Ode to Kurttrail...
Winux P
Where have all your posts gone Kurt? My reading of these threads has been
rudely interrupted.
Could one corporate conglomerate be so threatened by a mere mortal
individual?
Is there something we should know about Microsoft Windows XP that is being
refrained from us? I'm starting to wonder.
Just who is truly the weak?
- Winux P
David Candy
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye Web Diary
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/12/thank_you_and_g.html#comments
=================================================
"Winux P" <win...@msnews.grp> wrote in message news:ePrh9bwR...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
kurttrail
> He was posting yesterday.
>
Yeah, here I am!
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity/index.php?showtopic=3
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
likely at your end.
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org
"Winux P" <win...@msnews.grp> wrote in message
news:ePrh9bwR...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
George
it shows them as, "Message is no longer available on the server"...last one
on 3/10/06.
"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
news:%23m43$dwRGH...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
jwill
> In article <#wSKPW5R...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, p...@email.com
> says...
>
>>He isn't showing up in my reader either. When I do a find and see his posts
>>it shows them as, "Message is no longer available on the server"...last one
>>on 3/10/06.
>
>
> then it's the server you are using.
>
I am using Microsofts server on Thunderbird and I get the same "Message
is no longer available on the server"
Jerry
jwill
> In article <uAMa305...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, n...@email.com says...
> he's entered the same light as "pcbutts1" has.
>
I will bet ya if you clear of the posts in this group you will not see
his posts either. Me I couldn't care either way.
Jerry
RA
Someone is doing a lot of clearing in the groups. One poster who changes her
name a lot and used to hang out here until she went to Mac has been wiped
off of the Publisher group. You can see the posts in Google but any post
with her latest alias anywhere in the post is gone after a reload of OE.
RA
this morning and my OE did an auto cleanup and they weren't there anymore.
He is aware of it because on his website he listed all his posts that have
been wiped off the server as of today.
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> If you are not seeing his posts, the posts are there so the problem
> is most likely at your end.
>
>
Winux P
Don't think so Jupiter, it's more like you must be in bed with the censors,
you're just the type that would get offened over an expression such as
'bloody'. Despite people swearing at you everytime you turn your back at
them.
I can't understand why threads would be removed from the server by the
censors without them being offensive and on topic to say the least.
- Winux P
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_...@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:OQ4n69yR...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
: If you are not seeing his posts, the posts are there so the problem is
:
:
David Candy
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye Web Diary
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/12/thank_you_and_g.html#comments
=================================================
"Winux P" <win...@msnews.grp> wrote in message news:eXHJI6%23RGH...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Michael Stevens
Jupiter Jones [MVP] <jones_...@hotnomail.com> replied with a ;-)
> If you are not seeing his posts, the posts are there so the problem
> is most likely at your end.
>
>
> news:ePrh9bwR...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Where have all your posts gone Kurt? My reading of these threads has
>> been rudely interrupted.
>>
>> Could one corporate conglomerate be so threatened by a mere mortal
>> individual?
>>
>> Is there something we should know about Microsoft Windows XP that is
>> being refrained from us? I'm starting to wonder.
>>
>> Just who is truly the weak?
>>
>> - Winux P
No, someone is doing a blanket censoring of kurttrails posts. Two of the
most dangerous technical posters Talahasee and Andrew E continue to post
unabated, but kurttrail who never posts information that causes data loss
gets a blanket censor. Something is really wrong with this peer support
newsgroup. It is no longer truly peer support when this happens. It is now
MS moderated, and should be supported by MS as such.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
xpn...@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
Michael Stevens
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
xpn...@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
"Leythos" <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:keTRf.14366$g91....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> In article <uQV1MDBS...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>,
> mste...@bogusmvps.org says...
>> In news:OQ4n69yR...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] <jones_...@hotnomail.com> replied with a ;-)
>> > If you are not seeing his posts, the posts are there so the problem
>> > is most likely at your end.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Winux P" <win...@msnews.grp> wrote in message
>> > news:ePrh9bwR...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> >>
>> >> Where have all your posts gone Kurt? My reading of these threads has
>> >> been rudely interrupted.
>> >>
>> >> Could one corporate conglomerate be so threatened by a mere mortal
>> >> individual?
>> >>
>> >> Is there something we should know about Microsoft Windows XP that is
>> >> being refrained from us? I'm starting to wonder.
>> >>
>> >> Just who is truly the weak?
>> >>
>> >> - Winux P
>>
>> No, someone is doing a blanket censoring of kurttrails posts. Two of the
>> most dangerous technical posters Talahasee and Andrew E continue to post
>> unabated, but kurttrail who never posts information that causes data loss
>> gets a blanket censor. Something is really wrong with this peer support
>> newsgroup. It is no longer truly peer support when this happens. It is
>> now
>> MS moderated, and should be supported by MS as such.
>
> While I've entered what I consider OT threads, and participated in them
> when I know I shouldn't have, I don't think all of Kurts posts should be
> removed, BUT:
>
> 1) MS Owns the server, it's theirs to do anything they want with.
You are absolutely right, but it doesn't make them right to do so. Kind of
like the way Red China tries to control their people isn't it? It infuriates
the masses, but doesn't fool them. The masses will eventually rebel, the
same as all oppressed societies have done so.
>
> 2) Many times Kurts position could be made without the flair that he
> adds to it, I can see MS Usenet people getting tired of it.
>
Getting tired of it doesn't make censosership an acceptable policy.
> 3) Postings that are constantly negative, in the companies own forum,
> often cause the company to take action, and this could be a sign that
> their just fed-up with those types of posts.
>
Makes them look guilty as charged if they can only delete negative posts.
> 4) See #1 above.
>
> 5) In the years that I've been here, I think I can count on one hand the
> number of posts where Kurt has helped someone with a technical issue -
> maybe the MS Usenet people figured the noise to help ratio was to high
> and not contributing to the overall welfare of the group.
>
You must have a very big hand with lots of fingers or haven't been very
dillegent in monitoring Kurts posts to make a statement like that.
> 6) Kurt can post to any non-MS usenet server and it would replicate
> around the world to their Usenet servers, so that people like me that
> don't use the MS Usenet server directly could still see his posts - MS
> can delete his posts from their servers, but they should not issue a
> cancel bot to delete them from other vendors servers (and I don't think
> they are).
>
Why should he?
His posts are controversial, but almost always on topic.
> 7) See #1 above.
>
> 8) While Kurt does not fit into this group (the one I'm about to
> mention), anyone posting links/information that violate security norms
> or that post destructive information should have their posts deleted,
> warned, and if it continues, their ability to post under that identity
> should be banned.
