Children at risk on CompuServe forums ?
liberator
<<Do you need a new glasses? Steven *clearly* said that CS/AOL doesn't tell
us. How would he know?? Also, please stop asking about how "the screening
process". It's NONE of your business and it's under NDA.>>
Follow this logic with me if you can Tony. Steve claims to be a sysop. If
he is a sysop, then he has experienced the 'review' process by either going
through a 'review' or not having to be subjected to a 'review.' Therefore,
he wouldn't need to be briefed by AOL/CS to tell us about the process
because he would have experienced one himself. [Not experiencing a 'review'
would be the experience of a non-'review', which CompuServe parents would
want to know about.]
As for the NDA, no one is under any legal obligation to tell me about the
review process, or lack thereof, but what would CompuServe be hiding, unless
there is no 'review' process for sysops. With all of this cloak and
dagger-like behavior around these simple questions, it makes me think that
CompuServe has something to hide.
Are little kids at risk from unsupervised and unscreened volunteers on
CompuServe forums?
Mark
--
The Liberator
E-Mail: ne...@liberator.net
Web Site: http://www.liberator.net/
Need a reliable and inexpensive Internet provider?
Visit FindAnISP: http://www.FindAnISP.com/
Visit CNET: http://webisplist.internetlist.com/
Steven Stern
CompuServe who wish it were otherwise.) As I said in my other
message, the process by which I became a sysop and the process by
which I have asked others to be sysops in forums that I manager is
NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
In any case, different standards would apply for those who answer 50
questions a day on "how do I do xxx with CS2000" than those who would
work in a forum aimed at teens or pre-teens. I stick with the tech
support areas.
As for "but what would CompuServe be hiding", that's a cheap
TV-courtroom-drama trick. Ah ha! You won't say what you did, so you
must have done something bad! Sorry, Mark, but we didn't just fall
off the turnip truck.
Break will be over on Monday and you need to get back to work.
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:56:23 -0600, "liberator" <ne...@liberator.net>
wrote:
>Tony Sutton <Tsu...@ukgatewayNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
><<Do you need a new glasses? Steven *clearly* said that CS/AOL doesn't tell
>us. How would he know?? Also, please stop asking about how "the screening
>process". It's NONE of your business and it's under NDA.>>
>
>Follow this logic with me if you can Tony. Steve claims to be a sysop. If
>he is a sysop, then he has experienced the 'review' process by either going
>through a 'review' or not having to be subjected to a 'review.' Therefore,
>he wouldn't need to be briefed by AOL/CS to tell us about the process
>because he would have experienced one himself. [Not experiencing a 'review'
>would be the experience of a non-'review', which CompuServe parents would
>want to know about.]
>
>As for the NDA, no one is under any legal obligation to tell me about the
>review process, or lack thereof, but what would CompuServe be hiding, unless
>there is no 'review' process for sysops. With all of this cloak and
>dagger-like behavior around these simple questions, it makes me think that
>CompuServe has something to hide.
>
>Are little kids at risk from unsupervised and unscreened volunteers on
>CompuServe forums?
>
>Mark
--Steve Stern
SYSOP
http://go.compuserve.com/generalhelp
http://go.compuserve.com/emailcommunication
http://go.compuserve.com/softwaresupport
http://go.compuserve.com/viruscentral
John Haverty
<sst...@compuserve.com> wrote:
[...snip...]
>Break will be over on Monday and you need to get back to work.
Ah, that explains all the activity. <g>
John
--
John Haverty @ CompuServe : have...@compuserve.com
Washburn University : hav...@washburn.edu
Email & Communications Forum : http://go.compuserve.com/EmailCommunication
liberator
<<Are you stupid enough to let your little kids run around the net without
*your* supervision?>>
I agree with your views on parenting but Martin, here's the deal.
CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which CompuServe
and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and supervise
children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
Wurk
>
> Martin Maney <ma...@pobox.com> wrote:
> <<Are you stupid enough to let your little kids run around the net without
> *your* supervision?>>
>
> I agree with your views on parenting but Martin, here's the deal.
> CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
> illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which CompuServe
> and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
> apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and supervise
> children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
>
> CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
>
> Mark
> --
> The Liberator
Sure, but what has the mafia done for ya lately?
Hahaha
Wurk
Great Celtic Satan
liberator <ne...@liberator.net> wrote in message
news:vJRE4.137$2M.1...@news.goodnet.com...
> Martin Maney <ma...@pobox.com> wrote:
> <<Are you stupid enough to let your little kids run around the net without
> *your* supervision?>>
>
> I agree with your views on parenting but Martin, here's the deal.
> CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
> illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which CompuServe
> and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
> apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and supervise
> children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
>
> CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
>
> Mark
> --
> The Liberator
> E-Mail: ne...@liberator.net
> Web Site: http://www.liberator.net/
>
> Need a reliable and inexpensive Internet provider?
