT?
|> We also know that, in
|> addition, MIT students or personnel are engaged in massive, behind the
|> scenes influence brokering, contacting everyone from access providers to
|> our own employees in an effort to silence us.
Prove it.
|> The use of university
|> time and facilities for this purpose should and will be brought to public
|> attention.
Ooh, ooh, I'm sure this just makes MIT quake in its boots.
I can't believe that C&S, an organization with zero credibility (or perhaps
even negative credibility) on the Net is trying to take on MIT, an
organization with an incredibly solid Net reputation. This *must* be a troll.
Please, Laurence, tell me that you didn't write a message this stupid?
Or perhaps Laurence is planning on waging a public-relations war against MIT
in the mass media, and this is just the first lobby in that war? I'd *love*
to see C&S try that, because although MIT may decide to ignore C&S' posted
libel because it's piddlingly irrelevant, because no one on the Net will
believe it, and because it would be difficult in any case to prove who wrote
it, they *certainly* will not ignore libelous statements made about them by
C&S in the mass media. Laurence, if you want to get your pants sued off of
you and lose, go ahead, make some of these accusations about MIT in one of the
trade rags. Ooh, boy, that'll be fun to watch.
|> In spite of the reprehensible tactics of the MIT thugs, mass posting to
|> USENET remains a profitable way to market to the huge majority of people
|> on the Internet who do not share the warped MIT mentality.
Fact: The majority of people on the Usenet, which is what you are bombarding
by your postings, do not want to see them. The only people who challenge this
fact are you.
Fact: The majority of people on the Usenet *do not* see your spams, because
they are cancelled too quickly nowadays to be seen by most people. This means
that it's virtually impossible that the companies who employ you are reaping
any significant benefit at all from the spamming; certainly, any new customers
they are acquiring are more than offset by all the people who refuse to do
business with them as a result of their spams. You are clearly fleecing these
companies to make a quick buck. Again, the only people who challenge this
fact are you.
|> The public is becoming increasingly aware and intolerant of academic
|> institutions who support the dissemination of pornography and the
|> commission of computer crimes as exercises in free speech but act
|> sociopathically in response to advertising.
MIT does not support the commission of computer crimes. I believe that
accusing someone of supporting criminal acts without being able to prove it is
"libel per se", entitling the accused to punitive damages without any proof of
actual damages. Would you like to make this accusation again in a registered
letter to MIT's legal department, written on your company's letterhead, with a
carbon-copy to the Boston Globe or the New York Times? Truth is an absolute
defense against accusations of libel, so if you're so sure you're right, why
won't you do this?
As for the "pornography" accusation, I'm not even sure *what* that's referring
to, but it's obviously a completely irrelevant red herring.
The only people on the Net who would accuse anyone from MIT of acting
"sociopathically" in response to your actions are you.
|> This set of values is not
|> reflective of the beliefs of most Americans.
Most Americans hate junk mail. Your spamming is nothing more than junk mail
that the recipient has to pay for.
|> In this regard, an
|> investigation of MIT and their flagrant negligence in turning a blind eye
|> to the misuses of their system is long overdue.
McCarthyism at its best.
Laurence, if you really posted this message, I think you've finally gotten in
over your head. I'd love to see you try to follow through on this one instead
of bailing out. Perhaps that'll finally put an end to C&S.
--
Jonathan Kamens | OpenVision Technologies, Inc. | j...@cam.ov.com
Taki Kogoma
<3jhpnf$5...@junior.wariat.org> in news.admin.policy:
>In <3jhnln$3ra$1...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>Lotsa of slime-speak deleted.
>Since he is posting from compuserve - if I send him a reply
>there, he is going to payfor it ?
>
>Can someone confirm it ?
If memory serves, the deal at CI$ is that you pay $0.15/email message,
but have an 'overhead' of around $9.00 before additional charges are
incurred. CI$ accounts also have the option of deleting email, unread
w/o any charge credited to your account.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
qu...@unm.edu | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
Martin J. Hannigan
Canter, 73450...@CompuServe.COM writes:
>business pursuits. We continue to encourage others to follow the path we
>are cutting through this virtual war zone.
You're fighting the war that you can not win. Encouraging others will
only broaden the conflict.
SPAMMING threatens to turn the net into one big heap of garbage. A full
news feed scrapes the top of a 56K feed, and I wonder how much of it is
garbage? I see the light.
In the beginning, I had defended your right to post to Usenet, even SPAM
because I saw it as
a freedom issue, not a quality of net issue. While I HAD always thought
SPAM was stupid and
I personally didnt want to see it, I believe in the rights of individual
freedom. I bought your book
and read it, and knew I had been mistaken.
At this point, I think you've proved that SPAMMING should be dealt with.
Please consider your
actions more carefully. There are more fruitful ways to earn a living.
Regards,
--
Martin J. Hannigan (hann...@bose.com) (mar...@mit.edu)
Bose Corporation - Engineering Systems
System Adminstrator - Unix/Internet Services
Meeting Director - Boston Computer Society Internet SIG
daniel r. reitman, attorney to be
Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> Cybersell's Response to Virtual Mall
>. . . .
>We are well aware that anyone who mass posts to USENET will be the object
>of vicious threats, harassment, bullying, coercion, vandalism, obscene
>phone calls, mail fraud, and assorted other illegal tactics. . . . It's
>now well established that every time there is a new mass post there is
>also a set program of intimidation that appears to be initiated by Ron
>Newman and/or others affiliated with the MIT Media Lab. . . . Attempts to
>pass off this well organized effort by a few reprehensible individuals as a
>spontaneous grass roots reaction are completely transparent. Mr. Newman
>and/or his cohorts have at this point created an impressive record of either
>committing or publicly advocating commission of countless civil and criminal
>wrongs, all with the apparent knowledge and tacit sanction of MIT officials.
>The group of common thugs Mr. Negraponte appears to be harboring are a
>disgrace to themselves and their university. . . .
>We regret that Sprint is experiencing the same sort of despicable gang war
>behavior from MIT that was visited on Mr. Boyle. We also know that, in
>addition, MIT students or personnel are engaged in massive, behind the
>scenes influence brokering, contacting everyone from access providers to
>our own employees in an effort to silence us. . . . Corporations such as IBM,
>who are heavily involved with MIT in a number of ventures, would do well to
>reconsider the advisability of affiliation with an organization like MIT
>whose students and/or personnel flout the law on a regular basis.
>. . . .
>The public is becoming increasingly aware and intolerant of academic
>institutions who support the dissemination of pornography and the
>commission of computer crimes as exercises in free speech but act
>sociopathically in response to advertising. . . .
As I read this, I wonder whether C&S may have committed liable? :-)
(Possibly not, considering that at least some of the persons involved are
probably public figures within this group, and that there is at least some fair
comment within the message.)
Daniel Reitman
"The third clause of Art. I, @ 3 cannot seriously be read to mean that the
Senate shall 'attempt' or 'experiment with' impeachments."
Nixon v. United States, 113 S. Ct. 732, 744 (1993) (White, J., concurring in
the judgment).
Bill Stewart-Cole
> In article <3jhpnf$5...@junior.wariat.org>,
> zb...@junior.wariat.org (Zbigniew J. Tyrlik) wrote:
> }In <3jhnln$3ra$1...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> Laurence A Canter
> <73450...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> }
> }Lotsa of slime-speak deleted.
> }Since he is posting from compuserve - if I send him a reply
> }there, he is going to payfor it ?
> }
> }Can someone confirm it ?
> }
> Unless CServe has changed, they charge .25 per email recieved.
>
Since the first notice that they had Internet e-mail access (years ago,
long before they got news access) I have seen no fewer than 4
restructurings of charges, all downward and all involving charges for
Internet e-mail. The last once was about a month ago.
I cannot say exactly from memory what the charge is now because of the
dancing rate structure, but there indeed can be charges for READING mail
from the Internet at CI$. However if it is deleted before reading, it is
free.
Bill Stewart-Cole
Karl_Kl...@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
[snippity snip]
> It's considerably more than merely possible that they have acquired
> new account(s) on CServe expressly to keep (what they seem to regard
> as) crap away from their "regular" accounts, and that these new
> accounts have been removed from directory searchability. (It's a user
> choice on CServe.)
CServe is on a major marketing blitz. It seems that every trade rag I pick
up this month has a CI$ disk in it much as they had AOL disks in them a
few months back.
(aside and away tangentially... the computer trade rags protect themselves
from criticism by the clued because subscribers never see their collusion
in handing out throwaway accounts. )
(just kidding about the collusion bit. I think.)
Bill Stewart-Cole
rez...@apple.com (Trent Stevens) wrote:
[SNIP]
> problem doing business with. However someone who ignores accepted and
> reasonable pratices and insists on acting like a three year old "but I
> want to, why can't I", those are the people with whom I would never do
> business.
>
My daughter will be contacting a lawyer and suing you for liable, as soon
as she can leave the house alone. A class action suit for all 3-year-olds.
:)
Seriously, a toddler at least will generally be convinced to modify their
actions after a few rounds of doing something wrong and being told why it
is wrong and being punished. Even if the change is only to be sneakier to
avopid detection.
C&S are not as linked to reality as small children. They are still
bragging about having emptied the cat box in the kitchen and they still
insist that it is dinner. It's not childishness, it's not cluelessness, it
is borderline insanity.
Bill Stewart-Cole
DeLaney) wrote:
> Karl_Kl...@cs.cmu.edu writes:
> >gent...@xmission.com writes:
> >> Unless CServe has changed, they charge .25 per email recieved.
> >
> >CServe users are able to delete Internet mail unread, in which case it
> >is not charged. I would guess that Canter is methodically deleting
> >every single reply.
>
> Cool! Doesn't C$erve also charge for time spent on-line? If he's spending two
> hours a day deleting mail, he's still losing money...
>
No, CI$ only has a charge clock ticking when you are in certain 'areas' of
the system, and mail is not one of them.