>
Has any of the above been proven?
> --
>
> spam9...@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
Kurt Kirsch
>No, someone is doing a blanket censoring of kurttrails posts. Two of the
>most dangerous technical posters Talahasee and Andrew E continue to post
>unabated, but kurttrail who never posts information that causes data loss
>gets a blanket censor. Something is really wrong with this peer support
>newsgroup. It is no longer truly peer support when this happens. It is now
>MS moderated, and should be supported by MS as such.
Thanks Michael. I very much appreciate your post.
--
Don't Tread On Me!
Kurt Kirsch
nubian
<snip>
>
> I suppose that you feel some like pc butts 1 should have been able to
> continue posting his pirated apps links after the vendors publically
> asked him to stop....
You've got to be smokin' something REAL good or be delusional to put
Kurttrail on the same level with pcbutts1. Pcbutts1 was a proven thief
and pirate. Monopoly$oft is a proven criminal corp. (antitrust).
Kurttrail has never even given the idea in these groups that he has once
pirated one copy of Windows. I have more respect for Kurttrail than I
do for pcbutts1, Monopoly$soft, or you for that matter just because you
don't understand Kurttrail's only issue is that he has a big mouth. He
has proven his integrity and earned respect of more than just me in the
group. I can't say the same for you.
<snip>
>>>
>>> 5) In the years that I've been here, I think I can count on one hand the
>>> number of posts where Kurt has helped someone with a technical issue -
>>> maybe the MS Usenet people figured the noise to help ratio was to high
>>> and not contributing to the overall welfare of the group.
OK, so you have confirmed for us thus far that you are delusional, and
you also have problems with counting and logic.
<snip>
--
nubian
nubian
> In article <dv9rbe$ta8$1...@emma.aioe.org>, nubian@#.not says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> I suppose that you feel some like pc butts 1 should have been able to
>>> continue posting his pirated apps links after the vendors publically
>>> asked him to stop....
Leythos, right here is when you gave the impression of putting Kurttrail
in line with pcbutts1. When responding to Michael Stevens basically to
the tune of "well, if you think Kurttrail should have been allowed to
continue posting, you probably think that pcbutts1 should have been able
to continue posting too..."
Argue it all you want, but that is the impression you gave.
>> You've got to be smokin' something REAL good or be delusional to put
>> Kurttrail on the same level with pcbutts1. Pcbutts1 was a proven thief
>> and pirate. Monopoly$oft is a proven criminal corp. (antitrust).
>
> Again, I didn't put him in the same boat as butts, I was talking about
> people that we know were filtered. Again, and I don't know how you
> missed it, I said I've never seen Kurt do anything that caused a problem
> for a computer - why do you miss the important parts and see only the
> blind parts. Heck, I was one of the people tracking down the vendors of
> the software he pirated, helped to expose the thief even worked with
> several others to expose him to the hosting provider (which did
> nothing), but I've never considered Kurt in that light, not anything
> like him, don't put words in my mouth, it's beneath you.
>
>> Kurttrail has never even given the idea in these groups that he has once
>> pirated one copy of Windows. I have more respect for Kurttrail than I
>> do for pcbutts1, Monopoly$soft, or you for that matter just because you
>> don't understand Kurttrail's only issue is that he has a big mouth. He
>> has proven his integrity and earned respect of more than just me in the
>> group. I can't say the same for you.
>
> You completely missed what I said, and at no point have I said anything
> bad about kurt, never suggested in any way that he was a pirate or
> thief, never implied it - you read into it what you wanted to
> see/hear/read.
ANONYMOUS
Has he ever posted anything useful for Microsoft Products users? If the
answer is emphatic no then clearly no one is missing him!
ANONYMOUS
I always thought that when you use another usenet service provider, the
mssages eventually come to a central location i.e. msnews.microsoft.com
and it at this point the messages get zapped, unless google manages to
cache them on time!
Leythos wrote:
>
> In article <eRz#x17RGH...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, "RA" <none> says...
> > Reload your OE and you won't find his name anywhere. I saw several posts
> > this morning and my OE did an auto cleanup and they weren't there anymore.
> > He is aware of it because on his website he listed all his posts that have
> > been wiped off the server as of today.
>
> If he were to post by some other Usenet service we would all see his
> posts, MS has no obligation to permit anyone to post.
ANONYMOUS
jwill wrote:
>
> I will bet ya if you clear of the posts in this group you will not see
> his posts either. Me I couldn't care either way.
>
I agree. He didn't have anything to contribute on technical matters
except to insult MVPs and symantec!
Yo' Momma!
>Has he ever posted anything useful for Microsoft Products users? If the
>answer is emphatic no then clearly no one is missing him!
Helped more people than you ever will.
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
I can not explain why other dangerous posters do not also have their posts
removed.
Perhaps the person behind it see posts excessively attacking others and
organizations as more offensive.
Even though these newsgroups are technical, Kurt's constant personal attacks
at times deserve to be removed.
Kurt definitely fits if that is the criteria used.
He has also demonstrated that he cares more about his hate for others than
he does care for peoples rights.
If Kurt truly cared about people, he would not have hoped for harm to come
to my family (he has never met them) simply so he could he have me learn
something he ASSUMES I do not understand.
The others may act the way they do out of ignorance or stupidity, Kurt is
more like blind vengeance.
His posts and website are evidence of this.
That is only one of many possible reasons Kurt may have EARNED what he is
getting.
Kurt has little or no control of himself and likes to whine when someone
does what he is incapable...control Kurt.
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org
"Michael Stevens" <mste...@bogusmvps.org> wrote in message
Michael Stevens
Kurt Kirsch <spa...@kurtblog.com> replied with a ;-)
You are welcome, I don't know who is running the newsgroups now, but they
could certainly take a few pointers from their predecessor John Eddy who
rode you hard, but was a fair adversary. He did pull your posts that you
would even expect to be pulled (even though you complained about it 8-)),
but never did he do a blanket ban of your posts like the person running the
newsgroups is doing now. This is blatant censorship, and should never be
allowed in a Usenet group, no matter who owns the newsgroup. If the owner of
the newsgroup cannot successfully confront the criticisms by supplying
viable answers and has to resort to censorship, questions of integrity must
come into play.
Personally, I have never seen anyone find you wrong on any of your posts.