> Visit FindAnISP: http://www.FindAnISP.com/
> Visit CNET: http://webisplist.internetlist.com/
>
I used to have CompuServe until the day that I threatened the Bill Clinton's
life in the Republican forum. My account was terminated in 2 hours, and the
Secret Service came a month later, trust me, the moderator peoples are very
strict and are not at apt to take shit from anybody.
Observero
wrote:
Well, I'm not surprised. You must have have a commie
sympathizer for a moderator...hiding behind a republican
cloak of anonimity... :)
Great Celtic Satan
Observero <Obse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38e4113c...@news.postalzone.com...
ha, maybe! It was not even made in a serious tone of voice, I was just
joking on how to make the world a better place!
hahaha, lucily I am a minor, if not than I would be spending 5-10 years
being ass packed by bubba in the county prison
Dionysos
>liberator wrote:
>>
>> Martin Maney <ma...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> <<Are you stupid enough to let your little kids run around the net without
>> *your* supervision?>>
>>
>> I agree with your views on parenting but Martin, here's the deal.
>> CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
>> illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which CompuServe
>> and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
>> apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and supervise
>> children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
>>
>> CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
>>
>> Mark
>> --
>> The Liberator
>
>Sure, but what has the mafia done for ya lately?
>
Much less the chinese syndicate.
>Hahaha
>
Hahaha
>Wurk
Dionysos
Dionysos
wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:25:35 GMT, "Great Celtic Satan" <k...@yifan.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>liberator <ne...@liberator.net> wrote in message
>>news:vJRE4.137$2M.1...@news.goodnet.com...
>>> Martin Maney <ma...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> <<Are you stupid enough to let your little kids run around the net without
>>> *your* supervision?>>
>>>
>>> I agree with your views on parenting but Martin, here's the deal.
>>> CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
>>> illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which CompuServe
>>> and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
>>> apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and supervise
>>> children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
>>>
>>> CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>> --
>>> The Liberator
>>> E-Mail: ne...@liberator.net
>>> Web Site: http://www.liberator.net/
>>>
>>> Need a reliable and inexpensive Internet provider?
>>> Visit FindAnISP: http://www.FindAnISP.com/
>>> Visit CNET: http://webisplist.internetlist.com/
>>>
>>
>>I used to have CompuServe until the day that I threatened the Bill Clinton's
>>life in the Republican forum. My account was terminated in 2 hours, and the
>>Secret Service came a month later, trust me, the moderator peoples are very
>>strict and are not at apt to take shit from anybody.
>>
>>
>
> Well, I'm not surprised. You must have have a commie
> sympathizer for a moderator...hiding behind a republican
> cloak of anonimity... :)
All republican cloaks of anonymity must be approved by a
constitutional amendment amending the freedom of expression by
expressly providing the legal means necessary to circumvent the
circumvention of all republican laws circumventing the circular use of
the first amendment.
--
Dionysos *Flaming Guild Clique (TINFC) Inc.*
Let not the mind rule the heart, nor the heart rule the mind,
for it is the peaceful co-existence of the two that shall
lend itself to your survival.
Visit the most up to date anti-AOL site on the web:
http://www.anti-aol.org
Anti-AOL news at:
http://www.anti-aol.org/news
See the Frog that croaked before the media did:
http://anti-aol.org/knightheart/text/others/insider.txt
Wurk
>
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:17:13 -0500, Wurk <Wu...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> >liberator wrote:
> >>
> >> <<Are you stupid enough to let your little kids run around the net without
> >> *your* supervision?>>
> >>
> >> I agree with your views on parenting but Martin, here's the deal.
> >> CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
> >> illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which CompuServe
> >> and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
> >> apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and supervise
> >> children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
> >>
> >> CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >> --
> >> The Liberator
> >
> >
> Much less the chinese syndicate.
>
> >Hahaha
> >
> Hahaha
>
> >Wurk
>
> Dionysos
The "Chow Mein Kampt"?
Hahaha
Wurk
Alex Threlfall
whatever and whenever you like... and say what you want without being scared
of AOLiens coming after you. I also find being in an obscure region of the
UK hampers the US Secret Service's effect on you.
Great Celtic Satan <k...@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:z0UE4.1682$TM.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > <<Are you stupid enough to let your little kids run around the net
without
> > *your* supervision?>>
> >
> > I agree with your views on parenting but Martin, here's the deal.
> > CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
> > illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which
CompuServe
> > and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
> > apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and
supervise
> > children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
> >
> > CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
> >
> > Mark
> > --
> > The Liberator
pin0cchio
Alex Threlfall wrote:
>
> one of the only good things of being your own isp is that you get
> to post whatever and whenever you like...