(I think that comes from the third rate structure change back, maybe the
4th. I lose track. They have a fee restructuring just about every
February and at random points in between)
Cat
Dear Mr. Attorney To Be:
Don't you mean LIBEL?
Cat
David DeLaney
>gent...@xmission.com writes:
>> Unless CServe has changed, they charge .25 per email recieved.
>
>CServe users are able to delete Internet mail unread, in which case it
>is not charged. I would guess that Canter is methodically deleting
>every single reply.
Cool! Doesn't C$erve also charge for time spent on-line? If he's spending two
hours a day deleting mail, he's still losing money...
Dave "Or perhaps he's hired a geek to pay the money for him?" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. Disclaimer: IMHO; VRbeableURLAP/my
http://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Joel B Levin
daniel r. reitman, attorney to be <drei...@oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>As I read this, I wonder whether C&S may have committed liable? :-)
Dear Mr. Attorney To Be:
Don't you mean LIBEL?
See the C&S book (if you can find a copy) for the correct
spelling. :-)
/J
Chris Krolczyk
Laurence A Canter (73450...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: Cybersell's Response to Virtual Mall
: In addition, Mr.
: Boyle informed Cybersell that System 5 personnel had advised him of the
: possible consequences and recommended he not proceed. He decided to go
: forward anyway. Mr. Boyle had also read the book How To Make A Fortune on
: the Information Super Highway by Cybersell's Canter & Siegel, which
: details at length the possible consequences of mass posting, and, in fact,
: Mr. Boyle informed Cybersell personnel that it was his reading of the book
: which prompted him to call Cybersell initially.
Of course, if Mr. Boyle wanted to spam newsgroups himself, he could've pulled
it off without resorting to the "help" of Cybersell. After all, his lack of
knowledge about Usenet makes the following paragraph seem a little, well,
redundant.
: Given the above facts, the credibility of Mr. Boyle's current claim that
: he did not realize the full implication of his decision to mass post is
: open to serious question. It would seem more likely that Mr. Boyle, having
: accomplished in a completely knowing manner his goal of drawing attention
: to his Web site, is now making a calculated attempt to shift any negative
: feedback away from himself and onto Cybersell.
*Snicker*
First, Boyle decides to engage in spamming but can't figure out how to do it
himself. Then, Cybersell, being ever so _helpful_ (albeit for a profitable
fee), decides to help him figuratively shit in his own nest. Then, Boyle
realizes both the consequences (both ethical and monetary) of C&S' little
Murphy game, and decides to cry wolf. Goodness, whatever happened to the
concept of "honor among thieves"?
: We realize it serves the
: ends of certain individuals to readily accept Mr. Boyle's statements as
: true, no matter how unlikely they may be.
I applaud Mr. Canter's use of ConspiracySpeak in this sentence. No, _really_!
: The opinions of such
: individuals have no more credibility than does Mr. Boyle's claim of
: ignorance.
The opinion of our, er, "friend" Mr. Canter doesn't hold a helluva lot
of weight with me either, so I guess we're even...
: We are well aware that anyone who mass posts to USENET will be the object
: of vicious threats, harassment, bullying, coercion, vandalism, obscene
: phone calls, mail fraud, and assorted other illegal tactics.
Funny, I don't notice a reason _why_ this happened. How very selective of
Larry. How very selective indeed...
: Indeed there
: are many thousands of copies of our book in circulation worldwide that
: clearly so state. We do not doubt Mr. Boyle experienced this first hand
: and we suspect it has weighed heavily in his sudden change of heart. It's
: now well established that every time there is a new mass post there is
: also a set program of intimidation that appears to be initiated by Ron
: Newman and/or others affiliated with the MIT Media Lab.
Goodness. Mr. Canter seems to be making something of a defamatory statement
against Mr. Newman and MIT in the above paragraph. Perhaps he'd like to
discuss this in court?
:This behavior
: speaks volumes, not about mass posting, but about the failed character of
: the intimidators.
This is obviously ConspiracySpeak 2.0 or something, since ConspiracySpeak 1.0
usually only works for a paragraph or so. Hmmm.
: Attempts to pass off this well organized effort by a
: few reprehensible individuals as a spontaneous grass roots reaction are
: completely transparent.
(Insert "Pot. Kettle. Black." quote or variant here)
: Mr. Newman and/or his cohorts have at this point
: created an impressive record of either committing or publicly advocating
: commission of countless civil and criminal wrongs, all with the apparent
: knowledge and tacit sanction of MIT officials.
Apparently, Mr. Canter _does_ wish to go to court, and quite soon.
: The group of common thugs
: Mr. Negraponte appears to be harboring are a disgrace to themselves and
: their university. We can only wonder if Mr. Negraponte with his much-
: vaunted expertise, had a hand in training them.
(Remainder of Canter's borderline slander deleted. Apparently, he and Ms.
Siegel will be looking forward to the discovery procedures when the shit
hits the fan.)
--
Chris Krolczyk krol...@mcs.com
Director, Freethinkers United to Offend the Terminally Prudish
"Offend you? Hell, we try to offend everybody!"
Hanzhi Tang
In article <3jhpnf$5...@junior.wariat.org> zb...@junior.wariat.org (Zbigniew J. Tyrlik) writes:
> In <3jhnln$3ra$1...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>
> Lotsa of slime-speak deleted.
> Since he is posting from compuserve - if I send him a reply
> there, he is going to payfor it ?
>
> Can someone confirm it ?
I'm not sure but I just did a lookup on CIS and there is a Laurance A Canter except
this one has got a different Compuserve number to the one that posted to USENET.
The one shown on Compuserve member directory is 76636,443 so you can draw your own
conclusions.
Could be a forgery or another account.
Hanzhi
Garrett Colson
>
>zb...@junior.wariat.org (Zbigniew J. Tyrlik) asks:
>>Since he is posting from compuserve - if I send him a reply
>>there, he is going to payfor it ?
>
>recipient has the option of refusing the message and thus not being charged.
But if you change the subject to "Internet advice wanted," I suspect Larry and
crew will 'get' the message and incur the charges.
.
Chris Krolczyk
A slight correction, 'ere:
: Well, I dunno-I termed what Lawrence the Loony wrote to be "slander", which
^^^^^^^^
That should read "Laurence", not that he's gonna end up on my Christmas card
list or something...
Taki Kogoma
<3jij60$7...@pub01.va.pubnix.com> in news.admin.policy:
>daniel r. reitman, attorney to be <drei...@oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>>As I read this, I wonder whether C&S may have committed liable? :-)
>
>Dear Mr. Attorney To Be:
>
>Don't you mean LIBEL?
If the reknown lawyers Laurance Canter and Martha Seigel spell it
"liable", who is the mere attorney-to-be Daniel R. Reitman to argue?
Brad Templeton
line says it is, what possible gain do you think you will get from
debating him? He's heard the arguments, he's not hear to debate, he's
hear to keep up the notoriety of his firm in my opinion.
So in other words that posting was a troll, whether it was from Canter or
not. If you like to get caught by trollers, go ahead.
--
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp. | www.clari.net
The net's #1 Electronic newspaper (circulation 90,000) |in...@clari.net
henry
['libel' 'liable' etc.]
you all misspelled 'troll.'
h
Tim Skirvin
>So in other words that posting was a troll, whether it was from Canter or
>not. If you like to get caught by trollers, go ahead.
True.
But writing about it here isn't going to hurt anything, and it
might get something done (again). Especially the pseudo-"liable" about
Ron Newman...
I agree with your stuff about doing public stuff, but this is
all internal.
(Besides, there's a CHANCE he'll respond some time...)
- Tim Skirvin
--
Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
"I have, for many years, longed for the coveted title of net.kook -- but
as you are making clear to me, the competition is just too tough."
-- Lizard (liz...@mercury.interpath.net)
Kevin Fisher
All this tells me another foaming-at-the-mouth editorial will soon be
appearing in a newspaper near you from C&S. Is there any way we can
beat them to the punch, before they manage to convince even more of the
terminally clueless that the horrible lawless frontier of the internet
needs a US Federal Virtual Martial to ensure that their ilk can spam
(at everyone else's expense, of course)?
You know, I was channel surfing the other night, and I found myself
becoming really, really, really, really, REALLY annoyed at the frequency
with which so-called commercial 'breaks' would interrupt what I was watching.
It's always someone shoving something down my throat...if it isn't
Croke, it's JoJo and her Psychic Friends Fraudline. I do NOT want
the Usenet to become like this. What's next, mpeg-infomercials directed
to every X-terminal within reach? Thank god for MIT's magic cookies...
--
Kevin G. Fisher |
fis...@waterloo.hp.com | "Why is that toy on your head??"
My opinions, not HP's |
MIME Mail OK! | http://polkaroo.tor.hookup.net/~kgf/home.html
Walter Vose Jeffries
In article <3jj3dj$s...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> (news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,alt.culture.internet,alt.current-events.net-abuse,alt.internet.services), mpc...@cats.ucsc.edu (Matthew Paul Cline) writes:
> Why are C&S posting this from compuserve rather than cyber.sell.com?
> I believe that they have set up an nntp server on it, even if they
> no longer spam from it. Since it is a great break of character for them
> to post something (personaly, in a non-spamish manner) to USENET, I
> won't believe any posts like this until they come directly from
> cyber.sell.com (with a path that indicates it's not forged).
I called CompuServe and C&S does indeed have several accounts
on that service and they (C_I_S) are investigating what legal
action they can take against C&S to get rid of the parasites.
CIS is not happy about having C&S on their system according to
the customer service rep I spoke with.
Bob Brown
: If memory serves, the deal at CI$ is that you pay $0.15/email message,
: but have an 'overhead' of around $9.00 before additional charges are
: incurred. CI$ accounts also have the option of deleting email, unread
: w/o any charge credited to your account.
SUBJECT: I Want to Buy Your Product...
But not in *this* lifetime, sucker!
<grin>
gent...@xmission.com
My mistake. Also, I was under the impression that the CServe mailboxes were
unexplodable. They are, but only because they will bounce all mail after they
are full.
