Should John Navas Threaten Legal Action?
marktab_ALLspamwillbe_REPORTEDand_REJECTED
I guess I bothered John Navas by trying to ask some modem questions.
John Navas' response to me: "That is deliberate libel."
The threat of a libel suit naturally brings up more questions, but I
would like to go on public record that I don't see how asking modem
questions leads to lawsuits.
I unfortunately find it necessary to post this message to protect
myself from legal action. I believe that in general when individuals
are publicly threatened with libel on a Usenet group, that they need
to reply in real-time to provide the court a written record of what
their thinking was at the time (a contemporaneous record). He may
have been threatening the original poster "Esquire", but since my name
is the most recent author, it is reasonable to assume that he is
responding to me.
For the record, I believe that John Navas stepped across the line in
making a definitive libel statement, and that such needs to be
publicly apologized for.
In Christian terms, I classify this as a trespass or sin.
I would also advise John Navas to not use legal threats on e-mail
(save it for hard copy if it's real). John, I'm really telling you
this for your protection. You really don't know who people are, and
you need to protect your professional reputation.
Path:
mindspring!news.mindspring.net!streamer1.cleveland.iagnet.net!qual.net!iagnet.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!Supernews60!supernews.com!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!news.ncal.verio.com!not-for-mail
From: Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John Navas)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: A John Navas Unsolvable -- 33.6 vs. 56x2 Throughput
Followup-To: comp.dcom.modems
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:56:20 GMT
Organization: The Navas Group, Dublin, CA, USA
Lines: 24
Sender: Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John Navas)
Message-ID: <3506e15b...@news.ncal.verio.com>
References: <34f20dee...@news.mindspring.com>
<34f25...@news1.ibm.net> <34f350a6...@news.mindspring.com>
Reply-To: Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.21.143.180
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
marktab_ALLspamwillbe_REPORTEDand_REJECTED @ mindspring.com (Mark
Tabladillo Ph.D.) wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 18:44:04 -1000, "Esquire" <nos...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>>John (and some others) are very reluctant to recognize the problems with x2,
>>Flex, and (probably) v.90 --- an 'expert witness' becomes very expert at
>>saying what his clients want, and others (various info.COM) have a
>>commercial interest in hiding the naked truth....
>
>Thanks -- I did not realize that John Navas may have a conflict of
>interest on X2 technology.
<RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION MODE>
That is deliberate libel. I have absolutely no conflict of interest,
as
my Modem FAQ makes clear. It's the kind of crap that weak minds
resort to
when they have a bankrupt position.
</RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION MODE>
--
Best regards,
John mailto:JNa...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US
http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/
28800-56K Modem FAQ:
http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq.html
Think...@aol.com
>I guess I bothered John Navas by trying to ask some modem questions.
>
>John Navas' response to me: "That is deliberate libel."
>
>The threat of a libel suit naturally brings up more questions, but I
>would like to go on public record that I don't see how asking modem
>questions leads to lawsuits.
>
>I unfortunately find it necessary to post this message to protect
>myself from legal action. I believe that in general when individuals
>are publicly threatened with libel on a Usenet group, that they need
>to reply in real-time to provide the court a written record of what
>their thinking was at the time (a contemporaneous record). He may
>have been threatening the original poster "Esquire", but since my name
>is the most recent author, it is reasonable to assume that he is
>responding to me.
>
>For the record, I believe that John Navas stepped across the line in
>making a definitive libel statement, and that such needs to be
>publicly apologized for.
>
>In Christian terms, I classify this as a trespass or sin.
Indeed.
It is classic "squid" activity: squirt a cloudy substance into the
waters, to divert attention from the real issues.
>I would also advise John Navas to not use legal threats on e-mail
>(save it for hard copy if it's real). John, I'm really telling you
>this for your protection. You really don't know who people are, and
>you need to protect your professional reputation.
Right again. John doesn't seem to realize his own exposure here. It is
extremely serious to call someone a "thief" and an "abuser," etc. etc.
etc. etc. in a public forum.
Many of the participants here have raised questions about John, and
however much he dislikes it, this does not constitute libel. He will
be hard pressed to prove any of us have malicious intent. Taken in
context, he has received credit for the many fine contributions he has
made to these NG's, indicating a balanced approach, mindful of the
truth. He is without doubt one of the most knowledgeable sources
of guidance and information on the net. That has never been in
dispute.
On those occasions when the effect of his words are hostile, rude,
boorish, condescending, patently offensive (and worse) to participants
in these forums, we reserve the right to express our opinions about
his behavior.
The aim is to help John to modify his behavior, not silence him, or
libel him.
No different than writing "letters to the editor" of a newspaper.
John, if your modem FAQ made that "clear," no one would have asked the
questions. Clearly, people continue to have questions.
It's the kind of crap that weak minds
>resort to
>when they have a bankrupt position.
></RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION MODE>
You mean Navas in "squid" mode.
There is no such thing as a "crap" question just because it is
directed at you.
Todd Megee
>
>I would also advise John Navas to not use legal threats on e-mail
>(save it for hard copy if it's real). John, I'm really telling you
>this for your protection. You really don't know who people are, and
>you need to protect your professional reputation.
John Navas, because a lot of people here enjoy to hear your comments
on modems. Please please please kill-file this person so that you just
later don't say "The hell with it"
Thanks!
--
Todd Megee
tme...@datasync.com
Mail is Filtered
At no time is freedom of speech more precious than when a man hits his
thumb with a hammer.
-- Marshall Lumsden
Jon R. Ives
On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 10:25:09 GMT,
>I guess I bothered John Navas by trying to ask some modem questions.
>
>John Navas' response to me: "That is deliberate libel."
>
>The threat of a libel suit naturally brings up more questions, but I
>would like to go on public record that I don't see how asking modem
>questions leads to lawsuits.
>
>I unfortunately find it necessary to post this message to protect
>myself from legal action.
<BIG snip>
>
><RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION MODE>
>That is deliberate libel. I have absolutely no conflict of interest,
>as
>my Modem FAQ makes clear. It's the kind of crap that weak minds
>resort to
>when they have a bankrupt position.
></RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION MODE>
>
>--
>Best regards,
>John mailto:JNa...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US
>http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/
> 28800-56K Modem FAQ:
>http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq.html
>
Sheesh!
Get a life!
With John's clear labeling of <RIGHTOUS INDIGNATION MODE>
this obviously should only be taken as humor!
Keep on truckin', John!
Jon
----------------------------
Jon R. Ives
870 North Point #202
San Francisco, CA 94109-1228
jon...@netcom.com
HSimms4702
Falsely accusing a consultant of conflict of interest is libel and the victim
of such an attack can seek to recover damages against the accuser.
The purpose of this newsgroup is to discuss modem issues. In my opinion John
Navas is one of the most valuable assets of the newsgroup.
My view is that it is appropriate to discuss the technical merits of various
posts. It is not appropriate to debate the style (including bluntness,
terseness, or verbosity) of specific individuals.
Can we please attempt to get back (and stay) on topic?
Jo
AMEN!!!
Jack
Gary Peake
Todd Megee scribed to us about Re: Should John Navas Threaten Legal
Action? in comp.dcom.modems
>>
>>I would also advise John Navas to not use legal threats on e-mail
>>(save it for hard copy if it's real). John, I'm really telling you
>>this for your protection. You really don't know who people are, and
>>you need to protect your professional reputation.
TM> John Navas, because a lot of people here enjoy to hear your
TM> comments on modems. Please please please kill-file this person so
TM> that you just later don't say "The hell with it"
I agree! Let's all killfile the people who are trashing this newsgroup
and get back to the questions at hand such as X2 and V.90!! That is
much more serious to me than whether or not John occassionally has a
bad day or whether ThinkPadMan (in disguise as a real human being)
likes or dislikes some of John's answers.
PS. Anyone want to know who ThinkPadMan REALLY is? ;)
--
Gary Peake, Coordinator 1:106/7511.1
Team *AMIGA* Worldwide gpe...@wans.net
--
Team *AMIGA* Headquarters http://www.wans.net/~gpeake/teamamiga.html
*... Klingons do NOT sweat! They perspire with honor!
Andy Yee
In article <1268.372T1...@wans.net>, "Gary Peake" <gpe...@wans.net> wrote:
>
>PS. Anyone want to know who ThinkPadMan REALLY is? ;)
>
Ummmm....(getting rotten eggs ready to throw)... :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Yee Corporate E-mail: an...@xiotech.com
Principal Software Engineer Corporate Web Page: http://www.xiotech.com
XIOtech Corporation Personal E-mail: n...@yuck.net
Eden Prairie, MN Personal Home Page: http://www.visi.com/~nde
"Question authority...and the authorities will end up questioning YOU!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith R. Williams
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:03:29, "Gary Peake" <gpe...@wans.net>
> PS. Anyone want to know who ThinkPadMan REALLY is? ;)
Dunno, but my ThinkPad is embarrassed by him.