But you must admit you yourself did open the can of worms about the
motherboard being the defining component that determined a new system. 8-) I
might be mistaken, but didn't you have to agree to the System Builders
Agreement to get that information, I used your post with your permission in
my web page on the subject.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm
Kurt Kirsch
> You are welcome, I don't know who is running the newsgroups now, but
> they could certainly take a few pointers from their predecessor John
> Eddy who rode you hard, but was a fair adversary. He did pull your
> posts that you would even expect to be pulled (even though you
> posts like the person running the newsgroups is doing now. This is
> blatant censorship, and should never be allowed in a Usenet group, no
> matter who owns the newsgroup. If the owner of the newsgroup cannot
> successfully confront the criticisms by supplying viable answers and
> has to resort to censorship, questions of integrity must come into
> play. Personally, I have never seen anyone find you wrong on any of
> your
> posts. But you must admit you yourself did open the can of worms
> about the motherboard being the defining component that determined a
> the System Builders Agreement to get that information, I used your
> post with your permission in my web page on the subject.
> http://michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm
Actually the link to the SBL is publicly accessible. It is the pages
that MS explains rules not specifically mentioned in the SBL that you
must agree to be a Microsoft Partner.
First I went to the public Front End for MS OEM @
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/default.mspx. Then went to the left hand
menu and hovered over "Licensing," which brings a drop-menu, from
which I chose "OEM SB Localized Licenses," which is located @
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/sblicense/default.mspx. This bring you
to a page that has 43 links to different local SB licenses, from which
I chose English which takes you to
http://oem.microsoft.com/downloads/Public/sblicense/English_SB_License.pdf.
And all that was done without accepting anything.
--
Don't Tread On Me!
Kurt Kirsch
Kurt Kirsch
>You are welcome, I don't know who is running the newsgroups now, but they
>could certainly take a few pointers from their predecessor John Eddy who
>rode you hard, but was a fair adversary. He did pull your posts that you
>would even expect to be pulled (even though you complained about it 8-)),
>but never did he do a blanket ban of your posts like the person running the
>newsgroups is doing now. This is blatant censorship, and should never be
>allowed in a Usenet group, no matter who owns the newsgroup. If the owner of
>the newsgroup cannot successfully confront the criticisms by supplying
>viable answers and has to resort to censorship, questions of integrity must
>come into play.
>Personally, I have never seen anyone find you wrong on any of your posts.
>But you must admit you yourself did open the can of worms about the
>motherboard being the defining component that determined a new system. 8-) I
>might be mistaken, but didn't you have to agree to the System Builders
>Agreement to get that information, I used your post with your permission in
>my web page on the subject.
>http://michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm
--
Don't Tread On Me!
Kurt Kirsch
R. McCarty
"Michael Stevens" <mste...@bogusmvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23SYIUlP...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Michael Stevens
Leythos <vo...@nowhere.lan> replied with a ;-)
> In article <#SYIUlPS...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
> mste...@bogusmvps.org says...
>> Personally, I have never seen anyone find you wrong on any of your
>> posts.
>
> of it that he posted - taking one sentence out of a entire paragraph
> does not make you right.
>
>> But you must admit you yourself did open the can of worms about the
>> motherboard being the defining component that determined a new
>> system. 8-)
>
> according to the SB website.
>
>> I
>> might be mistaken, but didn't you have to agree to the System
>> Builders Agreement to get that information, I used your post with
>> your permission in my web page on the subject.
>> http://michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm
>
> more than the little bit that Kurt provided - like how an End User is
> considered a Systems Builder by MS, because the OEM supplier is
> required to either Pre-Install the software or provide it ONLY to
> another OEM. Oh, one more thing, they completely clarified what a
> computer is now.
Say what?
Did you prove anything?
I don't think so.
Don't you get it? You can't win.
You also didn't lose.
The only one that defines what gets activated is the person that answers the
phone and believes what the user tells them. Obviously, the activation is
geared toward the clueless and uninformed because anyone with any savy can
say the right words to obtain an activation if they are entitled to it.
It is evident activation is a success even though it is very flawed
technology, because Bill is once again the richest man in the world.
Michael Stevens
ANONYMOUS <ANON...@NEWSGROUPS.COM> replied with a ;-)
And what exactly did your assessment of his contribution compel you to
agree to condone censoring kuttrails posts? Since obviously your
contributions are non-existent on the newsgroups I would be curious about
your credentials that would make your opinion viable. Could you list your
credentials to validate your opinion?
nubian
True, ANONYMOUS is nothing more than a hemorrhoid!
--
nubian
David Candy
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye Web Diary
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/12/thank_you_and_g.html#comments
=================================================
"nubian" <nubian@#.not> wrote in message news:dvc31h$rs8$1...@emma.aioe.org...
Frank
OK...
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> Michael;
> I can not explain why other dangerous posters do not also have
> their posts removed.
> Perhaps the person behind it see posts excessively attacking others
> and organizations as more offensive.
> Even though these newsgroups are technical, Kurt's constant
> personal attacks at times deserve to be removed.
> Kurt definitely fits if that is the criteria used.
> He has also demonstrated that he cares more about his hate for
> others than he does care for peoples rights.
> If Kurt truly cared about people, he would not have hoped for harm
> to come to my family (he has never met them) simply so he could he
> have me learn something he ASSUMES I do not understand.
> The others may act the way they do out of ignorance or stupidity,
> Kurt is more like blind vengeance.
> His posts and website are evidence of this.
> That is only one of many possible reasons Kurt may have EARNED what
> he is getting.
> Kurt has little or no control of himself and likes to whine when
> someone does what he is incapable...control Kurt.
>
>
jt3
to have an idea of why you're offended by them, but also, perhaps, some idea
of his intent; though he uses very personally offensive language and
insults, I can't help thinking that his take on the matter is 'you aren't
paying attention to the fundamentals of what I'm saying' and uses his
abrasive manner to provoke discussion.
The ordinary users' best interests are not well served by recitation of
boiler-plate explanations and rationalizations of matters such as WPA--we
all know we're stuck with dealing with it, and when we have trouble due to
no fault of our own, we deal with it but don't have to like it, and one
could say Kurt is doing MS a favor if they would only attend to the
irritation level.
MS may or may not be sensitive to user input, but it would behoove them to
be.
Certainly, it may not be easy to resist providing defensive rejoinders, but
it seems to me to be more effective to do so.
Other frequent posters to this NG have been much more intentionally
personally offensive, in a manner intended to have the last word. Kurt
usually provides some rationalization for his position, which is more than
some of these can say.
I certainly regret *any* censoring of these NGs, as the free tenor of the
discussions is something I value highly. Where before, I might well have
simply thought Kurt was being somewhat intolerant, now I find myself
squarely in support of him.