Regards,
The Gentleman
"I may be gibbering, but I don't see myself as wrong"
--Mike Falkner
Trent Stevens
> We are well aware that anyone who mass posts to USENET will be the object
> of vicious threats, harassment, bullying, coercion, vandalism, obscene
> phone calls, mail fraud, and assorted other illegal tactics.
> Laurence A. Canter
> Martha S. Siegel
> Cybersell (tm)
>
> --
> Cybersell, Inc.
> 10245 E Via Linda, Ste 222
> Scottsdale AZ 85258
What you fail to mention is that a great majority of the replies you
receive are perfectly legal. If you come and set up signs in my front
yard advertising to me, you can reasonably expect me to tear them down.
If you send mass postings that take up bandwidth getting to my machine,
hard disk space once they get there, and my time to get rid of them, I
have every right to complain to you. It is sad that some people take this
to extremes, but it is just as sad that you can believe there is some
"conspiracy" on the net that is out to get you.
There are many companies with a presence on the net using WWW pages or
even postings to newsgroups (when appropriate), that I would have no
problem doing business with. However someone who ignores accepted and
reasonable pratices and insists on acting like a three year old "but I
want to, why can't I", those are the people with whom I would never do
business.
Trent Stevens
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Trent Stevens |
| rez...@apple.com AppleLink:STEVENS.T |
| |
| My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of |
| Apple Computer. |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. gilkey
as the electronic equivalent of USPS mass mailing. In one very crucial
way, it is _not_. I browse several sets of newsgroups every day, dealing
with microscopy, computer hardware, graphics and multimedia. Each of the
newsgroups was chartered for the discussion of a rather narrow range of
topics dealing with a specific subject. Posts that contribute to the
resolution of issues under discussion are welcome from any source, and
many commercial entities post regularly in this way to the groups that I
frequent. Posts that are completely off-topic, however, like
advertisements for green cards, lower the signal-to noise ratio in a
newsgroup, thereby diminishing the value of the group to the legitimate
posters. These off-topic posts are, naturally, dealt with harshly, since
they waste the time of the legitimate users of the newsgroup, not to
mention network resources.
In another way, however, the Usenet mass mailers _are_ equivalent to
those who send me unsolicited ads through the USPS (which go straight to
the trash), put flyers on the windshield of my vehicle (also straight to
the trash), and disturb my evening hours with phone solicitations (I hang
up within five seconds of determining their intent). I refuse to deal
with businesses that are so lacking in integrity, and that hold their
potential customers in such contempt, that they would advertise in such an
intrusive manner. I therefore _never_ patronize the businesses that
resort to these rude and crude tactics. If I want product information, I
will look for it where it legitimately belongs - commercial newsgroups,
Websites, newspapers, magazines, yellow pages, etc.
This post is, of course, off-topic for the alt.internet.services
newsgroup, so I will not be surprised if I catch some flak for it. My
intent is that Canter, Siegel and their imitators will read it and
consider that the negative effects of such postings will likely, in the
long term, outweigh any benefits.
Ron Newman
Kevin Fisher <fis...@waterloo.hp.com> wrote:
>All this tells me another foaming-at-the-mouth editorial will soon be
>appearing in a newspaper near you from C&S.
If either Canter or Siegel publishes in a newspaper the
groundless accusation that I'm an "MIT thug" who conspires with
other people to commit net.terrorism, they're asking for trouble.
--
Ron Newman MIT Media Laboratory
rne...@media.mit.edu
Josh McCormick
What, you mean wire cutters? <grin>
--
====================================================================
=== Josh McCormick Galaxy Star Systems of Tulsa ===
=== jmc...@galstar.com Providing Quality Internet Access ===
=== Systems Administrator WWW: http://www.galstar.com ===
====================================================================
Patrick J. LoPresti
to go public ourselves!
Hi, I represent the MIT Conspiracy for the Harrassment of Canter and
Siegel (MITCHCS). Our goals are summarized in our Oath of Membership,
which is as follows:
"I, (state your name), do hereby solemnly swear to use every means at
my disposal, legal or otherwise, to cause pain, fear, and various
other injuries to Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel, with complete
disregard for my personal safety or that of anyone else."
To join, just complete the Oath, PGP-sign it, and send it to our
absolute and eternal leader, L. Ron Newman of the Media Lab. (Offer
only good for MIT students, since MIT has agreed to use its massive
legal resources to defend any and all of our actions, up to and
including capital crimes.)
Due to the nature of our current "Work in Progress", we are especially
interested in recruiting more people from courses 10 and 22.
Thanks for your time!
- Patrick LoPresti
Community Relations Chair, MITCHCS
Haynes Lee
>
>
> USENET remains a profitable way to market to the huge majority of people
> on the Internet who do not share the warped MIT mentality. Every day more
> and more businesses are mass posting to USENET because it is effective.
> and more businesses are mass posting to USENET because it is effective.
Tell that to Atlas Computer Systems. They fired their ad-represenative
for doing a mass spam in a way Cyberspam(tm) advocates.
Walter Vose Jeffries
In article <3jhpnf$5...@junior.wariat.org> (news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,alt.culture.internet,alt.current-events.net-abuse,alt.internet.services), zb...@junior.wariat.org (Zbigniew J. Tyrlik) writes:
> Lotsa of slime-speak deleted.
> Since he is posting from compuserve - if I send him a reply
> there, he is going to payfor it ?
>
> Can someone confirm it ?
Yes, he will. I strongly encourage everyone who is
reading this to send an e-mail letter to Canter & Siegel at:
Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM>
and to the postmaster of compuserve at:
postm...@CompuServe.COM
to let them know how you feel about this.
mr...@phantom.com
that a vicious, criminal devious hacker-type would include a misleading
hsubject line
in order to fool the poor Internet-businessman?
Just consdering.
Mr X
Tanned, rested, and ready to crack
Tony B. Shepherd
I'm not highly educated, so I'm having trouble following this. Let me
see if I understand this correctly:
In article <3jhnln$3ra$1...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
] Cybersell's Response to Virtual Mall
] The posting of a public apology by Chuck Boyle concerning his Virtual Mall
] and the attendant remarks regarding Cybersell require a public response.
I didn't see it. He hurt your feelings?
] Mr. Boyle contracted with and paid Cybersell specifically to mass post.
] Cybersell at all times acted at his request, using his account. At the
So, 'just following orders'?
{ snip }
] Netcom. Mr. Boyle also signed a detailed release of liability, absolving
] Cybersell of responsibility for possible consequences. In addition, Mr.
But, knowing what was coming, you kept him as a client? And helped?
{ snip }
] ends of certain individuals to readily accept Mr. Boyle's statements as
] true, no matter how unlikely they may be. The opinions of such
] individuals have no more credibility than does Mr. Boyle's claim of
] ignorance.
He _did_ hurt your feelings!
] We are well aware that anyone who mass posts to USENET will be the object
] of vicious threats, harassment, bullying, coercion, vandalism, obscene
] phone calls, mail fraud, and assorted other illegal tactics. Indeed there
And yet you worked with him on this project, knowing it to be trouble.
{ snip }
] also a set program of intimidation that appears to be initiated by Ron
] Newman and/or others affiliated with the MIT Media Lab. This behavior
] speaks volumes, not about mass posting, but about the failed character of
] the intimidators. Attempts to pass off this well organized effort by a
] few reprehensible individuals as a spontaneous grass roots reaction are
Of course, you have proof? I am not a lawyer, but I can assure you that
if you posted something like that about me, I would contact one.
{ snip }
] In spite of the reprehensible tactics of the MIT thugs, mass posting to
] USENET remains a profitable way to market to the huge majority of people
] on the Internet who do not share the warped MIT mentality. Every day more
Mentality aside, I pay for my connect time. You try to spend it. I resent
that. You have no right to spend my money.
] The public is becoming increasingly aware and intolerant of academic
] institutions who support the dissemination of pornography and the
] commission of computer crimes as exercises in free speech but act
] sociopathically in response to advertising. This set of values is not
] reflective of the beliefs of most Americans. In this regard, an
] investigation of MIT and their flagrant negligence in turning a blind eye
] to the misuses of their system is long overdue. Meanwhile, Cybersell
] stands behind all its actions as being both legal and highly successful
] business pursuits. We continue to encourage others to follow the path we
] are cutting through this virtual war zone.
Actually, I am very intolerant of actions which try to limit my speech,
such as the Thomas conviction, or the Zimmerman intimidation. You seem
to regard the internet as a war zone - perhaps it is what you make of it.
There are ways to disseminate information on the internet that may
induce people to purchase a product or service. For me, screaming in
my face at every turn and spending my money is the wrong answer. But
others may not agree. And you trying to put a positive spin on your
actions gives me motion sickness.
--
Regards -- Tony B. Shepherd -- t...@iii.net
Edwin Wiles
I will admit that I hesitated in responding to this compounded mass of
drivel that you seem to believe justifies what you are doing. I have
little regard for someone who would step all over the entire world
just to satisfy their own wants, which is exactly what you are doing
in propounding the concept which has come to be known as SPAM, as a
legitimate advertising tool. It is far from that.
I would suggest that you give serious consideration to the facts
underlying the nebulous entity known as "The Internet", and more
specifically "Usenet News".
1) It is, in major part, supported by the equivalent to voluntary
contributions, on the part of the companies and other individuals who
make their resources available for its transport.
2) Said sites often have a limited budget for such things.
3) These sites often are competitors.
Given the above, the following things fall out:
A) Forcing others to pay for transport of your advertising is improper
in the extreme. Consider how BMW would react, where you hired by Ford
to force BMW to pay for Ford's advertising on BMW's resources.
B) The method you have chosen uses maximal resources for minimal
returns; you're wasteful. You are forcing others to pay for your
wasteful behavior, by way of increased communications costs and
storage costs. In short, YOU ARE ENGAGED IN BAREFACED ROBBERY!
It is only that the means you have chosen to engage in, to
perpetrate your robbery, are currently not well covered in the legal
sense. Personally, I have no trouble telling that what you're up to
is not good, and should be stopped.