----
Keith
Linda bala
Andy, find something else to do with your rotten eggs.
ThinkPadMAN makes sense to me. More often than not.
He is not perfect. (He IS a man.) But what comes over is how he has to work
hard to make a living. And has to stay connected for work. While he's
traveling. I can relate. I have a sales job. On the road a lot. Use Pegasus
mail the same way he uses Eudora. To stay connected. Because service sucks. And
a day can be ruined if you spend precious time with busy signals and logoffs
while staying in touch with the office.
You and your (ever shrinking minority) of other detractors are seriously out of
touch if the best youcan do is ask who he REALLY is. If you thought about it
for one single minute, there are MANY intelligent and prudent reasons for him
to keep this to himself. You are employed. Can't you figure it out?
Andy Yee
In article <19980311154...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, lind...@aol.com (Linda bala) wrote:
>Andy, find something else to do with your rotten eggs.
>ThinkPadMAN makes sense to me. More often than not.
>He is not perfect. (He IS a man.) But what comes over is how he has to work
>hard to make a living. And has to stay connected for work. While he's
>traveling. I can relate. I have a sales job. On the road a lot. Use Pegasus
>mail the same way he uses Eudora. To stay connected. Because service sucks. And
>a day can be ruined if you spend precious time with busy signals and logoffs
>while staying in touch with the office.
>
I agree...the point here is that to read the fine print about "acceptable user
policies" of your ISP to make sure that what you're doing isn't violating it.
Or find an ISP that specifically allows you to do that...
>You and your (ever shrinking minority) of other detractors are seriously out of
>touch if the best youcan do is ask who he REALLY is. If you thought about it
>for one single minute, there are MANY intelligent and prudent reasons for him
>to keep this to himself. You are employed. Can't you figure it out?
>
Why should *I* care who St^H^HThinkPadMan is?
Mike Fahy
lind...@aol.com (Linda bala) wrote:
>Andy, find something else to do with your rotten eggs.
>ThinkPadMAN makes sense to me. More often than not.
>He is not perfect. (He IS a man.) But what comes over is how he has to work
>hard to make a living. And has to stay connected for work.
With all due respect, Linda, if this is the type of connection he
requires then he should indeed purchase dedicated.
I honestly don't think his employer requires that he violate an ISP's
terms of service as a condition of employment.
The whole thing reeks of false statements and mis-representation.
--
Mike Fahy
mike...@twd.net
Think...@aol.com
mike...@twd.net (Mike Fahy) wrote:
Mike, respectfully, Linda has been paying attention to the
***context*** of my meaning.
At the office I have a dedicated connection. But when I travel (which
is unfortunately quite often) I have to dial in from hotels, airport
courtesy lounges, motels, and borrowed offices.
It is not possible to purchase dedicated connections when different
cities are being visited at random, as conditions dictate.
There have been false statements and mis-representation. Of my views.
Fortunately, people have caught them and come forward to say so.
Again, I use Eudora to check constantly for incoming email. This is
usually for 6-8 hours daily. No more. (And unfortunately, no less.)
Mike Fahy
Think...@aol.com wrote:
>It is not possible to purchase dedicated connections when different
>cities are being visited at random, as conditions dictate.
Think about what you are telling me. Since the appropriate tool for
the job at hand is unavailable, you mis-use whatever you can lay your
hands on?
Is that what your company has told you to do? Have you made clear to
the people you are buying these services from what your actual
intentions are? If so, I would be interested in their responses.
--
Mike Fahy
mike...@twd.net
John Navas
[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
andyy@DELETE_ALL_CAPS_TO_RESPONDxiotech.com (Andy Yee) wrote:
>Why should *I* care who St^H^HThinkPadMan is?
What you might care about is who these sudden supporters of ThinkPadMan
are: from an examination of the article headers it looks to me that they
are probably forged names that are coming from one individual, perhaps TPM
himself. In any event, responding to these trolls is off-topic and a
waste of time.
p.s. I'm gathering up these articles and forwarding them to the source
(AOL) for investigation.
John Navas
[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
Think...@aol.com wrote:
>There have been false statements and mis-representation. Of my views.
>Fortunately, people have caught them and come forward to say so.
It looks to me like these "people" are forged articles (and crude
forgeries at that).
BrianDav...@hatespamers.law.columbia.edu
Mike, I'm currently studying law. I've followed this thread closely.
I've seen Doug Haire and John Navas misrepresent not only what the
thinkpad man has said, but what his service provider's contract
actually states as acceptable usage.
To keep this brief, all contracts are open to interpretation. This is
why people consult attorneys, and why we have courts and juries to
decide for one side or the other.
Thinkpad man's isp seems to be gte.net. A section of their contract
deems acceptable use as staying connected "as needed." But not 24/7.
This is what the thinkpad man says he does when he is out of the
office. He stays connected via an email program during his 6-8 hour
workday.
In my opinion this does not constitute misuse. Others may disagree.
That's what our system is all about. We are all entitled to our
opinions, and honest people may differ about their interpretation of
contracts.
The issue is not as cut and dried as Haire and Navas would have anyone
here believe. Further, their personal attacks are out of order.
ps glad you have kept this civil, as has the Thinkpad man. If only
Haire and Navas followed your example.
BrianDav...@hatespamers.law.columbia.edu
>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>andyy@DELETE_ALL_CAPS_TO_RESPONDxiotech.com (Andy Yee) wrote:
>
>>Why should *I* care who St^H^HThinkPadMan is?
>
>What you might care about is who these sudden supporters of ThinkPadMan
>are: from an examination of the article headers it looks to me that they
>are probably forged names that are coming from one individual, perhaps TPM
>himself. In any event, responding to these trolls is off-topic and a
>waste of time.
>
>p.s. I'm gathering up these articles and forwarding them to the source
>(AOL) for investigation.
Have you no shame John Navas? Anyone who would so crudely attempt to
stifle dissent deserves no respect. Truly pitiful.
This is the lowest I've seen you go.
Joe McCarthy at his worst would say he was gathering up "names" and
making "lists" to forward to the House Unamerican Activities
Committee.
This is America. People are free to say whatever they want, so long as
they don't libel anyone. Have you been libeled by anyone's opinions
here? People are offering their opinions about issues. You are the one
who insists on making it personal. Sorry if your feelings are hurt
because thinkpad has supporters.
BTW, I am one of them. Proudly.
Think...@aol.com
Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John Navas) wrote:
>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>andyy@DELETE_ALL_CAPS_TO_RESPONDxiotech.com (Andy Yee) wrote:
>
>>Why should *I* care who St^H^HThinkPadMan is?
>
>What you might care about is who these sudden supporters of ThinkPadMan
>are: from an examination of the article headers it looks to me that they
>are probably forged names that are coming from one individual, perhaps TPM
>himself. In any event, responding to these trolls is off-topic and a
>waste of time.
>
>p.s. I'm gathering up these articles and forwarding them to the source
>(AOL) for investigation.
John, you are becoming hysterical.
Are you losing it?
Yes, by all means gather up these articles and forward them to AOL for
"investigation."
But first, why don't you respond to what these people have had to say?
Is it so threatening to you that I may have a few supporters (as you
do) that you threaten to "kill the messenger?"
Wow.
Mike Fahy
BrianDav...@hatespamers.law.columbia.edu wrote:
>Thinkpad man's isp seems to be gte.net. A section of their contract
>deems acceptable use as staying connected "as needed." But not 24/7.
In your study of the law, Brian, I am sure you will be encouraged to
read and interpret entire contracts, not just portions. Context is
too easliy lost when snipping only a portion.
Do you really think GTE agrees that automated frequent mail-checking,
for the expressed purpose of remaining connected is an acceptable use
of their service?
I suppose the best way to find out would be to ask them.
>ps glad you have kept this civil, as has the Thinkpad man. If only
>Haire and Navas followed your example.
Thinkpadman wasn't always civil, and neither was I. He has been in
here for a couple weeks and has changed his position, and the tone of
his posts, many times in reaction to his perception of public opinion.
Don't get drawn in too far by him, you will see for yourself in due
time.
And, of course, I changed my tone because I am an all-around great
guy.
--
Mike Fahy
mike...@twd.net
John Navas
[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
mike...@twd.net (Mike Fahy) wrote:
>Think...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>It is not possible to purchase dedicated connections when different
>>cities are being visited at random, as conditions dictate.
>
>Think about what you are telling me. Since the appropriate tool for
>the job at hand is unavailable, you mis-use whatever you can lay your
>hands on?
>
>Is that what your company has told you to do? Have you made clear to
>the people you are buying these services from what your actual
>intentions are? If so, I would be interested in their responses.
What he is doing is a clear violation of the service agreement at his ISP
<http://www.gte.net/pands/agreemt.html> ("Automated processes may not be
used such as CHECKING E-MAIL or pinging the host to maintain a constant
connection." [emphasis added]).
Jack1
We should send all the articles you have posted to so there is a fare
evaluation. You will loose out big on this Mister Soviet Union Policeman.