J
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_...@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:%23$wKT8MSG...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Newport
--
"Leythos" <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:SSiSf.20441$g91....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> In article <ObNIZvSS...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, bbu...@bqik.net
> says...
>>
>> I would wager that you think that the Patriot Act and torture are
>> OK...
>
> The PA (patriot act) is very necessary and I support it fully. Being
> prior military I understand much of what is required to keep the country
> stafe from people sworn to kill all non-muslim people.
>
> Torture, while it's never "OK", it's a fact of life, been used in every
> war, still used by most countries, and does save lives.
Alias
>> OK...
>
> prior military I understand much of what is required to keep the country
> stafe from people sworn to kill all non-muslim people.
Yeah, if they're a towel head, no need for them to enjoy legal recourse,
bail or even a trial. Just lock them up without telling anyone and throw
away the key. While you're at it, take some photos of the torture
activity and wear a false smile that says "saving lives". I'm sure that
would calm the middle east down and lead us all to world peace in a
Texas jiffy.
>
> Torture, while it's never "OK", it's a fact of life, been used in every
> war, still used by most countries, and does save lives.
>
And do you also think the unprovoked, illegal war in Iraq is a good
thing and that Bush can speak English properly?
Have you ever considered that war is evil and that torture never has a
justification?
Alias
--
Use the "Reply to Sender" feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza "Responder al Remitente" para enviarme un mail.
xheggenvy
>In article <ObNIZvSS...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, bbu...@bqik.net
>says...
>>
>> I would wager that you think that the Patriot Act and torture are
>> OK...
>
>The PA (patriot act) is very necessary and I support it fully. Being
>prior military I understand much of what is required to keep the country
>stafe from people sworn to kill all non-muslim people.
>
>Torture, while it's never "OK", it's a fact of life, been used in every
>war, still used by most countries, and does save lives.
LOL! Ask John McCain about that one!
So if the Iraqi's torture you to save Iraqi lives, that's OK?
--
Crnpr!
Xheg
Frys-nabvagrq Zbqrengbe
zvpebfphz.chovp.jvaqbjfrkc.tbabeeurn
uggc://zvpebfphz.pbz/zfpbzzhavgl/vaqrk.cuc?fubjgbcvp=3
"Gehfgjbegul Pbzchgvat" vf bayl nabgure rknzcyr bs na Bklzbeba!
"Cebqhxg-Nxgvivrehat znpug serv"
Kurt Kirsch
>In article <OJMRx2SS...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, j...@cranky.computer
>says...
>> Where before, I might well have
>> simply thought Kurt was being somewhat intolerant, now I find myself
>> squarely in support of him.
>
>If his position has not changed, and he can post without being offensive
>and not have his posts removed, then how can you support someone that
>you didn't support before, considering the only reason the posts were
>removed was due to their being offensive?
>
>That's like saying I support a killer because the court found them
>guilty.
>
>It appears, since he's able to post still, that as long as he's not
>foul, that he won't be deleted. No harm in asking him to be a good
>community member, it's not like he is unable to post his position, only
>his ranting, when foul, seems to be deleted.
Who said all the posts of mine that were removed were offensive? Has
some MS rep publicly stated this and I just missed it?
kurttrail
>In article <64gj129rrpfqf1bol...@4ax.com>,
>qbagr...@naljurervagurxabjahavirefr.bet says...
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:19:14 GMT, Leythos <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ObNIZvSS...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, bbu...@bqik.net
>> >says...
>> >>
>> >> I would wager that you think that the Patriot Act and torture are
>> >> OK...
>> >
>> >The PA (patriot act) is very necessary and I support it fully. Being
>> >prior military I understand much of what is required to keep the country
>> >stafe from people sworn to kill all non-muslim people.
>> >
>> >Torture, while it's never "OK", it's a fact of life, been used in every
>> >war, still used by most countries, and does save lives.
>>
>> LOL! Ask John McCain about that one!
>>
>> So if the Iraqi's torture you to save Iraqi lives, that's OK?
>
>I don't believe there was any conditional part of my statement, what
>part didn't play into your political agenda?
Cool! Let's offer you up to the Iraqi Insurgents, and bring our
troops home already!
jt3
say that 'I might well have simply though Kurt was being somewhat
intolerant,' which would not disallow my believing that there was a good
deal of sense in much of what he said, only that he might be extreme in his
expression. Consequently, my conclusion is hardly inconsistent.
I find your use of what you assert to be a simile an attempt to misconstrue
the meaning of what I said. I certainly said nothing to justify your
innuendo that I am supporting a malefactor. Or are you judge, jury and
executioner?
J
"Leythos" <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:CXiSf.20442$g91....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> In article <OJMRx2SS...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, j...@cranky.computer
> says...
> > Where before, I might well have
> > simply thought Kurt was being somewhat intolerant, now I find myself
> > squarely in support of him.
>
> If his position has not changed, and he can post without being offensive
> and not have his posts removed, then how can you support someone that
> you didn't support before, considering the only reason the posts were
> removed was due to their being offensive?
>
> That's like saying I support a killer because the court found them
> guilty.
>
> It appears, since he's able to post still, that as long as he's not
> foul, that he won't be deleted. No harm in asking him to be a good
> community member, it's not like he is unable to post his position, only
> his ranting, when foul, seems to be deleted.
>
Winux P
Ahhh Jupiter, another one that would carpet bomb nations for perceived EULA
infringements, chill out Jupiter don't be so spiteful sir...! See how good
life is without being so angry.
As for Kurt, I never bothered ever to read the EULA until his postings, as
for relevancy this is a Windows XP news forum and a general one at that and,
EULA is a part of Windows XP. Kurt's posts have been an eye opener regarding
the legalities of EULA, and having been involved in four contractual issues,
three of which in courts I can concur with Kurt's postings regarding EULA.
You don't have to go too far in contractual law to see the fallacy of EULA.
As for insults Kurt has been accused of, come on! How sheltered must one's
life be or have been to be offended by whatever anyone posts on a news
server? And how could it even be perceived as personal?
It would be more correct to say that Kurt is being censored cause whom ever
is doing it ejaculates each time they censor someone. If you don't like
reading something, then don't, there's the best for of censorship Jupiter,
having little control of yourself entails not being able to stop or ignore
posts you don't like.
Come on Jupiter, admit it, you read all Kurts posts did you????
- Winux P
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_...@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:%23$wKT8MSG...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: Michael;
: >
: >
: >
:
:
nubian
> In article <#NgjXBUS...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, j...@cranky.computer
> says...