Except if you send unsolicited bulk email or host indecent material or
material that violates applicable proprietary rights laws (hereinafter
"spam, porn, or warez"), you might get TOSsed by your upstream provider.
--
pin0cchio do you gnu?
"If only Micro$oft knew the difference between right and
wrong, then Windows would be a real operating system."
Scott L
<No2bulkMAI...@XOOMMAIL.COM> wrote the following in
alt.aol-sucks:
>(alt.america.online corrected to alt.aol)
>
>Alex Threlfall wrote:
>>
>> one of the only good things of being your own isp is that you get
>> to post whatever and whenever you like...
>
>Except if you send unsolicited bulk email or host indecent material or
>material that violates applicable proprietary rights laws (hereinafter
>"spam, porn, or warez"), you might get TOSsed by your upstream provider.
Well, kind of. The upstream provider would probably stop propagating
the posts, or some kind of UDP would be implemented. The spammer isn't
going to lose his network (unless the Government acts).
--
Scott L-<scotNOOS...@mindspring.com>
AIM UID-<ScottieL4>
Remove extra "NOOSPAM" to reply
Great Celtic Satan
pin0cchio <No2bulkMAI...@XOOMMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:38E6653F...@XOOMMAIL.COM...
> (alt.america.online corrected to alt.aol)
>
> Alex Threlfall wrote:
> >
> > one of the only good things of being your own isp is that you get
> > to post whatever and whenever you like...
>
> Except if you send unsolicited bulk email or host indecent material or
> material that violates applicable proprietary rights laws (hereinafter
> "spam, porn, or warez"), you might get TOSsed by your upstream provider.
Is it possible to become your own upstream provider?
pin0cchio
>
> pin0cchio <No2bulkMAI...@XOOMMAIL.COM> wrote in message
> news:38E6653F...@XOOMMAIL.COM...
> > (alt.america.online corrected to alt.aol)
> >
> > Alex Threlfall wrote:
> > >
> > > one of the only good things of being your own isp is that you get
> > > to post whatever and whenever you like...
> >
> > Except if you send unsolicited bulk email or host indecent material or
> > material that violates applicable proprietary rights laws (hereinafter
> > "spam, porn, or warez"), you might get TOSsed by your upstream provider.
>
> Is it possible to become your own upstream provider?
Only if you're on the backbone. Is AOL on the backbone?
Dionysos
<No2bulkMAI...@XOOMMAIL.COM> wrote:
>Great Celtic Satan wrote:
>>
>> pin0cchio <No2bulkMAI...@XOOMMAIL.COM> wrote in message
>> news:38E6653F...@XOOMMAIL.COM...
>> > (alt.america.online corrected to alt.aol)
>> >
>> > Alex Threlfall wrote:
>> > >
>> > > one of the only good things of being your own isp is that you get
>> > > to post whatever and whenever you like...
>> >
>> > Except if you send unsolicited bulk email or host indecent material or
>> > material that violates applicable proprietary rights laws (hereinafter
>> > "spam, porn, or warez"), you might get TOSsed by your upstream provider.
>>
>> Is it possible to become your own upstream provider?
>
>Only if you're on the backbone. Is AOL on the backbone?
MCI and AT&T can both make such a claim. AOL, however, primarily uses
MCI for upstream.
Alex Threlfall
> Great Celtic Satan wrote:
> >
> > pin0cchio <No2bulkMAI...@XOOMMAIL.COM> wrote in message
> > news:38E6653F...@XOOMMAIL.COM...
> > > (alt.america.online corrected to alt.aol)
> > >
> > > Alex Threlfall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > one of the only good things of being your own isp is that you get
> > > > to post whatever and whenever you like...
> > >
> > > Except if you send unsolicited bulk email or host indecent material or
> > > material that violates applicable proprietary rights laws (hereinafter
> > > "spam, porn, or warez"), you might get TOSsed by your upstream
provider.
> >
> > Is it possible to become your own upstream provider?
>
> Only if you're on the backbone. Is AOL on the backbone?
>
Dave Cunningham
liberator wrote in message ...
>Martin Maney <ma...@pobox.com> wrote:
><<Are you stupid enough to let your little kids run around the net without
>*your* supervision?>>
>
>I agree with your views on parenting but Martin, here's the deal.
>CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
>illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which CompuServe
>and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
>apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and supervise
>children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
>
>CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
>
this is a message to the group ...
You have shown yourself to be someone willing to post interviews with a KKK
grand-whatever ....
You have *never once* shown any citation about your libelous claim of
pedophiles being CS sysops ...
Contract holders go through full vetting, and they, in turn, get such things
as addresses etc. from their aides -- who have *no* special authority over
CS members ... indeed, a pedophile would be *much* better off buying a
domain name and calling himself "liberator.net" or the like .... where he
could post interviews with KKK leaders and ask nubile girls to send in
their pictures ...