Given that, the responsible members of the network, of which I count
myself one, have no alternative but to do their best to see that your
anti-social, immoral, if not outright illegal, behavior is curtailed
as quickly and efficiently as possible, while still remaining within
the limits of the law.
While I have not done anything directly in this endeavor, I
wholeheartedly support those who have, while remaining within the
limits of the law.
On the other hand, you and your associates have repeatedly broken
specific agreements with your providers to cease and desist from
engaging in destructive practices. While some of the net.citizens
have no doubt engaged in less than delightful tactics in attempting to
shut down your thievery, your behavior has been far worse, and your
attempts at justification are pathetic.
My hope is that you eventually realize that the majority of the net
will not allow you to destroy that which you seek so studiously to
abuse for no better reason than personal profit. It is not, as you
state, simply a few people from one association against you, it is the
hand of every decent citizen who wishes to be secure against the
destructive behavior of a few selfish individuals who refuse to learn
from their mistakes.
Their behavior against you is no different than society locking up
violent individuals to prevent those individuals from harming others.
Cease your violent behavior, and none will have just cause or reason
to disturb you. Proceed down your current path, and receive your just
reward for destructive behavior.
Edwin L. Wiles
--
Edwin Wiles | Sterling Software, Inc. ITD | Vienna, VA, USA
Preferred..: ewi...@vienna.itd.sterling.com
GCS d-- H- s+: g+ p1+ au>+ a w+ v+(-) C(++++) UU++++ P++(+++) L>++ 3>++
E++ N+++ K- W--- M--() V- -po+ Y+(++) t+ g-(+) j R(+) G? tv-(+) b+++
D+ B(-) e->-- u+(++) h--- f(+) r+++ n-(+) y?
Spatch
Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
>
> Cybersell's Response to Virtual Mall
Spatch's Response to Cybersell
Pbbbtbtbbbtbtbtbtbtbtbttbtthtbththth. *accompanying gestures and dancing*
--
tv's Spatch, RATM's wacky next-door neighbour and father of alt.stupidity
"Yeah, but bacon tastes good." - Rue McClanahan, "AfterM*A*S*H"
When in East Podunk be sure to visit http://unicorn.dorm.umd.edu/~spatula
* FOOD * GAS * BOOZE * FIREWORKS * INTERNET PHONE * CANTER AND SIEGEL
Haynes Lee
>
>
> Cybersell's Response to Virtual Mall
>
/ \
( mmmmm....more Spam.. )
\_____________________/
o
_____ o
/ \
| |
| (-)(-)
@ .---_)
| |\___|
| \__/
/-------\
/ /^\ \
/ | | \
| | | \
| | | |
| | | |
\ | | | |
|~~~~----___ /
\ /|
\ //
| ||
| ||
| ||
| |I_
l___-____)
Haynes Lee
>
>
> Cybersell's Response to Virtual Mall
>
> Indeed there
> are many thousands of copies of our book in circulation worldwide that
> clearly so state.
Many thousands worldwide? How many were sold of the original run that was
tripled? That is not many copies for a worldwide distribution of a book.
In Canada a respectable book will have to sell 3,000 copies to break even.
Had a hell of a time trying to find it in Canada. I guess all the copies
were snatched up before I gout to them. I had to make a special order
for it.
The tomb (tome!?) in question is one of the very few internet books that
is a *hardcover*. It also has a very particularly drab cover for a
get-rich-quick book. What's inside is even worse. They complained about
Joel Furr's selling stuff on the usenet but failed to mention their
aborted lawsuit against him.
Clearly a waste of money.
Chris Krolczyk
: c...@va.pubnix.com (Cat) writes:
: >daniel r. reitman, attorney to be <drei...@oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote:
: >>As I read this, I wonder whether C&S may have committed liable? :-)
: >Dear Mr. Attorney To Be:
: >Don't you mean LIBEL?
: I'm sure he did.
: Of course, he was making use of the irony of the fact that Mr. Canter
: IS an attorney and posted some drivel making the exact same mistake in
: usage.
Well, I dunno-I termed what Lawrence the Loony wrote to be "slander", which
was a bit off the mark, of course. Mind you, I don't get paid tons of bucks
to scam account users either, so I guess I've got less to worry about than
he does. >:)
Jim Casey
>
>Lotsa of slime-speak deleted.
>Since he is posting from compuserve - if I send him a reply
>there, he is going to payfor it ?
>
>Can someone confirm it ?
If he has enabled receipt of postage-due e-mail, he will pay 10 cents for the
first 7,500 bytes and 2 cents for each additional 7,500 bytes, up to the limit
of 2 million bytes.
Note also that CIS mailboxes only hold 100 messages.
If you send him a warm, friendly greeting and it gets bounced, it's because he
has disabled receipt of incoming e-mail.
--
%%%- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -%%%
%%% Jim Casey sea...@xnet.com CompuServe 72520,3077 %%%
%%%- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -%%%
Chris Krolczyk
: But then, Mr. Canter is not a very good lawyer; he was run out of the
: state of Florida by the bar association; he has a history of running con
: games (some legal, some evidently not) against immigrants, exploiting the
: fact that they don't know better.
Regardless of whether "Canter's" post was a troll or not, just about every
effort by C&S to brand their detractors as The Spawn of Satan doesn't
mention this happy fact. Hardly suprising, eh?
: Unlike Mr. Canter's allegations against MIT, I can actually back this one
: up (with documentation from the Florida bar, together with the original
: Green Card ad which advertised a completely unnecessary and useless
: service), so don't bother huffing and puffing about libel, as I will just
: laugh at you.
Don't worry. If the original post was genuine, you _will_ be huffed and puffed
at. The lack of an ethical clue in "Canter's" babbling indicates just that.
Michael Bauser
d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu (David DeLaney) writes:
>Cool! Doesn't C$erve also charge for time spent on-line? If he's spending two
>hours a day deleting mail, he's still losing money...
Nah. CompuServe doesn't charge for time spent handling mail, unless C&S
were dopey enough to sign up for one of the alternate pricing plans.
--
Michael Bauser <mba...@kentvm.kent.edu>
"It's participant observation. Honest!"
Aengus
[...]
>In spite of the reprehensible tactics of the MIT thugs, mass posting to
>USENET remains a profitable way to market to the huge majority of people
>on the Internet who do not share the warped MIT mentality. Every day more
[...]
Ok, I confess. Those MIT thugs threatened to break my kneecaps with
their doctoral degrees unless I protested to the spammers. Luckily I
was converted to the righteous views of those who worship money over
all else but well considered replies like this one from
SUD...@aol.com:
Subj: RE: THE SUDNOW METHOD
[header deleted, message follows in it's entirety]
kiss mine
------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Aengus | The opinions expressed herein will be those
amaci...@actcorp.com | of ACT Inc. when my genius is recognized.
------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Ron Newman
Matthew Paul Cline <mpc...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>Why are C&S posting this from compuserve rather than cyber.sell.com?
Because cyber.sell.com lost its Internet connection several weeks
ago, after they used it to spam from Panix. (The "Consumer Credit"
s{p,c}am.) PSI decided that C&S broke their agreement not to spam.
C&S are registered in the NIC database as having a new Internet
connection from Sprintlink, but it isn't connected yet, and
hopefully never will be.
gent...@xmission.com
bru...@teleport.com (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
}In article <3jlk6l$6...@hppadbk.waterloo.hp.com>,
} fis...@waterloo.hp.com (Kevin Fisher) wrote:
}
}:All this tells me another foaming-at-the-mouth editorial will soon be
}:appearing in a newspaper near you from C&S. Is there any way we can
}:beat them to the punch, before they manage to convince even more of the
}:terminally clueless that the horrible lawless frontier of the internet
}:needs a US Federal Virtual Martial to ensure that their ilk can spam
}:(at everyone else's expense, of course)?
}
}on the Internet" stories from people like Steve Jackson, Marc Andreasson, and
}the like - businesspeople who play within the rules and who do reasonably
well
}at it. That's the most effective counter to C&S's rantings about the net
being
}hostile to commerce.
}
}Maybe somebody should make the rounds and gather a paragraph or two of
comment
}from such folk?
}
What we really need is them writing a newspaper column. Anybody out there no
them well enough to put the idea to them?
Michael Jennings
Walter Vose Jeffries <wal...@flashmag.com> wrote:
>
>Actually, there are more than a few of hard cover books
>about the Internet. I was surprised. You see I am reviewing
>a large number (I've read 78 so far and counting) for the
>June issue of the Flash Magazine and I've received in well
>over 100 at this point. About 15% to 20% are hard cover.
>Very surprising but true. They tend to be the more hard
>core technical ones interestingly enough.
>
I suspect the reason for this is that these are the books
that are most likely to end up in academic libraries. Libraries
generally prefer hardcover books.
Michael.
--
Michael Jennings
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
The University of Cambridge. mj...@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk
"For the [Singapore] government, the right to reply has in effect become
the right to have the last word. Its difficulty is that on the Internet,
nobody gets the last word" - The Economist
Bruce Baugh
:All this tells me another foaming-at-the-mouth editorial will soon be
:appearing in a newspaper near you from C&S. Is there any way we can
:beat them to the punch, before they manage to convince even more of the
:terminally clueless that the horrible lawless frontier of the internet
:needs a US Federal Virtual Martial to ensure that their ilk can spam
:(at everyone else's expense, of course)?
What we really need are "how I make a successful living and have a great time
on the Internet" stories from people like Steve Jackson, Marc Andreasson, and
the like - businesspeople who play within the rules and who do reasonably well
at it. That's the most effective counter to C&S's rantings about the net being
hostile to commerce.
Maybe somebody should make the rounds and gather a paragraph or two of comment
from such folk?
___________bruceab@teleport.com______http://www.teleport.com/~bruceab/_________
Host of Christlib, the mailing list for Christian and/or libertarian discussion
E-mail me for info, or get info from http://www.teleport.com/~bruceab/xlib.html
"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all its inhabitants."