:-)
Jack1
John Navas
>Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John Navas) wrote:
>
>>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>>andyy@DELETE_ALL_CAPS_TO_RESPONDxiotech.com (Andy Yee) wrote:
>>
>>>Why should *I* care who St^H^HThinkPadMan is?
>>
>>What you might care about is who these sudden supporters of ThinkPadMan
>>are: from an examination of the article headers it looks to me that they
>>are probably forged names that are coming from one individual, perhaps TPM
>>himself. In any event, responding to these trolls is off-topic and a
>>waste of time.
>>
>>p.s. I'm gathering up these articles and forwarding them to the source
>>(AOL) for investigation.
>
>John, you are becoming hysterical.
>
>Are you losing it?
>
>Yes, by all means gather up these articles and forward them to AOL for
>"investigation."
>...
As I asked you before, please stop these completely off-topic posts.
As for a complaint regarding your conduct, if I were to do that I would of
course send it to gte.net, not the forged address in your headers.
John Navas
[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
BrianDav...@hatespamers.law.columbia.edu wrote:
>This is America. People are free to say whatever they want, so long as
>they don't libel anyone. ...
Not true -- this forum is limited to posts regarding modems.
>Have you been libeled by anyone's opinions
>here? ...
Yes.
Jack1
God Bless THINKPADMAN!!! He truly knows when he is wrong, you never do......
YOU ARE NEVER NEVER WRONG IN YOUR OWN EYES.
Jack1
John Navas
>Thinkpad man's isp seems to be gte.net. A section of their contract
>deems acceptable use as staying connected "as needed." But not 24/7.
>
>This is what the thinkpad man says he does when he is out of the
>office. He stays connected via an email program during his 6-8 hour
>workday.
>
>In my opinion this does not constitute misuse. Others may disagree.
>That's what our system is all about. We are all entitled to our
>opinions, and honest people may differ about their interpretation of
>contracts.
>...
This is not a matter of opinion. What the contract
<http://www.gte.net/pands/agreemt.html> actually says is:
AUTOMATED PROCESSES may not be used such as CHECKING E-MAIL or
pinging the host to maintain a constant connection. [emphasis added]
He has admitted doing exactly that (at <news:6c7667$1qd$1...@gte2.gte.net>
and <news:6bv1ka$r3$2...@gte1.gte.net>), so he is clearly and willfully
violating that contract. To comply with the contract he would have to be
constantly using the program himself, manually checking for mail.
Jack1
Everything you just typed is totally false! This is America free speech
(everywhere PERIOD).
Jack1
Stephen Williams
Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John Navas) wrote:
>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>BrianDav...@hatespamers.law.columbia.edu wrote:
>
>>Thinkpad man's isp seems to be gte.net. A section of their contract
>>deems acceptable use as staying connected "as needed." But not 24/7.
>>
>>This is what the thinkpad man says he does when he is out of the
>>office. He stays connected via an email program during his 6-8 hour
>>workday.
>>
>>In my opinion this does not constitute misuse. Others may disagree.
>>That's what our system is all about. We are all entitled to our
>>opinions, and honest people may differ about their interpretation of
>>contracts.
>>...
>
>This is not a matter of opinion. What the contract
><http://www.gte.net/pands/agreemt.html> actually says is:
>
> AUTOMATED PROCESSES may not be used such as CHECKING E-MAIL or
> pinging the host to maintain a constant connection. [emphasis added]
>
>He has admitted doing exactly that (at <news:6c7667$1qd$1...@gte2.gte.net>
>and <news:6bv1ka$r3$2...@gte1.gte.net>), so he is clearly and willfully
>violating that contract. To comply with the contract he would have to be
>constantly using the program himself, manually checking for mail.
No doubt I will regret commenting on this silly thread ...
BUT, going just by what I read here, obviously it is the INTENT of
maintaining a constant connection for that sole purpose. That is my
reading of the contract.
But in any case, you cite this as if it amounts to a criminal act to
violate a contract. It isn't. It is just a private contract. The only
party that might have a complaint is GTE (and not you, an uninterested
third party) and then only if THEY think so. And even then it is up to
THEM to prove it to a judge if necessary if called upon.
Even if you are right in your interpretation, no one has violated any
criminal law here.
So what is the point of this debate? I don't see one.
S.
===========================================================
PGP keys http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~jewil/sjw.html
RSA key: 4E11 E5BB 3F2D E856 AC10 2F49 5C82 9BBB
DSS key: DCED DE1E F46C 1081 B67E B3A7 1EC1 AC37 2E69 04C4
===========================================================
Andy Yee
In article <3507288d...@165.87.194.249>, s...@internetmci.com (Stephen Williams) wrote:
>Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John Navas) wrote:
>
>>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>>BrianDav...@hatespamers.law.columbia.edu wrote:
>>
>>>Thinkpad man's isp seems to be gte.net. A section of their contract
>>>deems acceptable use as staying connected "as needed." But not 24/7.
>>>
>>>This is what the thinkpad man says he does when he is out of the
>>>office. He stays connected via an email program during his 6-8 hour
>>>workday.
>>>
>>>In my opinion this does not constitute misuse. Others may disagree.
>>>That's what our system is all about. We are all entitled to our
>>>opinions, and honest people may differ about their interpretation of
>>>contracts.
>>>...
>>
>>This is not a matter of opinion. What the contract
>><http://www.gte.net/pands/agreemt.html> actually says is:
>>
>> AUTOMATED PROCESSES may not be used such as CHECKING E-MAIL or
>> pinging the host to maintain a constant connection. [emphasis added]
>>
>>He has admitted doing exactly that (at <news:6c7667$1qd$1...@gte2.gte.net>
>>and <news:6bv1ka$r3$2...@gte1.gte.net>), so he is clearly and willfully
>>violating that contract. To comply with the contract he would have to be
>>constantly using the program himself, manually checking for mail.
>
>maintaining a constant connection for that sole purpose. That is my
>reading of the contract.
>
>But in any case, you cite this as if it amounts to a criminal act to
>violate a contract. It isn't. It is just a private contract. The only
>party that might have a complaint is GTE (and not you, an uninterested
>third party) and then only if THEY think so. And even then it is up to
>THEM to prove it to a judge if necessary if called upon.
>
>Even if you are right in your interpretation, no one has violated any
>criminal law here.
>
Nobody's saying that criminal law was violated. John Navas says that
GTE's acceptable use policy was violated. And you're right again;
it's up to GTE to determine what action it will take, if any.
John Navas
[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
andyy@DELETE_ALL_CAPS_TO_RESPONDxiotech.com (Andy Yee) wrote:
>Nobody's saying that criminal law was violated. John Navas says that
>GTE's acceptable use policy was violated. And you're right again;
>it's up to GTE to determine what action it will take, if any.
Correct. Stephen seems to enjoy setting up and then knocking down straw
men whenever he has a legal hair to split, which is why I generally ignore
him.
The reality is that the terms of service at GTE are quite clear, and that
the kind of "automated process" that TPM is using is prohibited. If TPM
were manually checking his email often enough to keep the connection alive
then this restriction would not apply, but he is apparently too busy doing
other things (i.e., not actually using the Internet connection himself).
What's really silly about this is that it's very easy to set up a process
that connects, checks for mail, and then disconnects. I'd guess that GTE
would have no objection to that, even if it were fairly frequent ( e.g.,
every 10 minutes, which should be often enough for anyone other than a 911
service. ;)
Julie Brandon
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:53:57 GMT, John Navas did spake:
>As I asked you before, please stop these completely off-topic posts.
Usually I've been in agreement with you but on this point....
Who are you to be asking this?
Ta-ra,
Julie.
--
"Here's a pin and here's a pingle, porcupines are always single,
poor ol' 'pines they mustn't mingle, pingle pangle pingle."
[singing] Marvellous Mouse Organ Mice (Bagpuss: 1970s UK Children's TV)
Julie Brandon
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:37:27 -0600, Jack1 did spake:
>Everything you just typed is totally false! This is America free speech
>(everywhere PERIOD).
Wrong. It's the Internet.
How many times does one have to impress this in some people...
"Internet != America"
Ta-ra,
Julie (posting from an account a long way away from the states...)
Glen
On 12 Mar 1998 09:08:17 GMT, $julies/newsreply$@merp.demon.co.uk
(Julie Brandon) wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:37:27 -0600, Jack1 did spake:
>>Everything you just typed is totally false! This is America free speech
>>(everywhere PERIOD).
>
>Wrong. It's the Internet.
>
>How many times does one have to impress this in some people...
>
>"Internet != America"
>
>Ta-ra,
> Julie (posting from an account a long way away from the states...)
>
Thank god for that Julie.. Someone has finally realised that the
entire content of the internet does not reside on servers in the good
ol U.S of A!
Rick Collins
> The only
>party that might have a complaint is GTE (and not you, an uninterested
>third party) and then only if THEY think so. And even then it is up to
>THEM to prove it to a judge if necessary if called upon.