Dave Cunningham
pin0cchio
>
> You have *never once* shown any citation about your libelous claim of
> pedophiles being CS sysops ...
>
> Contract holders go through full vetting, and they, in turn, get such
> things as addresses etc. from their aides -- who have *no* special
> authority over CS members ... indeed, a pedophile would be *much*
> better off buying a domain name and calling himself "liberator.net"
Pedo lame.
> or the like .... where he could post interviews with KKK leaders and
> ask nubile girls to send in their pictures ...
Not the C$ apologist again...
James Hunter
wrote the following silly shit:
>On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 02:44:56 GMT, pin0cchio
><No2bulkMAI...@XOOMMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>>Great Celtic Satan wrote:
>>>
>>> pin0cchio <No2bulkMAI...@XOOMMAIL.COM> wrote in message
>>> news:38E6653F...@XOOMMAIL.COM...
>>> > (alt.america.online corrected to alt.aol)
>>> >
>>> > Alex Threlfall wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > one of the only good things of being your own isp is that you get
>>> > > to post whatever and whenever you like...
>>> >
>>> > Except if you send unsolicited bulk email or host indecent material or
>>> > material that violates applicable proprietary rights laws (hereinafter
>>> > "spam, porn, or warez"), you might get TOSsed by your upstream provider.
>>>
>>> Is it possible to become your own upstream provider?
>>
>>Only if you're on the backbone. Is AOL on the backbone?
>
>MCI and AT&T can both make such a claim. AOL, however, primarily uses
>MCI for upstream.
AOL gave up their backbone in a deal with Worldcom. Worldcom swallowed
up CompuServe, then in a trade with AOL, gave them CS's costumer base
while receiving CS's *and* AOL's backbone. Part of the deal is that
they will provide AOL's access to the Internet, such as it is. MCI,
for those who don't know it, is owned by Worldcom.
JM Hunter
IBAASP, *Member of the Flaming Guild Clique (TINFC) Inc.*
Thankyouverymuchpleasedrivethroughnoyoudidntorderanyfrieswiththat
Meow! Bitch!
Coming soon! Big Headers!
"The only reasonable alternative we can come up
with is to close off the Internet to America Online
users until they have passed an entrance test. But
that would break federal laws that prohibit discrimination
against the intellectually challenged."
- hh...@boardwatch.com
Mr.Hunter makes all the "best" USENET HATE LITS!!1!!1!!
http://jillscott.tripod.com/sabu424v4.html PHEAR ME d00ds!!1!!1
http://www.geocities.com/devils_henchmen/ "The Devil's MollyMaids", born to be "mild".
LOOK FOR MORE SHIT TO BE ADDED AT LATER DATE!!
pin0cchio
>
> AOL gave up their backbone in a deal with Worldcom. Worldcom swallowed
> up CompuServe, then in a trade with AOL, gave them CS's costumer base
> while receiving CS's *and* AOL's backbone. Part of the deal is that
> they will provide AOL's access to the Internet, such as it is. MCI,
> for those who don't know it, is owned by Worldcom.
A lose-lose situation for users.
Lose: AOL loses backbone.
Lose: CompuServe loses modems to AOL.
ghengas
>James Hunter wrote:
>>
>> AOL gave up their backbone in a deal with Worldcom. Worldcom swallowed
>> up CompuServe, then in a trade with AOL, gave them CS's costumer base
>> while receiving CS's *and* AOL's backbone. Part of the deal is that
>> they will provide AOL's access to the Internet, such as it is. MCI,
>> for those who don't know it, is owned by Worldcom.
>
>A lose-lose situation for users.
>
>Lose: AOL loses backbone.
Jimmy never had a backbone, integrity or any real friends, just suckups like you
>Lose: CompuServe loses modems to AOL.
Jimmy doesnt use a modem, he secretly lives in mommy's basement and posts from
webtv, when he's not stealing the neighbor's newspaper.....
liberator
>I agree with your views on parenting but Martin, here's the deal.
>CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
>illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which CompuServe
>and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
>apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and supervise
>children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
>
>CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
Dave Cunningham <dcunn...@home.com> responded:
<<You have *never once* shown any citation about your libelous claim of
pedophiles being CS sysops ...>>
You are being inaccurate Dave. My claim is that CompuServe allows its
subcontractors to mismanage forums by allowing sysops to supervise there
without going through the smallest review process. Get it right if you are
going to debate this point accurately.
Mark
--
The Liberator
E-Mail: ne...@liberator.net
Web Site: http://liberator.net/
Better Business: http://liberator.net/special/betterbusiness.html
Dave Cunningham
answer -- which boils down to you not answering why any school district
should have a teacher who says:
"Karadimos: I think the problem that people may have with the term nigger is
that it has a racial connotation. Why choose that word and not another?