Bruce Baugh
:What we really need are "how I make a successful living and have a great time
:on the Internet" stories from people like Steve Jackson, Marc Andreasson, and
:the like - businesspeople who play within the rules and who do reasonably
well
:at it. That's the most effective counter to C&S's rantings about the net
being
:hostile to commerce.
:
:Maybe somebody should make the rounds and gather a paragraph or two of
comment
:from such folk?
Upon further reflection, I've decided to write such a thing myself; the
Oregonian ("If it matters to Oregonians, it's in the New York Times") can use
such a piece, and no doubt other places can, too. I'll take nominations for
folks to solicit comments from.
Walter Vose Jeffries
In article <3jlk6l$6...@hppadbk.waterloo.hp.com> (news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,alt.culture.internet,alt.current-events.net-abuse,alt.internet.services), fis...@waterloo.hp.com (Kevin Fisher) writes:
> All this tells me another foaming-at-the-mouth editorial will soon be
> appearing in a newspaper near you from C&S. Is there any way we can
> beat them to the punch, before they manage to convince even more of the
> terminally clueless that the horrible lawless frontier of the internet
> needs a US Federal Virtual Martial to ensure that their ilk can spam
> (at everyone else's expense, of course)?
Actually, there is a way to do this. Become a columnist.
I'm serious. Start by writing letters to the editor of your
local paper. Offer to write a column about the net. They
will likely take you up on it as they are often desperate
for material. Offer to do it for free at first and who
knows, maybe you'll even get paid some day. My solution? I
publish my own magazine (circ 55,000 nationally) and can
write what ever d___ ;-) editorials I want. And I do...
Now, starting your own magazine to write your opinions
might seem like an extreme step but it's funny how things
happen. I am a programmer and inventor. We manufacture a
specialty toner for laser printers that lets you create
full-color iron transfers using a standard b&w laser
printer. I got a lot of the same tech support calls over
and over. I started writing the Flash as a newsletter to inform
our customers and ended up with more subscribers than
customers for our other products. Zooo... It gradually turned
into a magazine.
On our last two pages we run opinion articles (1 per issue)
from other people as well. If you write something really, really
good, e-mail me a copy and maybe I'll be interested... No
promises, but heck, if you want to change the world, or
stop it from changing, you gotta try and that involves a
little risk. Oh, and yes, I do pay. :)
-Walter
Editor, Publisher & Chief Bottle Washer
Flash Magazine, The Premier Journal of Desktop Printing
PS. If you want a free sample copy of the Flash, e-mail me
your postal address (in USA only, sorry).
----------------------------------------------------------------
BlackLightning, Riddle Pond Rd, West Topsham, Vermont 05086 USA
Sales: 1-800-252-2599 x01 or (802) 439-6462 Fax:(802) 439-6463
For wild ideas in laser printing & desktop publishing send email
subject:INDEX,TRANSFER TONER,FLASH MAGAZINE to:IN...@FLASHMAG.COM
Walter Vose Jeffries
In article <3jn2pu$e...@cs6.rmc.ca> (news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,alt.culture.internet,alt.current-events.net-abuse,alt.internet.services,alt.stop.spamming,alt.flame.canter-and-siegel), l...@g9.rmc.ca (Haynes Lee) writes:
> The tomb (tome!?) in question is one of the very few internet books that
> is a *hardcover*.
Actually, there are more than a few of hard cover books
about the Internet. I was surprised. You see I am reviewing
a large number (I've read 78 so far and counting) for the
June issue of the Flash Magazine and I've received in well
over 100 at this point. About 15% to 20% are hard cover.
Very surprising but true. They tend to be the more hard
core technical ones interestingly enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------
gent...@xmission.com
rne...@media.mit.edu (Ron Newman) wrote:
}In article <3jlk6l$6...@hppadbk.waterloo.hp.com>,
}Kevin Fisher <fis...@waterloo.hp.com> wrote:
}
}>All this tells me another foaming-at-the-mouth editorial will soon be
}>appearing in a newspaper near you from C&S.
}
}If either Canter or Siegel publishes in a newspaper the
}groundless accusation that I'm an "MIT thug" who conspires with
}other people to commit net.terrorism, they're asking for trouble.
Have you spaoken with your lawyers? The Prodigy libel case may be iffy for
holding Prodigy liable, but they have the actual offender dead to rights. It
may be that they have already committed liable. ;)
Eric Bohlman
: So what ever happened to that ski resort they spammed for last year? You
: know, the one with all the bookings they got <tee hee> from the C&S adspam.
I'm more interested in what happened to the opthalmologist who offered a
"discount pricee" [sic] on eye surgery.
John Switzer
>In article <3jkpm6$n...@martha.utk.edu>, d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu (David
>DeLaney) wrote:
>
>> Karl_Kl...@cs.cmu.edu writes:
>> >gent...@xmission.com writes:
>> >> Unless CServe has changed, they charge .25 per email recieved.
>> >
>> >CServe users are able to delete Internet mail unread, in which case it
>> >is not charged. I would guess that Canter is methodically deleting
>> >every single reply.
>>
>> Cool! Doesn't C$erve also charge for time spent on-line? If he's spending two
>> hours a day deleting mail, he's still losing money...
>
>the system, and mail is not one of them.
On the other hand, CIS mailboxes hold only 100 letters at a time, so if
they are filled up, other mail is bounced back to sender. Not that I
would encourage people to fill up Canter's mailbox, of course - as
one of President Nixon's aides once said, that would be wrong.
--
John Switzer | 2/28, Washington, DC: on the one-year anniversary
| of the passage of the Brady Bill, President Clinton
CompuServe: 74076,1250 | proclaims it an unparalled success: neither Greg,
Internet:j...@netcom.com | Cindy, nor Marsha has bought a handgun.
Walter Vose Jeffries
In article <scconsul-080...@slip03.inlink.com> (news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,alt.culture.internet,alt.current-events.net-abuse,alt.internet.services), scco...@inlink.com (Bill Stewart-Cole) writes:
> C&S are not as linked to reality as small children. They are still
> bragging about having emptied the cat box in the kitchen and they still
> insist that it is dinner. It's not childishness, it's not cluelessness, it
> is borderline insanity.
No, they're just lawyers...
Walter Vose Jeffries
In article <3jp41o$n...@desiree.teleport.com> (news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,alt.culture.internet,alt.current-events.net-abuse,alt.internet.services), bru...@teleport.com (Bruce Baugh) writes:
> What we really need are "how I make a successful living and have a great time
> on the Internet" stories from people like Steve Jackson, Marc Andreasson, and
> the like - businesspeople who play within the rules and who do reasonably well
> at it. That's the most effective counter to C&S's rantings about the net being
> hostile to commerce.
>
> Maybe somebody should make the rounds and gather a paragraph or two of comment
> from such folk?
Excellent idea. I would offer experience if someone is interested
in writing this. I might also publish it in the Flash Magazine.
If you are interested in writing such a piece, contact me, by
e-mail, of course. :-)
Haynes Lee
Kevin Fisher (fis...@waterloo.hp.com) wrote:
>You know, I was channel surfing the other night, and I found myself
>becoming really, really, really, really, REALLY annoyed at the frequency
>with which so-called commercial 'breaks' would interrupt what I was watching.
>It's always someone shoving something down my throat...if it isn't
>Croke, it's JoJo and her Psychic Friends Fraudline. I do NOT want
>the Usenet to become like this. What's next, mpeg-infomercials directed
>to every X-terminal within reach? Thank god for MIT's magic cookies...
Given with the best point-and-click GUI interface, Usenet still is
text based and most screens look like the generic computer screens
of a decade ago. If C&S's vision comes true and mass-posting becomes
the norm, then newsgroups will look more like the classified
sections in newspapers. And noone reads the classified section
unless they want to _buy_ something.
Andrew M. Shaw
> [ranting munched]
>
> All this tells me another foaming-at-the-mouth editorial will soon be
> beat them to the punch, before they manage to convince even more of the
> terminally clueless that the horrible lawless frontier of the internet
> needs a US Federal Virtual Martial to ensure that their ilk can spam
> (at everyone else's expense, of course)?
>
The URL http://ipoint.visi.uiuc.edu/people/lockwood/news.au
has a clip from ABC news concerning the Triue Le empty-box
scam in misc.forsale.computers.*. The most interesting bit
is at the end when the anchor-creatures engage in their
usual mindless banter: suggesting that people should have
permits to post, that there should be an Infoway Patrol, and
all the usual junk. It reminds me why I don't have a TV.
Why cretins like this feel entitled to parade their ignorant
opinions is beyond me -- I guess people actually have been
taught to *believe* that "my opinion is as good as yours"
about things they know nothing about.
[Phew, I feel much better now].
--
They don't pay me to express the company view, so I don't.
Ron Newman
Arthur Wouk <wo...@alumni.cs.colorado.edu> wrote:
>it is most likely a disposable, 10 hour free account. he never
>intended to read any of the replies. the proper way to respond is to
>write to canter at sell.com. see below:
>
>Cybersell (tm) Inc. (SELL-DOM)
> 10245 E Via Linda, Ste 222
> Scottsdale, AZ 85258
>
> Domain Name: SELL.COM
>
> Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
> Canter, Laurence A. (LC42) postm...@SELL.COM
> (602) 661-5202
No, don't send mail there.
1) the address postm...@sell.com has NEVER worked. Nobody ever
bothered to install an MX or alias record for "sell.com", pointing
to cyber.sell.com or anywhere else. So your mail will bounce
back to you, quickly, with an "unknown host or domain" error.
2) cyber.sell.com is no longer on the net, since PSI threw them
off last month after they spammed from Panix. Sprint has not
yet re-connected them, and hopefully never will. So if you
send e-mail to any...@cyber.sell.com, it'll sit in your outoing mail
queue for a while (typically three days), and then bounce back
with an "Unable to connect to host" error.
Haynes Lee
I have a solution that will kill two birds with one stone.
Set up a newsfeed that is only connected between Cybersell(tm) and
the Church of Scientology(tm). C&S can spam to its
heart content and CoS can issue cancel messages for each post.