>> Very well, perhaps I should remove the adjective 'squarely'. However, I did
>> say that 'I might well have simply though Kurt was being somewhat
>> intolerant,' which would not disallow my believing that there was a good
>> deal of sense in much of what he said, only that he might be extreme in his
>> expression. Consequently, my conclusion is hardly inconsistent.
>>
>> I find your use of what you assert to be a simile an attempt to misconstrue
>> the meaning of what I said. I certainly said nothing to justify your
>> innuendo that I am supporting a malefactor. Or are you judge, jury and
>> executioner?
>
> censored you said "now I find myself squarely in support of him.". You
> didn't say you support him against censorship, just that you fully
> support him since he was censored - nice try, but unless you can find
> another way to state it, you support his assertions that people should
> violate the licensing agreement since it's not enforced by any court
> decision.
>
> [remainder of post left in tact so you can see what you actually said]
How does this imply what he supports Kurttrail for? He doesn't specify,
so why put words in his mouth?
--
nubian
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/vista.html
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
People he has never met and knows nothing about.
Kurt is unable to control himself and needs to insult and attack others
since he feels insecure without doing so.
There are many with similar positions and they do not need the attacks as
Kurt does.
"another one that would carpet bomb nations for perceived EULA
infringements"
Such assumptions by you really leave the rest of what you might say
questionable.
The value of what Kurt posts is greatly diminished by his hating attitude.
Because what he says about my family, other people and me, it is clear he is
only concerned for the truth in so much as the truth can hurt Microsoft and
others he hates regardless the cost to others.
If he had any concern for people he would demonstrate the concern instead of
his blind hate.
Until he made that statement about my family, I had some degree of
confidence that he meant what he said. At that time it became clear his
hate overpowered any concern he may have had.
And NO, I do not read all of Kurt's writings.
Yet another wrong assumption on your part.
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
http://www.dts-l.org/
"Winux P" <win...@msnews.grp> wrote in message
news:eoVn1WUS...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Winux P
Assumptions I am not making to you Jupiter, exaggerating I am, but
slanderous, you indeed are. If your *assumption* is correct that Kurttrail
is full of hate, then all credit to him and so what to you Jupiter, cause it
looks like it's rubbed off onto you. Just read below, you wrote it.
The point here is censorship and if a huge conglomerate cannot handle the
words of an individual then Jupiter who really is the insecure, the angry,
spiteful and the weak.
- Winux P
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_...@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:ehafL3US...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
: "And how could it even be perceived as personal?"
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Your points are irrelevant unless your point is to drag OFF TOPIC politics
into this newsgroup.
Hopefully you would wager nothing or you can afford to do without.
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org
"Frank" <bbu...@bqik.net> wrote in message
news:ObNIZvSS...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Winux P
I'd ask, if were you a diplomat in your past life? But it's true you are in
this life. If I want free speech I'll fight for it. It doesn't come from a
personal webserver. Condoleeza Rice would say something like that Leythos
and, she has an iron fist.
- Winux P
"Leythos" <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:Q%mSf.20479$g91....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
: In article <upfCYGVS...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, win...@msnews.grp
: says...
: >
: > The point here is censorship and if a huge conglomerate cannot handle
the
: > words of an individual then Jupiter who really is the insecure, the
angry,
: > spiteful and the weak.
:
: Actually, since his posts are still around in the public, his posts were
: not technically censored - they were deleted from a usenet server not
: owned/operated by Kurt or anyone outside Microsoft, so they are
: completely free to moderate their group as they feel it should be.
:
: There is no single RIGHT TO POST, no single right to carry a post,
: nothing that states they have to let you rant or act foul, or even act
: nice. Your posts show in their server at their whim, just like every
: other Usenet server in operation around the world - the owner/admin can
: do anything they want.
:
: If you want free speech, get your own webserver and an ISP that has no
: sense of ethics and post anything you want.
:
: --
Alias
> In article <e7rdq#SSGHA...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
> [snip <<<<< visual indication]
>> Have you ever considered that war is evil and that torture never has a
>> justification?
>
> considered it a loss for both sides, but, normally, one side pays a
> higher price than the other. In this case, considering what would have
> happened had we done nothing, it was the right action and I fully
> support it - even to the point of allowing my oldest son to Join the
> Military with my blessing.
>
> While you may not value your security, your safety, your fellow country-
> mens lives, your freedom, many people around the world do and are
> willing to pay for it with more than just lip service.
>
What the USA is doing today only promotes more war, not the freedom you
think it does. The USA has never been more despised round the world than
today and this can't lead to anything positive, your boilerplate right
wing BS notwithstanding.
The Patriot Act and the other nefarious and unconstitutional shenanigans
that the current administrating is engaging in strips anyone they want
to label as a terrorist of any and all civil rights. Yaknow, like in
China and the old USSR?
Ever hear of the McCarthy Era? Read the book, The Ugly American?
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
As for hate, in spite what Kurt says, I do not hate anyone including Kurt.
Kurt assumes I hate but that is Kurt and his assumptions.
"cannot handle the words of an individual"
No one said anyone can not handle Kurt's words or anyone else's for that
matter, that is except you since those are your words.
Sometimes they are handled by deleting the posts.
Some of Kurt's posts need to be deleted. Those include the posts and
threads he starts that contribute nothing except to insult or attack others.
These threads seem to come up after what seems to be a quiet spell of his.
Some should not be deleted but I do not make the decision any more than you.
Everyone would have differing standards so whoever set the standards would
go against the desires of others.
Kurt likes to whine when his posts are deleted, even when they are not as
happened a few days ago.
He assumed and then shortly found the error of another of his assumptions.
Whether Microsoft is right or wrong is a matter of opinion.
Microsoft has removed NOTHING outside of Microsoft property without consent
of the owner.
Just like anyone else, Microsoft has the right to control what is posted on
Microsoft servers.
Those who do not like it are free to post elsewhere.
A great many forums and websites exercise their rights to control their
property.
Microsoft gets bashed for exercising their rights.
No ones rights are infringed upon when Microsoft removes something from
Microsoft property.
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org
"Winux P" <win...@msnews.grp> wrote in message
news:upfCYGVS...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
capitan
> In article <upfCYGVS...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, win...@msnews.grp
> says...
>> words of an individual then Jupiter who really is the insecure, the angry,
>> spiteful and the weak.
>
> not technically censored - they were deleted from a usenet server not
> owned/operated by Kurt or anyone outside Microsoft, so they are
> completely free to moderate their group as they feel it should be.