Well, not really. You should consider the impact TPM's modus operendi
has on the other users as well. If he is maintaining his connection
through a Eudora request for mail every three minutes, and he is doing
that to _maintain_ the connection, then he would appear to be in
violation of the terms of the agreement. Since, in hist first post,
that's essentially what he said, I think we can take it as a "given"
that he's in violation.
So - GTE has a complaint - he's in violation of his agreement with
them. Who else? How about every other user who is denied access
because all the lines are in use - one of them by TPM and his "keep my
connection" philosophy? They're hardly "disinterested third parties".
Their complaint, of course, is directed to GTE - they're paying for a
service they're not getting reliably.
If the noise gets loud enough GTE will have to increase the number of
lines available, or face a loss of customers. More lines = more cost.
At some point GTE, (and the others as well) will come to the
conclusion that too many people are too greedy and have too little
respect for the agreements they enter into, and therefore that the
"unlimited" service now offered simply won't work in an environment
full of those who think like and act like TPM - many of them
completely unaware that what they are doing is both against their
contract _and_ contrary to the proper use of a shared resource. The
end result will be "metered" service and an end to flat rate
"unlimited" access.
When that happens many here will reflect on the "good old days" when
Inet access was cheap, and wonder what happened to change all that.
Of course, it's unreasonable to think that TPM himself should bear the
brunt of the blame for this - he's only one user, using one line,
after all. But it is the attitude of TPM and those that share that
attitude, collectively, that will eventually bring about the end of
cheap, flat rate INet connections.
TPM and his ilk affect us all. Thanks for listening.
Rick (remove X from e-mail address)
Think...@aol.com
ab...@issc.debbsX.ndhq.dnd.ca (Rick Collins) wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:19:59 GMT, s...@internetmci.com (Stephen
>Williams) wrote:
>
>> The only
>>party that might have a complaint is GTE (and not you, an uninterested
>>third party) and then only if THEY think so. And even then it is up to
>>THEM to prove it to a judge if necessary if called upon.
>
>Well, not really. You should consider the impact TPM's modus operendi
>has on the other users as well. If he is maintaining his connection
>through a Eudora request for mail every three minutes, and he is doing
>that to _maintain_ the connection, then he would appear to be in
>violation of the terms of the agreement.
No, Rick. That is not what I am doing. Respectfully, I urge you to go
back and re-read what I said.
>Since, in hist first post,
>that's essentially what he said, I think we can take it as a "given"
>that he's in violation.
No, Rick. I said that I use Eudora to check for my email every few
minutes ***to check for new email messages***while I am interacting
with my computer ***during a 6-8 hour work session.***
I do apologize for the lack of clarity in my writing. But I know what
I do. I have done this for many years to earn my livelihood. And if
you wish to be fair, kindly go back and re-read what I have written
over and over, to see the meaning of my words ***in context.***
Thank you for listening.
Chris
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 22:04:21 GMT, Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John
Navas) wrote:
>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>BrianDav...@hatespamers.law.columbia.edu wrote:
>
>>Thinkpad man's isp seems to be gte.net. A section of their contract
>>deems acceptable use as staying connected "as needed." But not 24/7.
>>
>>This is what the thinkpad man says he does when he is out of the
>>office. He stays connected via an email program during his 6-8 hour
>>workday.
>>
>>In my opinion this does not constitute misuse. Others may disagree.
>>That's what our system is all about. We are all entitled to our
>>opinions, and honest people may differ about their interpretation of
>>contracts.
>>...
>
>This is not a matter of opinion. What the contract
><http://www.gte.net/pands/agreemt.html> actually says is:
>
> AUTOMATED PROCESSES may not be used such as CHECKING E-MAIL or
> pinging the host to maintain a constant connection. [emphasis added]
>
>He has admitted doing exactly that (at <news:6c7667$1qd$1...@gte2.gte.net>
>and <news:6bv1ka$r3$2...@gte1.gte.net>), so he is clearly and willfully
>violating that contract. To comply with the contract he would have to be
>constantly using the program himself, manually checking for mail.
I disagree with you Mr. Navas. I have read this contract over, and
showed it to friends. The activities that this man has described are
valid so long as he is personally interacting with his computer during
his work session.
What this contract says is that GTE does not want its customers using
any keep alive tools to keep the connection active if they are not
interacting with their computers.
Using an email program set to automatically check for email every few
minutes is a convenience to the user that is not specifically
disallowed by the contract.
On the contrary, the full contract, from which you only selected
portions to show us, allows the use of their network "as needed." This
cannot be disputed. If the man needs to be connected while working,
and he needs to constantly check for new email, he is well within his
rights to use the facilities within Eudora or any other email program
to save him a little time.
Further, has stated that his work sessions run six to eight hours.
This is by no means an egregious amount of time to be using the
system.
Chris
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:55:15 GMT, Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John
Navas) wrote:
>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>BrianDav...@hatespamers.law.columbia.edu wrote:
>
>>This is America. People are free to say whatever they want, so long as
>>they don't libel anyone. ...
>
>Not true -- this forum is limited to posts regarding modems.
And various other related issues, including ISP's, telcos, rebates,
etc.
>>Have you been libeled by anyone's opinions
>>here? ...
>
>Yes.
And specifically damaged how? In order to assert libel, you must be
able to prove real world damages. Have you lost any customers? Has
your ability to attract clients been diminished? Have you suffered any
loss of income?
Chris
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 20:32:45 GMT, Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John
Navas) wrote:
>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>mike...@twd.net (Mike Fahy) wrote:
>
>>Think...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>It is not possible to purchase dedicated connections when different
>>>cities are being visited at random, as conditions dictate.
>>
>>Think about what you are telling me. Since the appropriate tool for
>>the job at hand is unavailable, you mis-use whatever you can lay your
>>hands on?
>>
>>Is that what your company has told you to do? Have you made clear to
>>the people you are buying these services from what your actual
>>intentions are? If so, I would be interested in their responses.
>
>What he is doing is a clear violation of the service agreement at his ISP
><http://www.gte.net/pands/agreemt.html> ("Automated processes may not be
>used such as CHECKING E-MAIL or pinging the host to maintain a constant
>connection." [emphasis added]).
It is not. I have read this contract. Mr. Navas has selectively edited
portions of it to buttress his position.
A full reading of this contract, and Mindspring's as well, allows
customers to access the network under the usage thinkpadman describes
as his typical work method.
Mr. Navas is referring to the misuse of any program to maintain a
constant unattended connection, perhaps 24 hours a day.
Thinkpad is well within his rights dialing in for as much as 8 hours a
day if his work demands that he do so, and simultaneously keep
monitoring his email.
If there is one word to the contrary in this contract, I have not seen
it.
Where are the hourly limits? There are none.
Does it provide for access "as needed"? Yes. It specifically does.
Beta User
Seems as if everyone has an opinion on the Navas-TPM feud. Here is mine:
John Navas: Don't take yourself, your job, modems or life too seriously.
Life is too short to worry or comment on the absurb, just shake your head
and move on. In the end, no one really cares what you or the others or
gte.net think or do. Relax for crying out loud.
John Navas
>ab...@issc.debbsX.ndhq.dnd.ca (Rick Collins) wrote:
>
>>Since, in hist first post,
>>that's essentially what he said, I think we can take it as a "given"
>>that he's in violation.
>
>No, Rick. I said that I use Eudora to check for my email every few
>minutes ***to check for new email messages***while I am interacting
>with my computer ***during a 6-8 hour work session.***
<sigh>
<http://www.gte.net/pands/agreemt.html>:
AUTOMATED PROCESSES may not be used such as CHECKING E-MAIL or
pinging the host to maintain a constant connection. [emphasis added]
--
Tony Halmarack
In message <v6GN.100$m51.5...@ptah.visi.com> Andy Yee wrote:
[...]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Yee Corporate E-mail: an...@xiotech.com
> Principal Software Engineer Corporate Web Page: http://www.xiotech.com
> XIOtech Corporation Personal E-mail: n...@yuck.net
> Eden Prairie, MN Personal Home Page: http://www.visi.com/~nde
>
> "Question authority...and the authorities will end up questioning YOU!"
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What mingled sands of culture run
Electrons field by husbandry
Where cyber-gardens bear strange fruit
That quiver as the pickers come
While children sing a harvest praise
To new star spangled virtual skies
Pol Pot morphs slithering from a tag
And hallowed ground of Disney-Land surveys
--
Tony Halmarack
=*=To...@halmarax.demon.co.uk
Andy Yee
Well...at least you spelled my name correctly :)
Stephen Williams
Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John Navas) wrote:
>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>Think...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>ab...@issc.debbsX.ndhq.dnd.ca (Rick Collins) wrote:
>>
>>>Since, in hist first post,
>>>that's essentially what he said, I think we can take it as a "given"
>>>that he's in violation.