Berry: If you look it up in a dictionary it means a person of Black descent
5. So if they are ashamed of being Black, then they will be offended by the
term nigger. I would rather be called that then a White honky, White dog or
cracker or any other name they come up with.
Karadimos: So you're saying that if someone is offended, they should look it
up in the dictionary to find that it's not an uncomplimentary term.
Berry: No it's not. It's like you calling me Caucasian. Is that supposed to
offend me?
Karadimos: I see your point but minorities are offended by it because it has
become an insult. It's like calling a Hispanic person a spic. That's what
the name has become.
Berry: We're not the ones who made it. Their own people call them it.
Karadimos: It probably has to do with Nigeria. "
Great Celtic Satan
Dave Cunningham <dcunn...@home.com> wrote in message
news:K8IF4.41510$hT2.2...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com...
>
> liberator wrote in message ...
> >Martin Maney <ma...@pobox.com> wrote:
> ><<Are you stupid enough to let your little kids run around the net
without
> >*your* supervision?>>
> >
> >CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
> >illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which
CompuServe
> >and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
> >apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and
supervise
> >children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
> >
> >CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
> >
>
>
>
>
> You have shown yourself to be someone willing to post interviews with a
KKK
> grand-whatever ....
Whats wrong with the KKK? Anyway, in the Knights they go not have a "Grand
whatever" Rev. Thomas Robb is called the "National Director".
> You have *never once* shown any citation about your libelous claim of
> pedophiles being CS sysops ...
They are what they are!
> Contract holders go through full vetting, and they, in turn, get such
things
> as addresses etc. from their aides -- who have *no* special authority over
> CS members ... indeed, a pedophile would be *much* better off buying a
> domain name and calling himself "liberator.net" or the like .... where he
> could post interviews with KKK leaders and ask nubile girls to send in
> their pictures ...
KKK + Pedo = 1 pedo in jail
> Dave Cunningham
>
>
Great Celtic Satan
niger = Latin for "black"
Nigger = one who is black
--
GCS, Vice President of the "Just say Nigger" Campaign
liberator
Mark wrote in message ...
>CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
>illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which CompuServe
>and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
>apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and supervise
>children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
>
>CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
Dave Cunningham <dcunn...@home.com> responded:
<<You have *never once* shown any citation about your libelous claim of
pedophiles being CS sysops ...>>
You are being inaccurate Dave. My claim is that CompuServe allows its
subcontractors to mismanage forums by allowing sysops to supervise there
without going through the smallest review process. Get it right if you are
going to debate this point accurately.
Can you respond to this post or does CompuServe have something to hide? I
plan on sticking around here until you respond to these points, Dave.
Dionysos
wrote:
>pin0cchio <No2bulkMAI...@XOOMMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>James Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> AOL gave up their backbone in a deal with Worldcom. Worldcom swallowed
>>> up CompuServe, then in a trade with AOL, gave them CS's costumer base
>>> while receiving CS's *and* AOL's backbone. Part of the deal is that
>>> they will provide AOL's access to the Internet, such as it is. MCI,
>>> for those who don't know it, is owned by Worldcom.
>>
>>A lose-lose situation for users.
>>
>>Lose: AOL loses backbone.
>
>Jimmy never had a backbone, integrity or any real friends, just suckups like you
>
How sweet, ghengas, you're still humping Jimmy's leg. You almost look
a bit more erect than usual. Notice I said "almost."
>>Lose: CompuServe loses modems to AOL.
>
>Jimmy doesnt use a modem, he secretly lives in mommy's basement and posts from
>webtv, when he's not stealing the neighbor's newspaper.....
So, when is the trip back to Cuba so that you can start humping
Castro's leg as well?
Dave Cunningham
frankly.
You cast aspersions without *any* basis in fact.
You commit numerous libels, elide messages in order to *prove*(sic) that you
are right ...
meanwhile, I have not yet heard word one from you about the following on
your website ...
"Karadimos: I think the problem that people may have with the term nigger is
that it has a racial connotation. Why choose that word and not another?
Berry: If you look it up in a dictionary it means a person of Black descent
5. So if they are ashamed of being Black, then they will be offended by the
term nigger. I would rather be called that then a White honky, White dog or
cracker or any other name they come up with.
Karadimos: So you're saying that if someone is offended, they should look it
up in the dictionary to find that it's not an uncomplimentary term.
Berry: No it's not. It's like you calling me Caucasian. Is that supposed to
offend me?
Karadimos: I see your point but minorities are offended by it because it has
become an insult. It's like calling a Hispanic person a spic. That's what
the name has become.
Berry: We're not the ones who made it. Their own people call them it.
Karadimos: It probably has to do with Nigeria. "
liberator wrote in message ...
>
liberator
>I agree with your views on parenting but Martin, here's the deal.
>CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
>illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which CompuServe
>and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
>apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and supervise
>children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
>
>CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
Dave Cunningham <dcunn...@home.com> wrote:
<<You have *never once* shown any citation about your libelous claim of
pedophiles being CS sysops ...>>
Mark wrote:
>>You are being inaccurate Dave. My claim is that CompuServe allows its
subcontractors to mismanage forums by allowing sysops to supervise there
without going through the smallest review process. Get it right if you are
going to debate this point accurately.
Can you respond to this post or does CompuServe have something to hide? I
plan on sticking around here until you respond to these points, Dave.<<
Dave Cunningham <dcunn...@home.com> -- for the second time on THIS
thread -- never responded to the points above.
Again Dave, respond to the points above. Does CompuServe have this much to
lose by telling the truth? Why does it insist on covering up this problem
instead of responding to it if there is nothing to hide?
Dave Cunningham
liberator wrote in message ...
>
>Can you respond to this post or does CompuServe have something to hide? I
>plan on sticking around here until you respond to these points, Dave.<<
>
Inasmuch as I, and others, *have* responded, your insistence is fatuous.
Meanwhile -- care to explain your defense of the N word in your interview
with a grand-something of the KKK?
Dave Cunningham
liberator
>I agree with your views on parenting but Martin, here's the deal.
>CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
>illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which CompuServe
>and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
>apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and supervise
>children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
>
>CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
Dave Cunningham <dcunn...@home.com> wrote:
<<You have *never once* shown any citation about your libelous claim of
pedophiles being CS sysops ...>>
Mark wrote:
>>You are being inaccurate Dave. My claim is that CompuServe allows its
subcontractors to mismanage forums by allowing sysops to supervise there
without going through the smallest review process. Get it right if you are
going to debate this point accurately.
Can you respond to this post or does CompuServe have something to hide? I
plan on sticking around here until you respond to these points, Dave.<<
Dave Cunningham <dcunn...@home.com> -- for the THIRD time on THIS
John Haverty
On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 16:23:08 -0500, "liberator" <ne...@liberator.net>
wrote:
>Again Dave, respond to the points above. Does CompuServe have this much to
>lose by telling the truth? Why does it insist on covering up this problem
>instead of responding to it if there is nothing to hide?
Again, where is the cover-up? Have you spoken to a CompuServe
employee? Do you know the steps taken by a sponsor for a forum? Have
you spoken to any of them?
John
--
John Haverty @ CompuServe : have...@compuserve.com
Washburn University : hav...@washburn.edu
Email & Communications Forum : http://go.compuserve.com/EmailCommunication
Wurk
>
> Mark wrote in message ...
> >I agree with your views on parenting but Martin, here's the deal.
> >CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
> >illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which CompuServe
> >and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
> >apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and supervise
> >children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
> >
> >CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
>
> Dave Cunningham <dcunn...@home.com> wrote:
> <<You have *never once* shown any citation about your libelous claim of
> pedophiles being CS sysops ...>>
>
> Mark wrote:
> >>You are being inaccurate Dave. My claim is that CompuServe allows its
> subcontractors to mismanage forums by allowing sysops to supervise there
> without going through the smallest review process. Get it right if you are
> going to debate this point accurately.
>
> Can you respond to this post or does CompuServe have something to hide? I
> plan on sticking around here until you respond to these points, Dave.<<
>
> Dave Cunningham <dcunn...@home.com> -- for the THIRD time on THIS
> thread -- never responded to the points above.
>
> lose by telling the truth? Why does it insist on covering up this problem
> instead of responding to it if there is nothing to hide?
> --
How bout removing alt.aol-sucks from youre sorry arsed list of
cross-posts for' I turn youre sister in for selling herself down on Main
St.
Hahaha
Wurk
Great Celtic Satan
Dave Cunningham <dcunn...@home.com> wrote in message
news:8tnG4.43077$hT2.2...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com...
>
> liberator wrote in message ...
>
> >
> >Can you respond to this post or does CompuServe have something to hide?
I
> >plan on sticking around here until you respond to these points, Dave.<<
> >
>
liberator
a list of concerns that I would like answered from him. He has purposefully
used misdirection instead of answering the concerns. I'll await his further
response.
Thank you for your opinions.
Dave Cunningham
elided all of the answer, it would appear you are just resorting to kookdom
now.
liberator wrote in message ...
liberator
>I agree with your views on parenting but Martin, here's the deal.
>CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
>illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which CompuServe
>and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
>apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and supervise
>children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
>
>CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
Dave Cunningham <dcunn...@home.com> wrote:
<<You have *never once* shown any citation about your libelous claim of
pedophiles being CS sysops ...>>
Mark wrote:
>>You are being inaccurate Dave. My claim is that CompuServe allows its
subcontractors to mismanage forums by allowing sysops to supervise there
without going through the smallest review process. Get it right if you are
going to debate this point accurately.