>
> There is no single RIGHT TO POST, no single right to carry a post,
> nothing that states they have to let you rant or act foul, or even act
> nice. Your posts show in their server at their whim, just like every
> other Usenet server in operation around the world - the owner/admin can
> do anything they want.
I think there are some who may disagree with you, Leythos. At least
possibly American citizens, who live in a country where the idea of a
right to free speech is not only an amendment, but also ingrained in the
culture. I do not say this of course to imply that MS doesn't have the
right to delete or censor the post(s) they want, but I think it is
ridiculous to expect a culture such as one in the US to be completely
accepting of such a move.
--
capitan
pl...@csus_abcdefghij.edu
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:19:14 GMT, Leythos <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
>>In article <ObNIZvSS...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, bbu...@bqik.net
>>says...
>>>
>>> I would wager that you think that the Patriot Act and torture are
>>> OK...
>>
>>The PA (patriot act) is very necessary and I support it fully. Being
>>prior military I understand much of what is required to keep the country
>>stafe from people sworn to kill all non-muslim people.
>>
>>Torture, while it's never "OK", it's a fact of life, been used in every
>>war, still used by most countries, and does save lives.
>
> LOL! Ask John McCain about that one!
>
> So if the Iraqi's torture you to save Iraqi lives, that's OK?
>
>
acceptable? Intimidation is also a form of mental torture & that
especially happen every day in so-called peaceful areas of any
country.
David Candy
What is the copyright status of material published by the US government. Does anyone or any americian have a right to reuse such material? I seem to remember something like this?
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye Web Diary
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/12/thank_you_and_g.html#comments
=================================================
"Leythos" <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote in message news:4jpSf.20503$g91....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> In article <O85RPmWS...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, c...@pi.tan says...
>> > There is no single RIGHT TO POST, no single right to carry a post,
>> > nothing that states they have to let you rant or act foul, or even act
>> > nice. Your posts show in their server at their whim, just like every
>> > other Usenet server in operation around the world - the owner/admin can
>> > do anything they want.
>>
>> I think there are some who may disagree with you, Leythos. At least
>> possibly American citizens, who live in a country where the idea of a
>> right to free speech is not only an amendment, but also ingrained in the
>> culture. I do not say this of course to imply that MS doesn't have the
>> right to delete or censor the post(s) they want, but I think it is
>> ridiculous to expect a culture such as one in the US to be completely
>> accepting of such a move.
>
> I live in America, was born here, family been here since the boat came
> over, and served in the Military to keep the freedom we have. I would
> say that only an idiot would expect to be able to many ANY statement of
> any type in any location at any time and expect it to ALWAYS be
> accepted.
>
> If people can't understand that servers belong to someone or some
> company, well, they must really be missing the boat. To attack a company
> on it's own server is, well, for a better wording, just plain stupid and
> and to expect the company/group to sit back and do nothing about it,
> well, that's even stupider.
>
> If he really cared about his "Message" he would get it out the best way
> possible, posting it to a server that replicates with the most locations
> around the world - and most all messages posted to non-MS Usenet
> servers, to MS groups, make it back to the MS Usenet site also. The
> difference is that deleting a message posted in such a manner, then
> deleted by MS from the MS Usenet server, does not delete it from
> anywhere else.....
>
> Everyone needs to stop crying about rights, you have not RIGHTS on MS's
> server. You only have the privileged that MS ALLOWS YOU.
Michael Stevens
Leythos <vo...@nowhere.lan> replied with a ;-)
> In article <e7rdq#SSGHA...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
> [snip <<<<< visual indication]
>> a justification?
>
> always considered it a loss for both sides, but, normally, one side
> pays a higher price than the other. In this case, considering what
> would have happened had we done nothing, it was the right action and
> I fully support it - even to the point of allowing my oldest son to
> Join the Military with my blessing.
>
> While you may not value your security, your safety, your fellow
> country- mens lives, your freedom, many people around the world do
> and are willing to pay for it with more than just lip service.
This war was never the right choice and will never be resolved, just as Viet
Nam was not resolved. This should have been the blueprint the Bush
administration consulted before entering into a war that will yield the same
success.
Now he is threatening to engage in another Bush folly with Iran. By engaging
in these wars, we are diluting our military strength and support from our
foreign allies.
I am not looking for a debate, just expressing an opinion. The great thing
about America, is we are still allowed to have an opinion, even if we are
not allowed to publicly express it to the President except from isolated
designated areas deemed appropriate to express our freedom of speech. 8-)
Kurt Kirsch
>In article <Opz6#pVSGH...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>Spoken just like a non-American and someone that has never had to do
>anything to maintain their freedoms.
What have you done? Scraped barnacles off the side of an Aircraft
carrier? Got in a barrel and serviced your shipmates?
Please! Nothing the Bushies have done have made us any safer.
And they only success in the so-called war on terror is that Bush &
Co. created the perfect training ground for terrorists in Iraq.
Oh, and Osama is still laughing!
The present day US government is the most incompetent since Jimmy
Carter! Congratulations conservatives!
xheggenvy
I don't think any kind of torture is right, unless it is on the
USENET! ;-)
xheggenvy
>In article <dvco3r$hk5$1...@emma.aioe.org>, nubian@#.not says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>> > In article <#NgjXBUS...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, j...@cranky.computer
>> > says...
>> >> Very well, perhaps I should remove the adjective 'squarely'. However, I did
>> >> say that 'I might well have simply though Kurt was being somewhat
>> >> intolerant,' which would not disallow my believing that there was a good
>> >> deal of sense in much of what he said, only that he might be extreme in his
>> >> expression. Consequently, my conclusion is hardly inconsistent.
>> >>
>> >> I find your use of what you assert to be a simile an attempt to misconstrue
>> >> the meaning of what I said. I certainly said nothing to justify your
>> >> innuendo that I am supporting a malefactor. Or are you judge, jury and
>> >> executioner?
>> >
>> > Until he as censored you didn't fully support him, now that he's been
>> > censored you said "now I find myself squarely in support of him.". You
>> > didn't say you support him against censorship, just that you fully
>> > support him since he was censored - nice try, but unless you can find
>> > another way to state it, you support his assertions that people should
>> > violate the licensing agreement since it's not enforced by any court
>> > decision.
>> >
>> > [remainder of post left in tact so you can see what you actually said]
>>
>> How does this imply what he supports Kurttrail for? He doesn't specify,
>> so why put words in his mouth?
>
>It would appear that he supports what Kurt stands for -
Truth, Justice, and Freedom, especially in one's own home.
I stand for the rights of the individual, much like our Founding
Fathers.
> since he didn't
>limit the scope of support. Most people that feel the need to partially
>support something state the limitation.