>>
>>No, Rick. I said that I use Eudora to check for my email every few
>>minutes ***to check for new email messages***while I am interacting
>>with my computer ***during a 6-8 hour work session.***
>
><sigh>
>
><http://www.gte.net/pands/agreemt.html>:
>
> AUTOMATED PROCESSES may not be used such as CHECKING E-MAIL or
> pinging the host to maintain a constant connection. [emphasis added]
automated processes may not be used such as checking e-mail or pinging
the host TO MAINTAIN A CONSTANT CONNECTION. [emphasis changed]
No matter how you look at it, INTENT is a factor here. A reasonable
man cannot reach a conclusion based solely on the fact that the
process is automated. Computers are, after all, the ultimate in
automation.
Stephen Williams
Chris Tav...@impact.civil.columbia.edu wrote:
>
>>>Have you been libeled by anyone's opinions
>>>here? ...
>>
>>Yes.
>
>And specifically damaged how? In order to assert libel, you must be
>able to prove real world damages. Have you lost any customers? Has
>your ability to attract clients been diminished? Have you suffered any
>loss of income?
Actually this is not true.
Claims for "nominal" damages are not uncommon.
From the USA perspective this might sound silly (and to many of the
rest also) but remember that in most of the rest of the world the
victor can normally collect "costs" if he wins.
That means that a plaintiff might be very happy to win nominal damages
as it means that the defendant will be liable for his costs and he
will not need to pay the defendant's costs (though for many reasons
the judge might not allow this). "Costs" in Hongkong and Singapore on
a libel case that went to trial would easily be enough to bankrupt a
defendant. There are great advantages to bankrupting your enemies in
places like this.
Take a look at the McLibel case to see what I mean.
Libel is a different, and interesting game.
Stephen Williams
$julies/newsreply$@merp.demon.co.uk (Julie Brandon) wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:37:27 -0600, Jack1 did spake:
>>Everything you just typed is totally false! This is America free speech
>>(everywhere PERIOD).
>
>Wrong. It's the Internet.
>
>How many times does one have to impress this in some people...
>
>"Internet != America"
>
>Ta-ra,
> Julie (posting from an account a long way away from the states...)
And as for "free" ...
"The courts would not tolerate pornography on the Internet, a
magistrate warned yesterday as he jailed a "wicked" computer engineer
for 21 months."
Happy surfing!!
Keith R. Williams
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:53:57 GMT, John Navas did spake:
> >As I asked you before, please stop these completely off-topic posts.
>
> Usually I've been in agreement with you but on this point....
>
> Who are you to be asking this?
Julie,
I guess you don't know that there are indeed rules in USENET
newsgroups. Each group has a charter and is governed by that
charter. Sure, most are unmoderated, but that does not mean that
there aren't rules. Please help us in making the USENET self
governing.
That said, C.D.M is beyond hope. I'll support *any* vote to take
it moderated.
----
Keith R. Williams
k...@ibm.net
Keith R. Williams
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:37:27, "Jack1" <jac...@globaldialog.com>
wrote:
> Everything you just typed is totally false! This is America free speech
> (everywhere PERIOD).
You are a self-centered child. Grow up! You do *not* have the
right to say anything you want anywhere you want. ...even in
America.
Each USENET group has a charter defineing its purpose. This
noise is not in C.D.M.'s charter.
----
Keith R. williams
k...@ibm.net
Keith R. Williams
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:36:43,
andyy@DELETE_ALL_CAPS_TO_RESPONDxiotech.com (Andy Yee) wrote:
> >But in any case, you cite this as if it amounts to a criminal act to
> >violate a contract. It isn't. It is just a private contract. The only
> >party that might have a complaint is GTE (and not you, an uninterested
> >third party) and then only if THEY think so. And even then it is up to
> >THEM to prove it to a judge if necessary if called upon.
> >
> >Even if you are right in your interpretation, no one has violated any
> >criminal law here.
> >
>
> Nobody's saying that criminal law was violated. John Navas says that
> GTE's acceptable use policy was violated. And you're right again;
> it's up to GTE to determine what action it will take, if any.
Let me put this in some personal terms. I use ibm.net (no I
don't hide). I am an Internet "heavy-hitter". IBM Internet
Connection (IIC) had an unlimited policy with up to five "child"
accounts per account. This was/is great for the family.
Everyone has their own net "presense". I do a lot of time on the
Inet, my son does more. IIC decided to limit people to 100
hours/month. Well we are normally *way* over the limit. SO, I
look elswhere. Great. I found a home for my son, and I'm
keeping IIC.
My point? If dingbats tie up lines, everyone will pay more! The
$20 unlimited model doesn't work for *any* heavy hitters, myself
included. If you do keep-alives, you are cheating others and
likely the whole concept of cheap internet service. I'll pay,
will you? TANSTAAFL!
Sack O-nutz
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:53:57 GMT, Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John
Navas) wrote:
>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>Think...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John Navas) wrote:
>>
>>>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>>>andyy@DELETE_ALL_CAPS_TO_RESPONDxiotech.com (Andy Yee) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why should *I* care who St^H^HThinkPadMan is?
>>>
>>>What you might care about is who these sudden supporters of ThinkPadMan
>>>are: from an examination of the article headers it looks to me that they
>>>are probably forged names that are coming from one individual, perhaps TPM
>>>himself. In any event, responding to these trolls is off-topic and a
>>>waste of time.
>>>
>>>p.s. I'm gathering up these articles and forwarding them to the source
>>>(AOL) for investigation.
>>
>>John, you are becoming hysterical.
>>
>>Are you losing it?
>>
>>Yes, by all means gather up these articles and forward them to AOL for
>>"investigation."
>>...
>
>As I asked you before, please stop these completely off-topic posts.
>
>As for a complaint regarding your conduct, if I were to do that I would of
>course send it to gte.net, not the forged address in your headers.
Who the hell made you the NG cop. Wow, what an egotisitical, moron.
You know, I think I fart more power than you truly have over the
internet, it's people and their opinions.
Loser.
Sack O-nutz
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:53:15 GMT, Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John
Navas) wrote:
>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>Think...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>ab...@issc.debbsX.ndhq.dnd.ca (Rick Collins) wrote:
>>
>>>Since, in hist first post,
>>>that's essentially what he said, I think we can take it as a "given"
>>>that he's in violation.
>>
>>No, Rick. I said that I use Eudora to check for my email every few
>>minutes ***to check for new email messages***while I am interacting
>>with my computer ***during a 6-8 hour work session.***
>
><sigh>
>
><http://www.gte.net/pands/agreemt.html>:
>
> AUTOMATED PROCESSES may not be used such as CHECKING E-MAIL or
> pinging the host to maintain a constant connection. [emphasis added]
Hey John, your lack of legal skills in reading the contract is
glaring. Read it slowly. Maybe have someone read it to you, since
you obviously can't read.
The contract states that "automated processes may not be used such as
checking E-Mail or pinging the host TO MAINTAIN A CONSTANT CONNECTION.
(emphasis added). Therefore, it can be seen that there is most
definitely a requirement that for a violation to occur, the E-Mail
program must be set into motion for the express purpose of maintaining
a constant connection. In TPM's usage of the service, the E-Mail
check is done while he is using the system, but not for the express
purpose of keeping the connection alive. TPM's usage would keep the
connection alive on its own--without the need for using the E-Mail
program.
TPM's pattern of usage is most definitely not in violation.
Sack O-nutz
Let alone, he's only a self proclaimed Modem King. Big deal . . .
Chris
Point taken. In fact many points well taken, from a world perspective.
But John Navas is no victim. He usually gives much harder than he
gets. You've got to notice how persistently he goes after people on a
personal level. Including his own brother if you can believe it on
other NG's.
Chris
>Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John Navas) wrote:
>
>>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>>Think...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>ab...@issc.debbsX.ndhq.dnd.ca (Rick Collins) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Since, in hist first post,
>>>>that's essentially what he said, I think we can take it as a "given"
>>>>that he's in violation.
>>>
>>>No, Rick. I said that I use Eudora to check for my email every few
>>>minutes ***to check for new email messages***while I am interacting
>>>with my computer ***during a 6-8 hour work session.***
>>
>><sigh>
>>
>><http://www.gte.net/pands/agreemt.html>:
>>
>> AUTOMATED PROCESSES may not be used such as CHECKING E-MAIL or
>> pinging the host to maintain a constant connection. [emphasis added]
>
>automated processes may not be used such as checking e-mail or pinging
>the host TO MAINTAIN A CONSTANT CONNECTION. [emphasis changed]
>
>No matter how you look at it, INTENT is a factor here. A reasonable
>man cannot reach a conclusion based solely on the fact that the
>process is automated. Computers are, after all, the ultimate in
>automation.
>
>
>S.
Indeed. Classically obvious. But John Navas will not give this up.
Watch and see. It has nothing to do with logic or reason.
Chris
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:53:15 GMT, Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John
Navas) wrote:
>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>Think...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>ab...@issc.debbsX.ndhq.dnd.ca (Rick Collins) wrote:
>>
>>>Since, in hist first post,
>>>that's essentially what he said, I think we can take it as a "given"
>>>that he's in violation.