Brad Templeton
Ron Newman <rne...@media.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <3jlk6l$6...@hppadbk.waterloo.hp.com>,
>Kevin Fisher <fis...@waterloo.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>appearing in a newspaper near you from C&S.
>
>groundless accusation that I'm an "MIT thug" who conspires with
>other people to commit net.terrorism, they're asking for trouble.
Ron, as you know perfectly well, they *are* asking for trouble.
Without trouble they are nothing.
--
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp. | www.clari.net
The net's #1 Electronic newspaper (circulation 90,000) |in...@clari.net
Chris Krolczyk
: In article <1995Mar9.0...@news.media.mit.edu>,
: rne...@media.mit.edu (Ron Newman) wrote:
: }If either Canter or Siegel publishes in a newspaper the
: }groundless accusation that I'm an "MIT thug" who conspires with
: }other people to commit net.terrorism, they're asking for trouble.
: Have you spaoken with your lawyers? The Prodigy libel case may be iffy for
: holding Prodigy liable, but they have the actual offender dead to rights. It
: may be that they have already committed liable. ;)
Dunno about the Prodigy case, but if Canter decides to take his slime-
encrusted "reply" to a newspaper, I'll be waiting gleefully for the MIT
suit. I just feel sorry for the newspaper, though. They don't know what
they're about to get into.
K S
employed by MIT, and is looking for work. Fired? It might be in character.
His postings have had a bit a dictatorial bent. Perhaps this attitude has
caught up with him.
Ron Newman (rne...@media.mit.edu) wrote:
: If either Canter or Siegel publishes in a newspaper the
: groundless accusation that I'm an "MIT thug" who conspires with
: other people to commit net.terrorism, they're asking for trouble.
: --
: Ron Newman MIT Media Laboratory
: rne...@media.mit.edu
--
Ron Newman
I wrote:
>If either Canter or Siegel publishes in a newspaper the
>groundless accusation that I'm an "MIT thug" who conspires with
>other people to commit net.terrorism, they're asking for trouble.
which brought me this love note:
You are a ASSHOLE who insists that eveyone thinks like you. Why
are you so upset at being exposed? Haven't you been proud of your activities?
As to being a THUG, it has the ring of truth, although to label a bunch
of white socks, calculator toting butt-boys as thugs seems to be a bit
generous.
I won't say who he is, except that he posts a lot of racist
garbage about "LOOT rail" and "Section 8 housing scum" in
misc.transport.urban-transit, and he is NOT "Big Don" Anderson.
Ron Newman
>Yes, according to a finger of rne...@media.mit.edu he is no longer
>employed by MIT, and is looking for work. Fired? It might be in character.
>His postings have had a bit a dictatorial bent. Perhaps this attitude has
>caught up with him.
Gee, it looks like some other people have picked up the
Scientologists' practice of "dead agenting". Apparently, "K S" got
tired of bashing transit planners and "Section 8 housing scum"
over in misc.transport.urban-transit, and decided to go after
me instead.
Yes, I'm no longer employed at the Media Lab. However, they're
happy for me to continue using this account.
No, I wasn't fired. I worked on a temporary project.
Yes, I'm looking for work, although I'm also taking some time off to
learn new skills. I'll put my resume on my Web page some time soon.
Nobody has ever called me a "dictator" before. You're the first, K S.
Have a nice day.
Nico Garcia
Yes, according to a finger of rne...@media.mit.edu he is no longer
employed by MIT, and is looking for work. Fired? It might be in character.
His postings have had a bit a dictatorial bent. Perhaps this attitude has
caught up with him.
Many MIT people are extremely picky about where they work. Ron has
been spear-heading net response to the scientology censorship, and has
been very active against some very abusive people who frankly thought
they could get away with it because no one would notice or bother,
just grumble and step over the carcasses on the street, rather than
pulling off the road and finding out who killed it. His temper may be
a bit frayed.
You'd have to ask him why he left his old job, but your speculation
is unwarranted and uncalled for. Put a sock in it.
Nico Garcia
ra...@mit.edu
My opinions are my own, not MIT's or my employer's or my cat's
(Well, maybe my cat's....)
Ronda Hauben
Response to Virtual Mall : : The posting of a public apology by Chuck
Boyle concerning his Virtual Mall : and the attendant remarks regarding
Cybersell require a public response.
(...)
: with the Internet. Indeed, his objective in mass posting was to draw
: traffic to his Web site which, without doubt, he succeeded in doing. Mr.
: Boyle personally selected nearly 5,000 Usenet groups as objects of his
: posting. During the process, he consulted with Cybersell for many hours.
(...)
: possible consequences and recommended he not proceed. He decided to go
: forward anyway. Mr. Boyle had also read the book How To Make A Fortune on
: the Information Super Highway by Cybersell's Canter & Siegel, which
: details at length the possible consequences of mass posting, and, in fact,
: Mr. Boyle informed Cybersell personnel that it was his reading of the book
: which prompted him to call Cybersell initially.
:
: Given the above facts, the credibility of Mr. Boyle's current claim that
: he did not realize the full implication of his decision to mass post is
: open to serious question. It would seem more likely that Mr. Boyle, having
: accomplished in a completely knowing manner his goal of drawing attention
: to his Web site, is now making a calculated attempt to shift any negative
: feedback away from himself and onto Cybersell. We realize it serves the
: ends of certain individuals to readily accept Mr. Boyle's statements as
: true, no matter how unlikely they may be. The opinions of such
: individuals have no more credibility than does Mr. Boyle's claim of
: ignorance.
(...)
: We are well aware that anyone who mass posts to USENET will be the object
: of vicious threats, harassment, bullying, coercion, vandalism, obscene
: phone calls, mail fraud, and assorted other illegal tactics. Indeed there
: are many thousands of copies of our book in circulation worldwide that
: clearly so state. We do not doubt Mr. Boyle experienced this first hand
The above describes the effort to throw out over thirty years of
networking and technical advances.
The computers networks were not created to provide advertising for some
company.
Many computer pioneers at MIT and around the U.S. and the world have
worked very hard over a long period of time to create advances in technology
that would serve to advance our society.
However there are those who are against such technical advances, who
want to take our society back to the dark ages.
J.C.R. Licklider and Robert Fano and Fernando Corbato and many
other computer pioneers at MIT understood that there was a need to
have computing technology made available to people and that computers
were always changing and developing. Hence they realized there was a
need a a community of people who would be helpful in solving technical
problems.
The efforts in the 1960's at MIT to create and develop Project MAC
are some of the foundation which has contributed to the development
of the Media Lab today.
These pioneers and the U.S. government funding they received were
not trying to create a new form of shopping mall.
They were trying to seed a generation of people who would be able to
deal with the new technology that the computer promised would be developing.
When Usenet was created, in 1979, it was created because there were computer
science people who didn't have access to the government network -- the
ARPANET but who still needed the technical support and help to develop
the technology they were involved with.
The Usenet pioneers and those who were on the ARPANET both realized that
there was a need for communication and discussion among people involved
with computer technology.
And they found ways to share information and communication among the
growing community of people involved with the development of computers
and computer networks and software.
Usenet is the product of many years of hard work on many people's part.
Through its long history it has always been hostile to advertising,
though if someone on the Net wanted to see a used car to someone else,
that was ok.
And the development of the ARPANET and the Internet were accompanied
by Acceptible Use Policies which expressly forbid advertising or
profit making activity. These networks involved much public money
and that public money was to serve scientific or public purposes,
NOT private profit making purposes.
The AUP is still functioning as the backbone to the NSFNET has
not yet been privatized, though there is a real effort do so on
the part of the U.S. government who is attempting to give away
the results of much money and work to private entities with little
or no public discussion of the future of the Net.
The U.S. press and publishers are silent on where the Net has come from
or what are the considerations that need to be made when considering
how to go forward.
Instead they have been promoting support for and publicity to
Canter and Siegel's attacks on the Net.
Recently I did a brief scan using Nexus on the term Usenet and it
yielded over 1000 citations. Looking at the first few, however,
led to seeing that the newspaper reporters were trying to figure out
how to make Usenet a palace where companies could market their goods.
Thus there is the U.S. government (the NII and the U.S. commerce dept, etc)
the U.S. press and the major book publishers (like for example O'Reilly
and the publishers who published Canter and Siegel's book) all
trying to figure out how to make Usenet and the Net safe for business.
Obviously to have such moneyied and powerful forces all arrayed and
trying to figure out how to do something means that there is some
obstacle in their way.
What is the obstacle is the question.
While using Nexus I did another search. The search I did was for
how many citations there were for the term Netizen.
I found 24. And interesting enough a brief look at the terms showed
that some reporters realized that there were a set of people on
the Net who recognized that the Net was a communications and computer
advance and that those people wanted to defend the Net against
being abused.
While not much of the press realizes that there is a set of people who
care about the Net and recognize its importance, the history and
development of the Net show that there are a great number of people in
the U.S. and around the world who are on the Net who recognize that
it represents an important advance for human society and that it
promises to develop into a much more important advance.
However those trying to make their fortunes on the Net are not
netizens. They are hostil to the very essence of the Net which is
a cooperative culture and community where people help each other
and get help.
That was the situation in the earliest days of Usenet and it
continues today.
That is why the actions of Kanter and Siegel and their book have been
seen as so many people.
But instead of the press and Kanter and Siegel acknowledging that
they are up against something important, they try to deflect attention
from the cooperative culture of Usenet and its history and instead
make it seem as if they are poor victims of some newly discovered
enemy.
The question however that is raised by what they and the press
have done to try to fight the cooperative culture and tradition
of the Net, is what is it that is represented by the Net, what
is it that is worth defending and how do those who care for the Net
and Usenet and want it to continue to grow and flourish, how do they
continue to oppose those who want to stop this development.