Who said he was "most people?" Quite an assumption on your part.
> You might want to go back and
>read his reply in context.
Maybe you shouldn't assume more the he wrote.
xheggenvy
>In article <upfCYGVS...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, win...@msnews.grp
>says...
>>
>> The point here is censorship and if a huge conglomerate cannot handle the
>> words of an individual then Jupiter who really is the insecure, the angry,
>> spiteful and the weak.
>
>Actually, since his posts are still around in the public, his posts were
>not technically censored - they were deleted from a usenet server not
>owned/operated by Kurt or anyone outside Microsoft, so they are
>completely free to moderate their group as they feel it should be.
Ah, but then this should be labeled as moderated, not as PUBLIC.
>There is no single RIGHT TO POST, no single right to carry a post,
I have the right to post. MS has the right to pull my posts. But
what does pulling my posts actually accomplish?
Does it make me look like the fool, or does it make MS look like a
fool?
They got all the power, but kurttrail must be stopped! ROFL!
I am totally insignificant in comparison to MS. Yet they waste their
time and money with me. It is totally ludicrous!
I know if the positions were reversed, and I had all the power, I
would just ignore some insignificant individual, because who really
gives a rat's ass about what they say.
It's like Tom Cruise suing everybody and their mother for printing the
rumors he is gay. By doing it, even though you ends up winning, I
still think that since he is so affected by it, that he really has
something to hide.
Same with MS & me. By paying such scrutiny to me, they are giving me
more credit than I am really due, and ends up just convincing people
that maybe MS really has something to hide to.
>nothing that states they have to let you rant or act foul, or even act
>nice. Your posts show in their server at their whim, just like every
>other Usenet server in operation around the world - the owner/admin can
>do anything they want.
>
>If you want free speech, get your own webserver and an ISP that has no
>sense of ethics and post anything you want.
Free Speech = no sense of ethics! Typical LameGirl!
LOL! I love free speech, ESPECIALLY for you right wing nut jobs!
Ya'll are free to continually put you foot into your mouths, and we
rational types get to laugh at you over and over again!
Kurt Kirsch
>In article <uCzQRiVS...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, win...@msnews.grp
>says...
>> I'd ask, if were you a diplomat in your past life? But it's true you are in
>> this life. If I want free speech I'll fight for it. It doesn't come from a
>> personal webserver. Condoleeza Rice would say something like that Leythos
>> and, she has an iron fist.
>
>But you don't seem to understand this his right to "Free Speech" has not
>been trampled on. He, everyone, has a right to free speech. You do not
>have a right to have messages you post to a private or commercial
>service retailed for public viewing. While you have a right to post to
>such places, the owners have a RIGHT to run them how THEY see fit.
>
>This means that if he wants to get the message to the most people that
>all he has to do it post to any Usenet server willing to accept his
>message instead of targeting the server of the company he's attacking.
Am I attacking poor little Microsoft? Poor babies! Big Bad kurttrail
hurt poor little MS's feelings! I'm a bad booooooooooooy!
ROFL! The more you defend MS, the more ridiculous their pulling my
posts really sounds!
Uranus Umbaba [MSFU]
<jones_...@hotnomail.com> wrote:
>"And how could it even be perceived as personal?"
>When Kurt specifically states he wants harm to come to my family.
>People he has never met and knows nothing about.
>
ROFL! Put it the context in which I said it. You were being totally
self-righteous, and I was just wishing for you to be in the same
circumstances as those you were being superior to.
I was basically just wishing you to walk a mile in another persons
shoes so you could understand them better. But you weren't man enough
to walk that mile.
>Kurt is unable to control himself and needs to insult and attack others
>since he feels insecure without doing so.
Erroneous assumptions! I love it!
Oops, maybe I should hate it to prove for you how insecure I am!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Say whatever you like about me, Juppy. I'm man enough not to cry
about it. I learned long ago, if you dish it out, you better learn
how to take it in all good humor.
>There are many with similar positions and they do not need the attacks as
>Kurt does.
Do you go running to your Mommy when you feel attacked by my mere
words? Didn't she ever tell you about how stick and stones may hurt
your bones, but words really should never hurt you?
Silly Juppy Baby!
Oh oh! Am I doing it again? I'm a baaaaaaaaaad boooooooooooooy!
>
>"another one that would carpet bomb nations for perceived EULA
>infringements"
>Such assumptions by you really leave the rest of what you might say
>questionable.
Yes, you always find a means to rationalize away the truths you do not
want to hear.
>The value of what Kurt posts is greatly diminished by his hating attitude.
I don't hate you, Juppy. I just don't respect you. See, that is the
truth, but I'm sure you'll find a way to rationalize that truth away
too!
>Because what he says about my family, other people and me, it is clear he is
>only concerned for the truth in so much as the truth can hurt Microsoft and
>others he hates regardless the cost to others.
LOL! I hurt Microsoft! You are as idiotic as the moron(s) at MS that
made the decision to pull my past posts, and won't let me post as
kurttrail. Ya'll give me too much credit, and by doing so, you
actually bolster my credibility! It isn't me hurting you and MS, it
is you and MS that are hurting yourselves, and you both are too effin'
deaf, dumb, and blind too see it!
But at least MS isn't a little crybaby like you! I can respect them
for that.
>If he had any concern for people he would demonstrate the concern instead of
>his blind hate.
I do feel sorry for you.
>Until he made that statement about my family, I had some degree of
>confidence that he meant what he said. At that time it became clear his
>hate overpowered any concern he may have had.
I meant what I said then, as I do know. Unfortunately you do not have
it in you to understand what you don't want to hear.
>And NO, I do not read all of Kurt's writings.
Neither do I after I post them. But you do read a lot of my posts,
I'm sure. It is quite obvious that you are totally affected by me.
>Yet another wrong assumption on your part.
You would be the expert on wrong assumptions based on your own
personal experience, but I think you took him too literally. I
believe what was being pointed out to you, that totally escape your
understanding, is that you are too hung up on me, and it makes you
look ridiculous. Just like MS's blanket censorship of my previous
posts and their not allowing me to post as kurttrail anymore, while
they have every right to pull any post it wants, makes them look more
ridiculous for doing so.
Yes. I know. You don't agree that MS looks ridiculous, and neither
does Leythos, but then again, you both don't see how ridiculous you
make yourselves look when dealing with the subject of little ole
kurttrail, that evil bad man!
Booohooo!
PMS: I have to say that I made myself laugh so hard today when I
created this particular alter-ego. And that is probably the
difference between us. I don't always take myself so seriously as you
do, and make it a point to find ways to laugh at myself as much as
possible. It's St. Paddy's day! Have a Guinness! I'm already on my
second one, and it's only 5:30 am!