>>
>>No, Rick. I said that I use Eudora to check for my email every few
>>minutes ***to check for new email messages***while I am interacting
>>with my computer ***during a 6-8 hour work session.***
>
><sigh>
>
><http://www.gte.net/pands/agreemt.html>:
>
> AUTOMATED PROCESSES may not be used such as CHECKING E-MAIL or
> pinging the host to maintain a constant connection. [emphasis added]
Emphasis added to make this man look bad. This is a slanted
presentation of the facts. Others have pointed this out to you.
Why do you persist in this behavior? You can use this tactic two
million more times but it still will not fly.
Andy Yee
In article <3509c5c1...@news.altopia.net>, Harry...@yahoo.com (Sack O-nutz) wrote:
>
>You know, I think I fart more power than you truly have over the
>internet, it's people and their opinions.
>
Hmmm...so THAT'S what REEKS around here...
Tony Halmarack
In message <3508affe...@news.ndhq.dnd.ca> Rick Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:47:38 GMT, Think...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> >>Well, not really. You should consider the impact TPM's modus operendi
> >>has on the other users as well. If he is maintaining his connection
> >>through a Eudora request for mail every three minutes, and he is doing
> >>that to _maintain_ the connection, then he would appear to be in
> >>violation of the terms of the agreement.
> >
> >No, Rick. That is not what I am doing. Respectfully, I urge you to go
> >back and re-read what I said.
> >
> >>Since, in hist first post,
> >>that's essentially what he said, I think we can take it as a "given"
> >>that he's in violation.
> >
> >No, Rick. I said that I use Eudora to check for my email every few
> >minutes ***to check for new email messages***while I am interacting
> >with my computer ***during a 6-8 hour work session.***
>
> Oh. So you're "interacting with your computer". Can I assume you're
> _not_ using the computer connection to your ISP for _anything_ but
> your mail feed?
You seem determined to ascribe criminal intent to this man's working
activities. Perhaps you should arrange for surveillance as part of your
intimidatory tactics. It may not be productive in itself, but in combination
with the repressive policies of the new censorship, it would help to stamp
home the Masters message.
> >I do apologize for the lack of clarity in my writing. But I know what I
> >do. I have done this for many years to earn my livelihood. And if you wish
> >to be fair, kindly go back and re-read what I have written over and over,
> >to see the meaning of my words ***in context.***
>
> Your words, and context, change with your postings.
>
> I notice you didn't care to address the issues I raised in the post
> you responded to - the issues that address _why_ I'm concerned with
> how you, and others, will lead to the end of flat-rate priceing.
I can see why flat rate pricing is so important to you. If the more realistic
metered use system comes about, bang goes another opportunity for you to
strut about in your jackboots.
--
Tony Halmarack
=*=To...@halmarax.demon.co.uk
John Navas
[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
s...@internetmci.com (Stephen Williams) wrote:
>Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John Navas) wrote:
>
>>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>>Think...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>ab...@issc.debbsX.ndhq.dnd.ca (Rick Collins) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Since, in hist first post,
>>>>that's essentially what he said, I think we can take it as a "given"
>>>>that he's in violation.
>>>
>>>No, Rick. I said that I use Eudora to check for my email every few
>>>minutes ***to check for new email messages***while I am interacting
>>>with my computer ***during a 6-8 hour work session.***
>>
>><sigh>
>>
>><http://www.gte.net/pands/agreemt.html>:
>>
>> AUTOMATED PROCESSES may not be used such as CHECKING E-MAIL or
>> pinging the host to maintain a constant connection. [emphasis added]
>
>automated processes may not be used such as checking e-mail or pinging
>the host TO MAINTAIN A CONSTANT CONNECTION. [emphasis changed]
Which is exactly what he is doing.
>No matter how you look at it, INTENT is a factor here. ...
I respectfully disagree. The contract specifically prohibits certain
conduct.
Mike Metcalf
-> Who the hell made you the NG cop. Wow, what an egotisitical, moron.
-> You know, I think I fart more power than you truly have over the
-> internet, it's people and their opinions.
->
-> Loser.
How do you rate fart power mr. Loser?
Stephen Williams
Chris Tav...@impact.civil.columbia.edu wrote:
>>
>>No matter how you look at it, INTENT is a factor here. A reasonable
>>man cannot reach a conclusion based solely on the fact that the
>>process is automated. Computers are, after all, the ultimate in
>>automation.
>>
>
>Indeed. Classically obvious. But John Navas will not give this up.
>Watch and see. It has nothing to do with logic or reason.
Usually we admire men of conviction. :)
Rick Collins
>You seem determined to ascribe criminal intent to this man's working
>activities.
Nowhere have I suggested "criminal intent".
>Perhaps you should arrange for surveillance as part of your
>intimidatory tactics.
I don't think what I've posted is "intimidating".
> It may not be productive in itself, but in combination
>with the repressive policies of the new censorship, it would help to >stamp home the Masters message.
>
There is no attempt at "censorship". There is an attempt to get the
posts back on topic.
>I can see why flat rate pricing is so important to you. If the more realistic
>metered use system comes about, bang goes another opportunity for you >to strut about in your jackboots.
>
Not at all. Are you suggesting that the majority of the Inet users
would like to see the demise of flat-rate pricing?
Rick (remove X from e-mail address)
fza...@one.net.au
No, he shouldn't.
In fact, it is very sad when a man of apparent stature needs to resort to a
litiguous knee-jerk to deflect personal criticism.
- Franc Zabkar
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Jack1
Franc this is the real JN..... Maybe some day he will remember how it was to
be a newbie, or maybe not. sad, sad, sad....
Jack1
Tony Halmarack
In message <3DYN.96$yg1.4...@ptah.visi.com> Andy Yee wrote:
> In article <19980312....@halmarax.demon.co.uk>, To...@halmarax.demon.co.uk (Tony Halmarack) wrote:
> >In message <v6GN.100$m51.5...@ptah.visi.com> Andy Yee wrote:
> >
> >--
> >
> >What mingled sands of culture run
> >Electrons field by husbandry
> >Where cyber-gardens bear strange fruit
> >That quiver as the pickers come
> >
> >While children sing a harvest praise
> >To new star spangled virtual skies
> >Pol Pot morphs slithering from a tag
> >And hallowed ground of Disney-Land surveys
> >
>
> Well...at least you spelled my name correctly :)
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Yee Corporate E-mail: an...@xiotech.com
> Principal Software Engineer Corporate Web Page: http://www.xiotech.com
> XIOtech Corporation Personal E-mail: n...@yuck.net
> Eden Prairie, MN Personal Home Page: http://www.visi.com/~nde
>
> "Question authority...and the authorities will end up questioning YOU!"
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From your sig it is plain, with the sharpest of clarity
You are "Yee of the Littlest Faith, Hope or Charity"
The atrophied soul, that is clearly your lot
Would even degrade your avatar *** *** (Guess What!)
--
Tony Halmarack
=*=To...@halmarax.demon.co.uk
Tony Halmarack
Rick,
Your credibility deficit has you galloping for the borders of absurdity.
Whether you are on your way in, or out of this state may never be known.
A powerful smell of custard pies fills the air. Don't inhale!
--
Tony Halmarack
=*=To...@halmarax.demon.co.uk
Andy Yee
In article <350a32fb...@news.ndhq.dnd.ca>, ab...@issc.debbsX.ndhq.dnd.ca (Rick Collins) wrote:
>>
>Not at all. Are you suggesting that the majority of the Inet users
>would like to see the demise of flat-rate pricing?
>
Nah..I think he works for a low-life ISP trying to cash in... :)
Andy Yee
In article <350c7eda...@news.altopia.net>, Harry...@yahoo.com (Sack O-nutz) wrote:
>>-> Loser.
>>
>>How do you rate fart power mr. Loser?
>
>power that you apparently have for Navas.
Kook. *PLONK*
Sack O-nutz
>-> Who the hell made you the NG cop. Wow, what an egotisitical, moron.
>-> You know, I think I fart more power than you truly have over the
>-> internet, it's people and their opinions.
>->
Floyd Davidson
>>
>>As for a complaint regarding your conduct, if I were to do that I would of
>>course send it to gte.net, not the forged address in your headers.
>
>
Please take your farts somewhere else. The stench from your
posts is indeed greater than whatever power John might have over
the internet. BTW, this is Usenet, not the Internet.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson fl...@polarnet.com
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) or: fl...@barrow.com
Sack O-nutz
>Sack O-nutz <Harry...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John Navas) wrote:
>>>
>>>As I asked you before, please stop these completely off-topic posts.
>>>
>>>As for a complaint regarding your conduct, if I were to do that I would of
>>>course send it to gte.net, not the forged address in your headers.
>>
>>Who the hell made you the NG cop. Wow, what an egotisitical, moron.
>>You know, I think I fart more power than you truly have over the
>>internet, it's people and their opinions.
>>
>>Loser.