: and we suspect it has weighed heavily in his sudden change of heart. It's
: now well established that every time there is a new mass post there is
: also a set program of intimidation that appears to be initiated by Ron
: Newman and/or others affiliated with the MIT Media Lab. This behavior
: speaks volumes, not about mass posting, but about the failed character of
: the intimidators. Attempts to pass off this well organized effort by a
: few reprehensible individuals as a spontaneous grass roots reaction are
The opposition to advertising on Usenet is not indeed the action of any
few individuals or Canter and Siegel wouldn't need to write books to
describe how to do advertising on the Net. There is a reason that
advertisting is Not done on Usenet and that is the obstacle that Canter
and Siegel and the U.S. government and much of the press have hit up
against. That obstacle is not Ron Newman or the Media Lab or MIT though
they are part of the obstacle -- they are part of those who have and
continue to work hard to help to develop Usenet and the Net and make it
into something that will grow and flourish.
Obviously Canter and Siegel are attacking all of us on the Net who care
about the Net when they single out Ron and the Media Lab and MIT.
Thus yes there are many on the Usenet who care about Usenet and will work
to prevent those who want to abuse it by making it into the kind of
commercial entity that U.S. radio and tv have become. Clearly that is not
something desirable for those who need the Net and Usenet and have worked
to have them develop.
Thus the U.S. government, the U.S. press and the U.S. publishers can
continue trying to support those who want to abuse the Net but the claim
that the problem is any one individual or any one research or academic
institution that is giving them trouble is clearly fallacious and really
only an acknowledgment that they are up against what one reporter (for the
WSJ) acknowledged was the soul of the Internet -- the cooperative culture
and the opposition to those who abuse that cooperative culture. (See WSJ
Sept 16, 1994, pg. 1)
Ronda Hauben
----
The Amateur Computerist vol 6 no 2-3/Fall/Winter/1994-5 The Netizens and
the Internet includes articles "What is a Netizen?" "The Vision of
Interactive Computing and the Future" "Net Cultural Assumptions" and other
articles including RFC 1087 "Ethics and the Internet" - email edition free
Nathan Waddoups
>In article <3jn2pu$e...@cs6.rmc.ca> (news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,alt.culture.internet,alt.current-events.net-abuse,alt.internet.services,alt.stop.spamming,alt.flame.canter-and-siegel), l...@g9.rmc.ca (Haynes Lee) writes:
>> The tomb (tome!?) in question is one of the very few internet books that
>> is a *hardcover*.
>Actually, there are more than a few of hard cover books
>about the Internet. I was surprised. You see I am reviewing
>a large number (I've read 78 so far and counting) for the
>June issue of the Flash Magazine and I've received in well
>over 100 at this point. About 15% to 20% are hard cover.
>Very surprising but true. They tend to be the more hard
>core technical ones interestingly enough.
That's probably because they're intended for use as classroom texts, and
college students (once the prof decides to require the book) represent an
inflexible demand - high prices don't make a dent in the sales figures.
But, I'm not bitter. :)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I'm running out of ideas for funny things to put in my .signature.
na...@halcyon.com http://www.halcyon.com/natew/welcome.html
Stephen Boursy
>employed by MIT, and is looking for work. Fired? It might be in character.
>His postings have had a bit a dictatorial bent. Perhaps this attitude has
>caught up with him.
>
Yes. Ron once proposed the creation of a blacklist on specific
users (with his MIT .sig) which I imagine is something MIT would not
appreciate being associated with.
Steve
bi...@vnet.net
October 13,1988
Contact: Bonnie L Mahon
The Florida Bar
Tampa Office
Telephone: 813/875-9821
SUPREME COURT GRANTS ATTORNEY'S PETITION TO RESIGN PERMANENTLY
TALLAHASSEE, Oct.13-- The Florida Supreme Court has granted attorney
Laurence A. Canter's petition to resign permanently, effective November 7,
1988.
Canter, of 240 North Washington Boulevard, Sarasota, was charged
with numerous violations of the attorney disciplinary rules including
neglect, misrepresentation, misappropriation of client funds and perjury.
Several of the complaints against Canter involved his failure to
file the necessary or appropriate documents with the United Stated
Immigration and Naturalization Services in matters of permanent residency
and work visas. In addition, Canter refused to refund clients' funds and
neglected to notify his clients that he has been suspended from the
practice of law as a result of a previous discipline.
The Florida Bar further alleges that Canter committed perjury by
filing a false affidavit with the Bar and while testifying under oath in a
deposition. These charges resulted after an audit of Canter's trust account
by the Bar showed that trust funds were held in Canter's account during the
time period when he denied any funds were present.
Canter was born in 1953 and admitted to The Florida Bar in 1980.
The resignation without leave to apply is not final until time
expires to file motion for rehearing and if filed, determined. The filling
of a motion for rehearing shall not alter the effective date of this
resignation.
As an official agency of the Supreme Court of Florida, The Florida
Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with the
administration of a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court
rules of professional conduct for all lawyers.
--30--
The R R M Tweek
>Yes, according to a finger of rne...@media.mit.edu he is no longer
>employed by MIT, and is looking for work. Fired? It might be in character.
>His postings have had a bit a dictatorial bent. Perhaps this attitude has
>caught up with him.
tw...@ccnet.com decides to try out this dead.agenting stuff as well:
So Kirk, what does this have to do with the account you use to hold
at Netcom? I seem to recall that they booted you for attrocities
against the common net user.
Is it true that you are in fact the only toady?
--
tw...@ccnet.com tw...@tweekco.ness.com WW4Net-1@11551 DoD #MCMLX N6QYA
**** Regarding the Internet><WWIVNet gateway and other assorted stuff: ****
http://www.io.com/user/tweek/ tw...@io.com IM: Michael D. Maxfield
Walter Vose Jeffries
In article <3jr638$r...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu> (news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,alt.culture.internet,alt.current-events.net-abuse,alt.internet.services), ro...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:
> Thus the U.S. government, the U.S. press and the U.S. publishers can
> continue trying to support those who want to abuse the Net but the claim
You need to be careful about your overly broad
generalizations. You will just make enemies and raise
hackles where you would have otherwise had friends and
allies. For example: I am part of the U. S. press and
publishers - I publish the Flash Magazine which is all
about dtp. But I do __not__ fit your stereotype at all.
Rather I have been and will continue to fight against
Canter & Siegel and their ilk who would destroy the
netcommunity in their rush to abuse it for their own greedy
purposes. So, be careful how broad you make your brush
strokes.
As to the rest of your posting, you've got some good ideas.
If you worked them up into a real article with a thesis,
support structure, and conclusion and if you got rid of
your unnecessary stereotyping, then it would be an
excellent article to submit to the press and try to get
published to help in the fight to preserve the net. Only by
educating the masses will we succeed. Otherwise they may
legislate and abuse us out of existance.
Fight the good fight but be careful of friendly fire...
Seth Breidbart
Stephen Boursy <bou...@world.std.com> wrote:
>In article <3jqodn$n...@news.cais.com>, K S <k...@cais3.cais.com> wrote:
>>
>>Yes, according to a finger of rne...@media.mit.edu he is no longer
>>employed by MIT, and is looking for work. Fired? It might be in character.
>>His postings have had a bit a dictatorial bent. Perhaps this attitude has
>>caught up with him.
>
> Yes. Ron once proposed the creation of a blacklist on specific
>users (with his MIT .sig) which I imagine is something MIT would not
>appreciate being associated with.
As Ron pointed out _prior_ to your posting, he was working on a
temporary project. MIT doesn't mind his continuing to use that
account.
If a fact bit you in the leg, would you recognize it? Doubtful, I
think (though the picture of a fact biting SpeedBump and getting sick
to its stomach is an amusing thought).
Seth
Stephen Boursy
Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <D5A5F...@world.std.com>,
>Stephen Boursy <bou...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>In article <3jqodn$n...@news.cais.com>, K S <k...@cais3.cais.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Yes, according to a finger of rne...@media.mit.edu he is no longer
>>>employed by MIT, and is looking for work. Fired? It might be in character.
>>>His postings have had a bit a dictatorial bent. Perhaps this attitude has
>>>caught up with him.
>>
>> Yes. Ron once proposed the creation of a blacklist on specific
>>users (with his MIT .sig) which I imagine is something MIT would not
>>appreciate being associated with.
>
>
>As Ron pointed out _prior_ to your posting, he was working on a
>temporary project. MIT doesn't mind his continuing to use that
>account.
Another poster above made the hypothesis regarding employement
status and reasons for it--not me. I only pointed out that Ron, under
his MIT .sig, had proposed a user based blacklist which is something I'm
quite sure MIT would not appreciate being associated with.
Regarding the 'temporary project' story vs. discharge hypothesis
I have no knowledge either way and litttle interest. His MIT .sig
file did not note temporary affiliation.
Steve
I R A Aggie
Boursy) wrote:
+ Another poster above made the hypothesis regarding employement
+ status and reasons for it--not me. I only pointed out that Ron, under
+ his MIT .sig, had proposed a user based blacklist which is something I'm
+ quite sure MIT would not appreciate being associated with.
I'm sure that world.std.com doesn't appreciate being associated with
you, either. So? And? Should either/one/both of you lose an account?
Or is that what you mean by needing "consumer protection"? Or does
"consumer protection" apply only to you?
+ Regarding the 'temporary project' story vs. discharge hypothesis
+ I have no knowledge either way and litttle interest. His MIT .sig
+ file did not note temporary affiliation.
And what does that have to do with the price of beans in China??
James
Jerry Leslie
[ snip ]
: it is most likely a disposable, 10 hour free account. he never
: intended to read any of the replies. the proper way to respond is to
: write to canter at sell.com. see below:
: Cybersell (tm) Inc. (SELL-DOM)
: 10245 E Via Linda, Ste 222
: Scottsdale, AZ 85258
: Domain Name: SELL.COM
: Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
: Canter, Laurence A. (LC42) postm...@SELL.COM
: (602) 661-5202
: Alternate Contact:
: Sprint Network Info. & Support Center (SPRINT-NISC) in...@sprintlink.net
: (800) 669-8303
: Record last updated on 01-Mar-95.