Can you respond to this post or does CompuServe have something to hide? I
plan on sticking around here until you respond to these points, Dave.<<
Dave Cunningham <dcunn...@home.com> -- for the 4th time on THIS
thread -- never responded to the points above.
AGAIN Dave, respond to the points above. Does CompuServe have this much to
lose by telling the truth? Why does it insist on covering up this problem
instead of responding to it if there is nothing to hide?
Mark
John Haverty
On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 18:14:29 -0500, "liberator" <ne...@liberator.net>
wrote:
>John, I appreciate you trying to play clean up for Dave's mess, but I posed
>a list of concerns that I would like answered from him. He has purposefully
>used misdirection instead of answering the concerns. I'll await his further
>response.
I am in no way playing cleanup for Dave. Simply joining in on the
discussion and enjoying it a great deal. I know that Dave will be
responding with further response, but probably not so much as to
answer your questions as that is not our place to do so. You are
asking the wrong people for the answers you seek. Just as you led a
woman to this forum for answers from CompuServe, you too are seeking
information that those that frequent this group are not able to
provide. Whether that is because of one reason or another, you are
asking the wrong people.
John Haverty
wrote:
>How bout removing alt.aol-sucks from youre sorry arsed list of
>cross-posts for' I turn youre sister in for selling herself down on Main
>St.
Exactly! Would be nice if he would also keep his messages in the
threads they started in rather than creating new ones. Grrr... <g>
Ah well. Makes things interesting....
liberator
>John, I appreciate you trying to play clean up for Dave's mess, but I posed
>a list of concerns that I would like answered from him. He has
purposefully
>used misdirection instead of answering the concerns. I'll await his
further
>response.
John Haverty <have...@compuserve.com> wrote:
<<I am in no way playing cleanup for Dave.>>
When you defend him, that's how it appears.
John Haverty
wrote:
>When you defend him, that's how it appears.
When you post the same thing a five times with five different
subjects, then I decide to jump into the "discussion". Looked like
too much fun to pass up.
Dave Cunningham
answering *once* should be enough -- yet you not only elide the posts I
make, you then assert that I never answered you!!
liberator wrote in message ...
>Mark wrote in message ...
>>I agree with your views on parenting but Martin, here's the deal.
>>CompuServe markets itself as a family friendly community. There is an
>>illusion of special safety through CompuServe protection, which CompuServe
>>and AOL go through great measures to create. However, it has become
>>apparent that CompuServe allows sysops to work on its forums and supervise
>>children without being submitted through the smallest review process.
>>
>>CompuServe members should at least be annoyed, if not outraged.
>
>Dave Cunningham <dcunn...@home.com> wrote:
><<You have *never once* shown any citation about your libelous claim of
>pedophiles being CS sysops ...>>
>
>Mark wrote:
>>>You are being inaccurate Dave. My claim is that CompuServe allows its
>subcontractors to mismanage forums by allowing sysops to supervise there
>without going through the smallest review process. Get it right if you are
>going to debate this point accurately.
>
>Can you respond to this post or does CompuServe have something to hide? I
>plan on sticking around here until you respond to these points, Dave.<<
>
>Dave Cunningham <dcunn...@home.com> -- for the 4th time on THIS
>thread -- never responded to the points above.
>
>AGAIN Dave, respond to the points above. Does CompuServe have this much to
>lose by telling the truth? Why does it insist on covering up this problem
>instead of responding to it if there is nothing to hide?
>
John Haverty
posts to just this forum, it would make more sense. No reason to
cross-post to five other groups that do not care about this issue.
John
liberator
below...
I doubt it since it serves his purpose for the moment.
Mark
--
The Liberator
E-Mail: ne...@liberator.net
Web Site: http://liberator.net/
Better Business: http://liberator.net/special/betterbusiness.html
Need a reliable and inexpensive Internet provider?
Visit FindAnISP: http://www.FindAnISP.com/
Visit CNET: http://webisplist.internetlist.com/
Khaveen Abdul Ca-non <kacannon@2/17th_cavalry.com> wrote in message
news:6lhleson1de1dpn9b...@4ax.com...
On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 19:05:46 -0500, "liberator" <ne...@liberator.net>
amazed us with his/her particular brand of stupidity in
<jvvG4.400$Qp2....@news.goodnet.com> in alt.aol-sucks when he/she
wrote:
<snip STUPIDITY not even worth repeating>
Let me it clear to you.