>
>Please take your farts somewhere else. The stench from your
>posts is indeed greater than whatever power John might have over
>the internet. BTW, this is Usenet, not the Internet.
>
> Floyd
Whatever. Semantics . . . At any rate, I seriously doubt that my
comments are worse than the moron'. Let's see, he threatens people,
flaunts his supposed superiority in, of all things, legal issues and
is a little tattle-tale. Yep, I'm worse . . . sure.
Sack O-nutz
On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:32:26 GMT,
andyy@DELETE_ALL_CAPS_TO_RESPONDxiotech.com (Andy Yee) wrote:
>In article <350c7eda...@news.altopia.net>, Harry...@yahoo.com (Sack O-nutz) wrote:
>>>-> Loser.
>>>
>>>How do you rate fart power mr. Loser?
>>
>>Wow! Good retort. I would rate it as the same amount of suck up
>>power that you apparently have for Navas.
>
>Kook. *PLONK*
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Andy Yee Corporate E-mail: an...@xiotech.com
>Principal Software Engineer Corporate Web Page: http://www.xiotech.com
>XIOtech Corporation Personal E-mail: n...@yuck.net
>Eden Prairie, MN Personal Home Page: http://www.visI think I saw the same comment to someone else earlier.
>
>"Question authority...and the authorities will end up questioning YOU!"
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I saw your same comment to someone else. I think people like
you who blindly support people like Navas are the Kooks who should be
plonked. It makes no sense to follow someone so completely who knows
very little outside his little modem niche.
Barfanoid
From: Harry...@yahoo.com (Sack O-nutz)
> Date: 1998/03/17
> Message-ID: <350f0f1f...@news.altopia.net>
> Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
> I think I saw your same comment to someone else. I think people like
> you who blindly support people like Navas are the Kooks who should be
> plonked. It makes no sense to follow someone so completely who knows
> very little outside his little modem niche.
Hey nutsack, this is a newsgroup about modems (or, it will be again soon),
what would you have the leaders of the group know about? Jumping in the sack
with each other is obviously a specialty of Jack, Tony, Stinkman and others,
but same sex perversions is NOT the topic of this group.
Nutbar, you see, my specialty is Barfing, and I am the unchallenged leader in
many of the quality barfing groups.... I don't go into alt.fan.spice-girls and
talk about modems, it's not an asset , I talk about hurling chunks, and I'm the
best. But people there don't care that I'm not a modem expert, they want the
best, jusiest, chunkiest barfing information they can get.
Its just a wild and uninformed guess, but I feel that the leaders of a modem
group should probably have the bulk of their knowledge in connecting computers
together by means of phone lines. Their knowledge in other areas would only be
a bonus.
I suggest , nutbar, thatr you , stinkman, tony, et al, head off to groups where
your knowledge is supreme (alt.pompus.asshole comes to mind), and leave the
modem group to people who know about modems.
I know I have created alot of noise in this group, but I grow annoyed. And,
nutman, you don't want me to become any more annoyed, it won't be pretty.
Mike Fahy
Harry...@yahoo.com (Sack O-nutz) wrote:
>It makes no sense to follow someone so completely who knows
>very little outside his little modem niche.
Oh? You know something? Or is this just part of the passionate,
mindless drivel that has overswept this newsgroup?
--
Mike Fahy
mike...@twd.net
Thnkpadman
>From: Harry...@yahoo.com (Sack O-nutz)
>> plonked. It makes no sense to follow someone so completely who knows
>> very little outside his little modem niche.
>
>what would you have the leaders of the group know about? Jumping in the sack
>with each other is obviously a specialty of Jack, Tony, Stinkman and others,
>but same sex perversions is NOT the topic of this group.
Barfie, you're getting a bit personal, who told? Was it Tony, that 2 timing
..bi-sex$#4 ouch, I broke a nail!
>
>Nutbar, you see, my specialty is Barfing, and I am the unchallenged leader in
>many of the quality barfing groups.... I don't go into alt.fan.spice-girls
>and
>talk about modems, it's not an asset , I talk about hurling chunks, and I'm
>the
>best. But people there don't care that I'm not a modem expert, they want the
>best, jusiest, chunkiest barfing information they can get.
>
>Its just a wild and uninformed guess, but I feel that the leaders of a modem
>group should probably have the bulk of their knowledge in connecting
>computers together by means of phone lines. Their knowledge in other areas
would >only be a bonus.
>
>I suggest , nutbar, thatr you , stinkman, tony, et al, head off to groups
>where your knowledge is supreme (alt.pompus.asshole comes to mind), and leave
the
>modem group to people who know about modems.
>
>I know I have created alot of noise in this group, but I grow annoyed. And,
>nutman, you don't want me to become any more annoyed, it won't be pretty.
I know, I've seen your work in alt.talk.bizarre. Jack, Tony, and all my loved
ones, we better get out of here, lets start our own newsgroup, we do know a
LITTLE about modems, so lets get an alt.bisexual.modems group off the ground
like we had planned.
ThinkPadMan
Think...@aol.com
thnkp...@aol.com (Thnkpadman) wrote:
I know this doesn't need to be said, but for the record,
this is a sad sad forgery.
Jack1
Mike Fahy wrote:
<Oh? You know something? Or is this just part of the passionate, mindless
drivel that has overswept this newsgroup?>
I can see that your 2cents is really helping!!! You are just a bad as the
rest.
Jack1
Jack1
ohhh yessss darling, lets do it....... alt. anything.......... :-)
Jack1
Thnkpadman
>><Oh? You know something?
>I can see that your 2cents is really helping!!! You are just a bad as the
>rest.
>
>Jack1
I guess not
Mike Fahy
"Jack1" <jac...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>I can see that your 2cents is really helping!!! You are just a bad as the
>rest.
Just trying to get along.
--
Mike Fahy
mike...@twd.net
Steve Ligett
In article <350981c1...@165.87.194.249>
s...@internetmci.com (Stephen Williams) writes:
> No matter how you look at it, INTENT is a factor here. A reasonable
> man cannot reach a conclusion based solely on the fact that the
> process is automated. Computers are, after all, the ultimate in
> automation.
I see no issue of intent here (from http://www.gte.net/pands/agreemt.html):
4.INACTIVITY DISCONNECT POLICY: GTE reserves the right to disconnect a
dial-up account after 15 minutes of inactivity, as detected by GTE
through electronic means. This time is approximate and subject to change
without notice in GTEÕs sole discretion. Electronic or mechanical means
to avoid an inactivity disconnect are strictly prohibited. Electronic or
mechanical means include, but are not limited to, "pinging" the mail
server, employing electronic or software autodialer features to maintain
an active connection or repeatedly checking for e-mail by auto login to
the mail server. GTE reserves the right to electronically audit
connections to enforce the above requirements.
A reasonable person would say that the fact that the process is automated is
what is prohibited.
Think...@aol.com
steve....@dartmouth.edu (Steve Ligett) wrote:
Steve, I believe I have made it clear (at least I hope I have) that
during those times I am connected, the line is NOT inactive.
I am in place, sitting at the computer, working, checking email
answering email, downloading, etc.
>>4.INACTIVITY DISCONNECT POLICY: GTE reserves the right to disconnect a
>>dial-up account after 15 minutes of inactivity, as detected by GTE
>>through electronic means.
There is no inactivity when I dial up. The fact that I set Eudora to
check automatically is a convenience to me and others. Eudora pops a
notice on screen (and also sounds a chime) when new mail is received.
I am also using Netscape, Agent, and other programs at the same time..
The line is always active. This is why my ISP cannot detect actual
inactivity. There is none.
Thank you for listening.
Rick Collins
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:53:18 GMT, Harry...@yahoo.com (Sack O-nutz)
wrote:
>I think I saw your same comment to someone else. I think people like
>you who blindly support people like Navas are the Kooks who should be
>plonked. It makes no sense to follow someone so completely who knows
>very little outside his little modem niche.
In _this_ ng what he knows about modems is all that's really relevant,
though, isn't it?
John Navas
>thnkp...@aol.com (Thnkpadman) wrote:
>...
>I know this doesn't need to be said, but for the record,
>this is a sad sad forgery.
pot ... kettle ... black ;-) At least this one actually originated from
AOL.
be...@bigfoot.com
I wonder. Do you have even a vague idea what SEMANTICS is?
The person who blithly tries to shrug off someone else's explanation
about what something means with the shallow comment "that's just
semantics" OBVIOUSLY doesn't have a clue.
SEMANTICS is the study of the meanings of words. If you don't KNOW what
a word means, then you are TOTALLY INCAPABILE of using that word to
COMMUNICATE.
Differences of opinion IS NOT semantics. It is a difference of opinion.