: Domain servers in listed order:
: NS1.SPRINTLINK.NET 204.117.214.10
: NS2.SPRINTLINK.NET 199.2.252.10
: NS3.SPRINTLINK.NET 204.97.212.10
I was about to say that they weren't actually on the 'net yet, but...
bash$ date
Sat Mar 11 23:01:28 CST 1995
bash$ traceroute cyber.sell.com
traceroute to cyber.sell.com (204.214.0.99), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 dmccorp-port.sccsi.com (198.65.144.113) 143 ms 144 ms 169 ms
2 sesqui.sccsi.com (198.65.128.1) 413 ms 126 ms 122 ms
3 HOU2-S11.SESQUI.NET (128.241.5.145) 142 ms 124 ms 125 ms
4 192.67.13.181 (192.67.13.181) 138 ms 677 ms 125 ms
5 192.67.13.189 (192.67.13.189) 131 ms 127 ms 129 ms
6 border1-hssi1-0.Houston.mci.net (204.70.36.5) 854 ms 659 ms 677 ms
7 core-fddi-0.Houston.mci.net (204.70.2.97) 995 ms 978 ms 1306 ms
8 core-hssi-2.Atlanta.mci.net (204.70.1.25) 1314 ms 1028 ms 1303 ms
9 core-hssi-4.Washington.mci.net (204.70.1.9) 1288 ms 1644 ms 1320 ms
10 border2-fddi0-0.Washington.mci.net (204.70.3.2) 1537 ms 2003 ms 1753 ms
11 mae-east-cpe.Washington.mci.net (204.70.57.10) 1912 ms 1891 ms 1611 ms
12 sl-mae-e-F0/0.icp.net (192.41.177.241) 1958 ms 706 ms 168 ms
13 sl-dc-8-H1/0-T3.sprintlink.net (144.228.10.41) 167 ms 161 ms 161 ms
14 sl-fw-5-H4/0-T3.sprintlink.net (144.228.10.18) 198 ms 191 ms 192 ms
15 sl-fw-5-H4/0-T3.sprintlink.net (144.228.10.18) 199 ms !H * 701 ms !H
bash$
--Jerry,
Gerald (Jerry) R. Leslie jle...@dmccorp.com gle...@isvsrv.enet.dec.com
Dynamic Matrix Control Corporation (my opinions are my own)
William K. McFadden
John C. gilkey <jgi...@ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
> People who mass mail to Usenet newsgroups seem to view this activity
>as the electronic equivalent of USPS mass mailing. In one very crucial
>way, it is _not_.
Another way it is not equivalent is that mass postal mailings are paid for by
the senders, whereas mass Usenet postings are paid for by the recipients.
--
Bill McFadden Tektronix, Inc. P.O. Box 500 MS 58-639 Beaverton, OR 97077
bi...@tv.tv.tek.com, ...!tektronix!tv.tv.tek.com!bill Phone: (503) 627-6920
How can I prove I am not crazy to people who are?
Lars Marowsky-Bree
Laurence A Canter (73450...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
> In spite of the reprehensible tactics of the MIT thugs, mass posting to
> USENET remains a profitable way to market to the huge majority of people
> on the Internet who do not share the warped MIT mentality. Every day more
> and more businesses are mass posting to USENET because it is effective. It
> is particularly beneficial to small businesses, which our government has
> an interest in fostering. If Cybersell's connection to the Internet were
> to be eliminated, the advertising posted to USENET every day would still
> continue and grow.
Yes, it will continue to grow, but they will also pay the price. I _AM_
annoyed by them and I will continue to express this. What is to stop me to
mail them and ask for info? Who is going to intervene if I mail them there
article back a few thousand times and complain to there postmaster, and if
necessary, to the Inter-NIC?
> business pursuits. We continue to encourage others to follow the path we
> are cutting through this virtual war zone.
Well, if you like to see this as a war... I would say it is common sense
versus greediness.
There are the biz.* newsgroups, open for as much commercial advertising as
it pleases you. (Well, almost)
If you advertise outside these groups, I may assure you that I am ANNOYED by
it and will immediately stop buying the advertised products and will express
my disapproval. Of course, I will also advocate my friends to stay away from
the products. To me, this does not look like a good way to advertise, does
it?
I am not alone with this opinion, and everybody considering a massive spam
attack on UseNet should be aware of this.
Lars Marowsky-Bree Voice: +49-571-63663 PGP-key via return receipt
VirNet: 9:492/7158 Fido: 2:2449/620.16 Mail: l...@pointer.in-minden.de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBL2RqieCsMSXatXlBAQFi5gTwqQjZ5hJ0OXKPMmqWOf0C3FQTaG/vwwKg
0AOIR2yXtzDPyP3nizj5JaLjV133XwwUUM9CItdiNHLxWRCxnFQG4j3DdbX+A+t/
Rl/GGaQzES/ZX5vFh5nF3hJDjNJgWWOllLmf+FminyV6M4cEtzDcGFVsbzwN93tb
7g/csYh7qUBvc+BEBj9pIzSCHXQFJ13Ev/QMvtYJmVFXVUMJpTs=
=SlWo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Howard Wilson
: For Immediate Release
: SUPREME COURT GRANTS ATTORNEY'S PETITION TO RESIGN PERMANENTLY
I swear, I've seen that more than Dave Rhodes. Are there REALLY people
who think this is news?
Howard
--
st...@ionet.net fnord kibo | "And my soul from out that shadow that
I speak for no one but myself, | lies floating on the floor, shall be
and no one else speaks for me. | lifted --- nevermore! - The Raven
Commence strategic maneuvers at audible command signal. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, begin.
Jonathan I. Kamens
|> I was about to say that they weren't actually on the 'net yet, but...
... they aren't actually on the 'net yet.
|> bash$ date
|> Sat Mar 11 23:01:28 CST 1995
|> bash$ traceroute cyber.sell.com
|> traceroute to cyber.sell.com (204.214.0.99), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
|> ...
|> 15 sl-fw-5-H4/0-T3.sprintlink.net (144.228.10.18) 199 ms !H * 701 ms !H
|> bash$
See the "!H"? That means "Host is unreachable". Telnet says it more plainly:
> telnet cyber.sell.com
Trying 204.214.0.99 ...
telnet: connect: Host is unreachable
telnet> quit
>
So yes, SprintLink may be advertising that they're the people who provide
C&S's network connection, but C&S aren't actually *connected* yet.
--
Jonathan Kamens | OpenVision Technologies, Inc. | j...@cam.ov.com
Howard Wilson
: So yes, SprintLink may be advertising that they're the people who provide
: C&S's network connection, but C&S aren't actually *connected* yet.
They most certainly are not! In fact, they are not only NOT advertising
the fact, they have yet to even CONFIRM it (in public). *WE* are the
ones advertising this fact, and making the connection known, so people
will know who to complain to when the shit hits the fan. We have been
quite successful in making these people known to Sprint, and they are
ready and waiting to pull the plug. I truly hope that they don't have to,
meaning Larry finally got a clue, but he hasn't, and they will.
Peter Meredith
: bi...@vnet.net wrote:
At the risk of sounding ignorant, which I am, what's with C&S?
I take it they like to spam the net, but would anyone care to email
me the juicy details I missed? (my site just added this newsgroup to
their feed, so I don't have a large backlog of posts:).
TIA
Peter Meredith
Haynes Lee
> In article <3jhpnf$5...@junior.wariat.org> zb...@junior.wariat.org (Zbigniew J. Tyrlik) writes:
> > In <3jhnln$3ra$1...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> Laurence A Canter <73450...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> >
> > Lotsa of slime-speak deleted.
> > Since he is posting from compuserve - if I send him a reply
> > there, he is going to payfor it ?
> >
> > Can someone confirm it ?
> I'm not sure but I just did a lookup on CIS and there is a Laurance A Canter except
> this one has got a different Compuserve number to the one that posted to USENET.
> The one shown on Compuserve member directory is 76636,443 so you can draw your own
> conclusions.
> Could be a forgery or another account.
> Hanzhi
Maybe it's another "disposable" account that they got on a
free 10-hour trial basis. ;)
--
Haynes Lee lee@hp@rmc.ca le...@rmc.ca
Ruyel Meelitery Cullege-a ooff Cuneda
Will encheferize for food. BÖrk BÖrk BÖrk!
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer but I do not plan to be one.
Taki Kogoma
<3k1p4h$3...@ionews.ionet.net> in news.admin.policy:
>bi...@vnet.net wrote:
>: For Immediate Release
>: October 13,1988
>: Contact: Bonnie L Mahon
>: The Florida Bar
>: Tampa Office
>: Telephone: 813/875-9821
>
>: SUPREME COURT GRANTS ATTORNEY'S PETITION TO RESIGN PERMANENTLY
>
>I swear, I've seen that more than Dave Rhodes. Are there REALLY people
>who think this is news?
Besides which, the "Pummeling a defunct equine" event was voted out of
the Usenet Olympics 2 years ago.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
qu...@unm.edu | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
Haynes Lee
> wal...@flashmag.com (Walter Vose Jeffries) writes:
> >In article <3jn2pu$e...@cs6.rmc.ca> (news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,alt.culture.internet,alt.current-events.net-abuse,alt.internet.services,alt.stop.spamming,alt.flame.canter-and-siegel), l...@g9.rmc.ca (Haynes Lee) writes:
> >> The tomb (tome!?) in question is one of the very few internet books that
> >> is a *hardcover*.
> >Actually, there are more than a few of hard cover books
> >about the Internet. I was surprised. You see I am reviewing
> >a large number (I've read 78 so far and counting) for the
> >June issue of the Flash Magazine and I've received in well
> >over 100 at this point. About 15% to 20% are hard cover.
> >Very surprising but true. They tend to be the more hard
> >core technical ones interestingly enough.
> That's probably because they're intended for use as classroom texts, and
> college students (once the prof decides to require the book) represent an
> inflexible demand - high prices don't make a dent in the sales figures.
Well I rarely see any hardcover books in the computer section in a
bookstore. As for "How to become roadkill on the superinformation highway",
not even the Richard Nixon University will use it as a classroon text.