berniex?
Dr H
Did someone actually get bernie TOSed for his posts to eug.controversy?
I many not agree with some of his positions, but he /is/ one of the few
consistent posters who kept the group alive.
Dr H
Gary Frazier
Bernie was TOSed for spamming, period.
Gary
http://www.efn.org/~gfrazier
Lumber Cartel Unit #294 (TINLC)
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! http://www.cauce.org
roy g biv
>
> Did someone actually get bernie TOSed for his posts to
> eug.controversy?
>
<> The account was locked without warning and without justification. The
ex post facto reason of 'spamming' is bullshit, and so is the instruction
to grovel at 448 Charnelton for possible reinstatement.
Two excellent lawyers and a Lane County judge have suggested a free
speech law suit. A better outcome for all would be for the account to be
immediately unlocked.
Please let me know when that happens.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Gary Frazier
Bernie,
This has nothing to do with "free speach". It has everything to do with
spamming, which is an offense that has nothing at all to do with content.
Gary
http://www.efn.org/~gfrazier
Lumber Cartel Unit #294 (TINLC)
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! http://www.cauce.org
roy g biv
> This has nothing to do with "free speach". It has everything to do
> with
> spamming, which is an offense that has nothing at all to do with
> content.
>
<> bullshit; there was no spamming.
......
roy g biv
> > This has nothing to do with "free speach". It has
> >everything to do with spamming, which is an offense
> >that has nothing at all to do with content.
> >
>
> <> bullshit; there was no spamming.
>
<> further, there was no warning given that the service might be
terminated; further, there was no notice, nor reason, given when the
service was terminated; further, there was no evidence given of the
manner of the allegations, nor the identity of the accusers, who are
interestingly suspect.
reinstate the account immediately
Dr H
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Gary Frazier wrote:
}
}Bernie was TOSed for spamming, period.
}
The I'm assuming he was spamming somewhere other than eug.controversy,
because nothing I saw him post there fit the definition of spam that
I'm familiar with.
Dr H
Dan Robinson
On 2000-11-28 gfra...@efn.org said
>Bernie,
>This has nothing to do with "free speach". It has everything to do
>with spamming, which is an offense that has nothing at all to do
>with content.
So do you want to enlighten the rest of us as to what this is
about? It sounds like maybe you had something to do with it. I
understand you're on the EFN abuse committee. Did this action
follow proper procedures, or was it maybe itself an abuse of
power?
Does the eug-controversy world seem to be getting smaller?
Are the rest of us vulnerable to the same action?
Dan Robinson dan...@efn.org
Eugene OR 97401 www.efn.org/~danrob/
roy g biv
>
> So do you want to enlighten the rest of us as to what this is
> about?
>
<> After all this time, it has finally been revealed that the problem was
sending the same message (not multiply addressed and not the same message
to the same place more than once) individually to many, many different
newsgroups, which apparently is a heinous act, even if the message was
on-topic and not an advert get-rich-quick scheme. The criminal was
unaware of the prohibition, though he took pains to avoid stimulating
crossposted responses to the messages. Apparently 'crossposting' means
any message posted individually to more than three newsgroups, and any
crossposting is considered spamming.
This still does not explain why there was no warning of impending doom,
and why only now the explanation is forthcoming. It seems the criminal
has no chance of getting the account unlocked unless he grovels in
person, and that will not happen.
Dr H
On 30 Nov 2000, roy g biv wrote:
}
}>
}> So do you want to enlighten the rest of us as to what this is
}> about?
}>
}
}<> After all this time, it has finally been revealed that the problem was
}sending the same message (not multiply addressed and not the same message
}to the same place more than once) individually to many, many different
}newsgroups, which apparently is a heinous act, even if the message was
}on-topic and not an advert get-rich-quick scheme.
Technically that would be "excessive multi-posting"; "spam" used to
involve unsolicited messages of solicitation. But these days "spam" is
kind of a catch-all term that includes that particular activity.
If you did this, then you did, de facto, spam.
}The criminal was unaware of the prohibition,
The phrase used to be "igonrance of the law is no excuse". There are
Usenet FAQs (and EFN FAQs) that explain what constitutes "spam".
}though he took pains to avoid stimulating
}crossposted responses to the messages. Apparently 'crossposting' means
}any message posted individually to more than three newsgroups,
Crossposting means posting one message to multiple newsgroups (this
used to be called "velveeta"). Crossposting to more than a certain
number of groups /is/ considered spam; the particular number varies
with the ISP.
What it sounds like you did was /multi/-posting, which is considered
by some to be more annoying than crossposting, for various reasons.
}and any crossposting is considered spamming.
Not any crossposting, just _excessive_ crossposting (ie. to to many
groups), or crossposting to groups in which the post is off-topic.
}This still does not explain why there was no warning of impending doom,
Well, I agree that is odd. You didn't get /any/ prior warning? This
was the first and only time you multi-posted?
}and why only now the explanation is forthcoming. It seems the criminal
}has no chance of getting the account unlocked unless he grovels in
}person, and that will not happen.
Have you attempted to negotiate via e-mail? Obviously you have a
backup account from which to do so. I have never found EFN and the
people there to be unreasonable -- quite the reverse, in fact.
IMO, requiring you to put in a personal appearance for a first
offense committed in ignorance (which appears to be your claim)
is excessive. Unless there's more to the situation which you
haven't told us?
Dr H