Jeremy Beal
On 17 Mar 1998 16:18:48 GMT, steve....@dartmouth.edu (Steve Ligett) wrote:
>I see no issue of intent here (from http://www.gte.net/pands/agreemt.html):
>
>
>4.INACTIVITY DISCONNECT POLICY: GTE reserves the right to disconnect a
>dial-up account after 15 minutes of inactivity, as detected by GTE
>through electronic means. This time is approximate and subject to change
>without notice in GTEÕs sole discretion. Electronic or mechanical means
>to avoid an inactivity disconnect are strictly prohibited. Electronic or
>mechanical means include, but are not limited to, "pinging" the mail
>server, employing electronic or software autodialer features to maintain
>an active connection or repeatedly checking for e-mail by auto login to
>the mail server. GTE reserves the right to electronically audit
>connections to enforce the above requirements.
>
>
>A reasonable person would say that the fact that the process is automated is
>what is prohibited.
So of course it is ILLEGAL to use ICQ on GTE's service then...
Jeremy Beal
Get my e-mail address at www.nvmedia.com/jbeal
(Tired of the damn spam)
Sack O-nutz
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 14:16:42 GMT, mike...@twd.net (Mike Fahy) wrote:
>Harry...@yahoo.com (Sack O-nutz) wrote:
>
>>It makes no sense to follow someone so completely who knows
>>very little outside his little modem niche.
>
>Oh? You know something? Or is this just part of the passionate,
>mindless drivel that has overswept this newsgroup?
Yep. I would imagine so.
Sack O-nutz
>On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:53:18 GMT, Harry...@yahoo.com (Sack O-nutz)
>wrote:
>
>
>>I think I saw your same comment to someone else. I think people like
>>you who blindly support people like Navas are the Kooks who should be
>>plonked. It makes no sense to follow someone so completely who knows
>>very little outside his little modem niche.
>
>In _this_ ng what he knows about modems is all that's really relevant,
>though, isn't it?
>
>Rick (remove X from e-mail address)
Sure is, but Navas also spouts bad legal advice--which is something he
should stay away from.
Sack O-nutz
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:45:29 -0700, be...@bigfoot.com wrote:
Excuse me, but I was talking about the "Usenet, not the internet"
comment--not any type of difference of opinion issue. Chill out.
Besides, if you can't spell incapable, YOU shouldn't be using that
word . . . Just to let you know, my career consists of using words
and communicating. And, if you please, I'm quite good and successful
at it.
p.s. you spelled blithely wrong as well. Point being that in this
forum we all make inadvertent errors and such (I hate spell checking
and don't do it). But, if you'd even taken two seconds to think about
my comment in relation to the note to which I was responding, you
would have seen that my semantics comment could only have applied to
the "Usenet" comment. I addressed the rest of the note in my comment.
Think before baring your Navas defending teeth.
Keith R. Williams
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 14:16:05, barf...@aol.com (Barfanoid)
wrote:
> I suggest , nutbar, thatr you , stinkman, tony, et al, head off to groups where
> your knowledge is supreme (alt.pompus.asshole comes to mind), and leave the
> modem group to people who know about modems.
More precisely, *want* to know about modems.
----
Keith R. Williams
k...@ibm.net
P.S. You have not been "plonked" yet. You will not know it if
you make the grade.
Andy Yee
In article <350EFD09...@bigfoot.com>, be...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>I wonder. Do you have even a vague idea what SEMANTICS is?
>
Why bother arguing with a KOOK?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Yee, President E-Mail: n...@yuck.net
New Directions Engineering, Inc. Home Page: http://www.visi.com/~nde
"Question Authority...and the authorities will end up questioning YOU!"
Tony Halmarack
In message <350e855...@news.twd.net> Mike Fahy wrote:
> Oh? You know something? Or is this just part of the passionate, mindless
> drivel that has overswept this newsgroup?
Yes.
--
Tony Halmarack
=*=To...@halmarax.demon.co.uk
Tony Halmarack
In message <350edb3c...@news.ndhq.dnd.ca> Rick Collins wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:53:18 GMT, Harry...@yahoo.com (Sack O-nutz)
> wrote:
>
>
> >I think I saw your same comment to someone else. I think people like
> >you who blindly support people like Navas are the Kooks who should be
> >plonked. It makes no sense to follow someone so completely who knows
> >very little outside his little modem niche.
>
> In _this_ ng what he knows about modems is all that's really relevant,
> though, isn't it?
>
> Rick (remove X from e-mail address)
No, and your apparent desperation to make it so, is one of the central
problems on this newsgroup.
--
Tony Halmarack
=*=To...@halmarax.demon.co.uk
Rick Collins
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 06:07:50 GMT, Harry...@yahoo.com (Sack O-nutz)
wrote:
>Sure is, but Navas also spouts bad legal advice--which is something he
>should stay away from.
I have never seen Navas offer "legal advice".
I _have_ seen him comment of what he considers inappropriate
activities, some of which may be subject to legal remedies.
Jack1
<I have never seen Navas offer "legal advice".>
Than you must be totally blind (INTENTIONALLY), or YOU are an employee of JN
so you cant say anything because he would definitely fire you, just a good
guess.
Jack1
Nut Cracker
Sack O-nutz wrote in message <350f0f1f...@news.altopia.net>...
>On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:32:26 GMT,
>andyy@DELETE_ALL_CAPS_TO_RESPONDxiotech.com (Andy Yee) wrote:
>
>>In article <350c7eda...@news.altopia.net>, Harry...@yahoo.com
(Sack O-nutz) wrote:
>>>>-> Loser.
>>>>
>>>>How do you rate fart power mr. Loser?
>>>
>>>Wow! Good retort. I would rate it as the same amount of suck up
>>>power that you apparently have for Navas.
>>
>>Kook. *PLONK*
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>>Andy Yee Corporate E-mail:
an...@xiotech.com
>>Principal Software Engineer Corporate Web Page:
http://www.xiotech.com
>>XIOtech Corporation Personal E-mail:
n...@yuck.net
>>Eden Prairie, MN Personal Home Page: http://www.visI
think I saw the same comment to someone else earlier.
>>
>>"Question authority...and the authorities will end up questioning YOU!"
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
>I think I saw your same comment to someone else. I think people like
>you who blindly support people like Navas are the Kooks who should be
>plonked. It makes no sense to follow someone so completely who knows
>very little outside his little modem niche.
Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea--massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
Nut Cracker
Sack O-nutz wrote in message <350c7eda...@news.altopia.net>...
>On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:20:27 GMT, mike.m...@3rd1000.com (Mike
>Metcalf) wrote:
>
>>-> Who the hell made you the NG cop. Wow, what an egotisitical, moron.
>>-> You know, I think I fart more power than you truly have over the
>>-> internet, it's people and their opinions.
>>->
>>-> Loser.
>>
>>How do you rate fart power mr. Loser?
>
>Wow! Good retort. I would rate it as the same amount of suck up
>power that you apparently have for Navas.
Nut Cracker
Stephen Williams
ab...@issc.debbsX.ndhq.dnd.ca (Rick Collins) wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 06:07:50 GMT, Harry...@yahoo.com (Sack O-nutz)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Sure is, but Navas also spouts bad legal advice--which is something he
>>should stay away from.
>
>I have never seen Navas offer "legal advice".
>
>I _have_ seen him comment of what he considers inappropriate
>activities, some of which may be subject to legal remedies.
>
This obviously begs the question "what is 'legal advice'?"
Me thinks that you both do not share the same definition.
S.
===========================================================
PGP keys http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~jewil/sjw.html
RSA key: 4E11 E5BB 3F2D E856 AC10 2F49 5C82 9BBB
DSS key: DCED DE1E F46C 1081 B67E B3A7 1EC1 AC37 2E69 04C4
===========================================================
Sack O-nutz
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:03:07 GMT, ab...@issc.debbsX.ndhq.dnd.ca (Rick
Collins) wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 06:07:50 GMT, Harry...@yahoo.com (Sack O-nutz)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Sure is, but Navas also spouts bad legal advice--which is something he
>>should stay away from.
>
>I have never seen Navas offer "legal advice".
>
>I _have_ seen him comment of what he considers inappropriate
>activities, some of which may be subject to legal remedies.
>
>Rick (remove X from e-mail address)
Legal advice in the sense of advising people what actions they may or
may not take based on his perception (incorrect at times) of IP laws.
Sack O-nutz
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 06:29:27 GMT, n...@yuck.net (Andy Yee) wrote:
>In article <350EFD09...@bigfoot.com>, be...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>>I wonder. Do you have even a vague idea what SEMANTICS is?
>>
>
>Why bother arguing with a KOOK?
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Andy Yee, President E-Mail: n...@yuck.net
>New Directions Engineering, Inc. Home Page: http://www.visi.com/~nde
>
>"Question Authority...and the authorities will end up questioning YOU!"
Hey, I don't get why you have two different sig lines--not that it's
any of my business, but, your completely stupid Kook comments made me
go back and look at an old message of yours.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barfanoid
>and leave the modem group to people who know about modems.
>More precisely, *want* to know about modems.
>----
> Keith R. Williams
> k...@ibm.net
Yes, I stand corrected. The regulars here do have a vast amount of knowledge
that can be shared with those who 'want to know..'