(fixed pitch font please)
.__ __. ______ .______ ______ _______ ____ ____
| \ | | / __ \ | _ \ / __ \ | \ \ \ / /
| \| | | | | | | |_) | | | | | | .--. | \ \/ /
| . ` | | | | | | _ < | | | | | | | | \_ _/
| |\ | | `--' | | |_) | | `--' | | '--' | | |
|__| \__| \______/ |______/ \______/ |_______/ |__|
_______ __ __ ______ __ ___ __ .__ __. _______
| ____|| | | | / || |/ / | | | \ | | / _____|
| |__ | | | | | ,----'| ' / | | | \| | | | __
| __| | | | | | | | < | | | . ` | | | |_ |
| | | `--' | | `----.| . \ | | | |\ | | |__| |
|__| \______/ \______||__|\__\ |__| |__| \__| \______|
______ ___ .______ _______ _______. __ __
/ | / \ | _ \ | ____| / || | | |
| ,----' / ^ \ | |_) | | |__ | (----`| | | |
| | / /_\ \ | / | __| \ \ | | | |
| `----./ _____ \ | |\ \----.| |____.----) | |__| |__|
\______/__/ \__\ | _| `._____||_______|_______/ (__) (__)
Now kindly go fucking away....
--
K. A. Cannon
Usenet Miscreant
kacannon at cavalry dot com
(remove the 2/17th_ from cavalry to reply)
Without words books would not exist.
-Wurk (23 Dec 1998)
http://www.usenet-performance-art.org/~menjy/petey.htm
Home of the Red Wiper Fan club
liberator
<<Looked like too much fun to pass up.>>
I'm glad you're having fun while unscreened forum managers are supervising
CompuServe minors. You should reallocate your priorities John.
John Haverty
On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:37:56 -0500, "liberator" <ne...@liberator.net>
wrote:
>I'm glad you're having fun while unscreened forum managers are supervising
>CompuServe minors. You should reallocate your priorities John.
My priorities are straight. We are now back to forum managers. Good,
back on track again. Do not like to see you sway from one set of
people to another. Proof? Oh, still no proof, huh? Ok.
Dionysos
Hell man, I knew what said without fixed pitch.
Oh fuck it, I knew what that said before I even scrolled down to read
it.
Followups set appropriately
Dionysos
wrote:
>I wonder if Dave will demand that you correct your poor choice of words
>below...
>
>I doubt it since it serves his purpose for the moment.
>
>
>Mark
>--
You missed the point.
>Let me it clear to you.
>
>(fixed pitch font please)
>
>
>.__ __. ______ .______ ______ _______ ____ ____
>| \ | | / __ \ | _ \ / __ \ | \ \ \ / /
>| \| | | | | | | |_) | | | | | | .--. | \ \/ /
>| . ` | | | | | | _ < | | | | | | | | \_ _/
>| |\ | | `--' | | |_) | | `--' | | '--' | | |
>|__| \__| \______/ |______/ \______/ |_______/ |__|
>
> _______ __ __ ______ __ ___ __ .__ __. _______
>| ____|| | | | / || |/ / | | | \ | | / _____|
>| |__ | | | | | ,----'| ' / | | | \| | | | __
>| __| | | | | | | | < | | | . ` | | | |_ |
>| | | `--' | | `----.| . \ | | | |\ | | |__| |
>|__| \______/ \______||__|\__\ |__| |__| \__| \______|
>
> ______ ___ .______ _______ _______. __ __
> / | / \ | _ \ | ____| / || | | |
>| ,----' / ^ \ | |_) | | |__ | (----`| | | |
>| | / /_\ \ | / | __| \ \ | | | |
>| `----./ _____ \ | |\ \----.| |____.----) | |__| |__|
> \______/__/ \__\ | _| `._____||_______|_______/ (__) (__)
>
>
>Now kindly go fucking away....
Follow-ups set so that he can kindly fuck off.
liberator
<<My priorities are straight.>>
You laughing while CompuServe volunteers remain unscreened while supervising
minors is your idea of straight priorities?
<<Proof?>>
Dave seems to have an opinion on the screening process of forum managers.
Mark
--
The Liberator
E-Mail: webm...@liberator.net
Web Site: http://www.liberator.net/
John Haverty
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:21:01 -0500, "liberator" <ne...@liberator.net>
wrote:
>You laughing while CompuServe volunteers remain unscreened while supervising
>minors is your idea of straight priorities?
Proof? Where is the proof Mark? We have been waiting? No, Dave has
not mentioned the screening process for forum managers. Not that he
has written publically at least. Has he been writing you privately
with this informatoin? Interesting...
pin0cchio
> pin0cchio <No2bulkMAI...@XOOMMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >Lose: AOL loses backbone.
>
> Jimmy never had a backbone, integrity or any real friends, just
> suckups like you
And you?
> Jimmy doesnt use a modem, he secretly lives in mommy's basement and
> posts from webtv, when he's not stealing the neighbor's newspaper.....
Do you even know how to read headers?
--
pin0cchio do you gnu?
"If only Micro$oft knew the difference between right and
wrong, then Windows would be a real operating system."
pin0cchio
>
> liberator wrote in message ...
>
> >plan on sticking around here until you respond to these points, Dave.<<
>
Message-ID?