L'Chaim!
--
Uranus Umbaba [MSFU]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Alias
> In article <Opz6#pVSGH...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
Ad hominem attack. Are "non-Americans" bad? Should they be locked up
without charges or legal recourse?
> and someone that has never had to do
> anything to maintain their freedoms.
Ad hominem attack. You have no idea what I have done for peoples'
freedoms but I can assure you it doesn't include killing and maiming
"non-Americans".
Care to address the issues or can you only try to shoot the messenger
with your false patriotism, hoping that the issues will go away?
Alias
> In article <uMlMefZS...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> mste...@bogusmvps.org says...
>> This war was never the right choice and will never be resolved, just as Viet
>> Nam was not resolved. This should have been the blueprint the Bush
>> administration consulted before entering into a war that will yield the same
>> success.
>> Now he is threatening to engage in another Bush folly with Iran. By engaging
>> in these wars, we are diluting our military strength and support from our
>> foreign allies.
>> I am not looking for a debate, just expressing an opinion.
>
> were and are still hostile to non-muslims, and was and is always going
> to be a threat until we convert or die. Bush didn't create the mess, he
> inherited it. In my opinion we didn't have a choice, it was time to
> stand up against all the killings of Americans in and out of the USA, it
> was time to take it to the enemy. If you think that Iran, North Kora,
> Syria, China and several other countries are not a threat, then you
> might want to study them for a couple days, you might change your
> "opinion".
>
Most of the world considers the USA to be THE threat after studying how
they bomb innocent civilians, torture people, lock people up without
charge or legal recourse, etc.
If you think Bush is in Iraq to protect your "freedom", you're very naive.
Michael Stevens
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
xpn...@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:uL8BTMbS...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
<This is totaly off topic but I want to express my displesure for our
current goverments leadership
Plus the Bush administration is guilty of killing more innocent Iraq
citizens than Sadam is being tried for and if found guilty will be put to
death. Where is the justice? Who is the real terrorist in the eyes of the
world? I am ashamed that our brave soldiers are forced to follow our idiot
commander in chief and his evil puppet meister advisors.
Chaney and his OIL driven agenda and his Halliburton connection is pushing
the buttons for this administrations and has been from the start.
Halliburton has gained wealth beyond reason from this war and there is
nothing to show any effect of the money the US public paid Halliburton has
benefited any of the Iraq recovery. Where is the billons of yours and mine
dollars showing up in Iraq?
I don't see anything but red ink and total world wide disrespect as our
return for what Bush and Chaney will give us as their legacy. Now they want
to extend it to Iran, can we somehow as a nation stop them?>
Michael Stevens
Well that pretty much put the nail in the coffin. Anyone that knows our
history knows that you and I don't agree on much of the fundementals about
activation, but I would never want to deny you the right to express your
opinion. I am appalled with the current administrators of this newsgroup, it
is embarrassing that they have deemed you as such a useless resource of
information to ban all your posts. This is not acceptable and should be
brought to the attention of the public media on how free speech is not free
in the Microsoft newsgroups.
Michael Stevens
> In article <OVsTnubS...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
> xpn...@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com says...
>> <This is totaly off topic but I want to express my displesure for our
>> current goverments leadership
>> Plus the Bush administration is guilty of killing more innocent Iraq
>> citizens than Sadam>
>
> failures, but now we see that those detractors were themselves wrong.
>
> What have I said since day one? What has been the stance of those
> that I've had this very discussion with? They repeated the Dem's
> mantra that I was mistaken - said in such a way that my friends
> wouldn't offend me, since I am a friend - I assume. Well, maybe
> those that have said these things to me will now reconsider in light
> of these documents? Maybe? Or, will they still let emotion rule
> their search for the truth. I guess that time will tell.
>
> I look for the evidence, not letting emotion cloud my judgment - or
> class rhetoric - BECAUSE I want to know the truth, regardless of how
> painful it might be to me personally. I'd rather now the TRUTH than
> live in a fantasy. Especially a fantasy of someone else's creation.
>
> For those that are interested in the truth - or at least the truth as
> I've always professed it to be - please read this article an follow
> the links herein.
>
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49297
> You can find the documents metioned below on the Homeland Defense
> website (links to DNI). President Bush has ordered that the
> video/audio tapes (over 3000 hours) be made available to the public.
> I fully expect that there will be a number of people that will not
> even look at these documents for fear that our President (and most of
> the World's intelligence agencies) will be proven to be correct in
> the assessments about Iraq and it's complicity with terrorist groups
> (yes, even the WMD assessments). Don't forget - Abu Nidal was given
> safehaven in Iraq.
>
>
> Newly released document
> links Saddam to al-Qaida
> Indicates regime was cooperating with bin Laden group to strike U.S.
>
> Posted: March 17, 2006
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>
>
> (c) 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
>
> Among the pre-war documents posted online yesterday by the Pentagon
> is a letter from a member of Saddam's intelligence apparatus
> indicating al- Qaida and the Taliban had a relationship with the
> regime prior to the 9- 11 attacks.
>
> The letter by the member of Saddam's Al Mukabarat to a superior, dated
> Sept. 15, 2001, reports a pre-9/11 conversation between an Iraqi
> intelligence source and a Taliban Afghani consul.
>
> The documents were released yesterday at the direction of National
> Intelligence Director John Negroponte.
> Among the first batch of the thousands expected to be declassified
> over the next several months, the Al Mukabarat document was
> translated from the original Arabic by a contributor to the online
> forum Free Republic.
>
> Laura Mansfield, an independent Middle East analyst, examined the
> translation for WorldNetDaily and said it appears to be accurate.
>
> The letter indicated Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan
> were in contact with Iraq - noting a specific visit to Baghdad - and
> said the U.S. had proof Saddam's regime and al-Qaida were cooperating
> to hit a target in the U.S.
>
> The document said the U.S. was aware of such a relationship and could
> strike Iraq and Afghanistan if the attacks proved to be tied to bin
> Laden and the Taliban.
>
> The translated text is as follows:.
>
> In the Name of God the Merciful
> Presidency of the Republic
> Intelligence Apparatus
> To the respectful Mr. M.A.M
> Subject: Information
> Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see
> attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul
> Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him
> the following:
>
> 1. That Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact
> with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin
> Laden group visited Iraq.
>
> 2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama bin
> Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America.
>
> 3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama bin Laden group
> and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that
> American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
> 4. That the Afghani Consul heard about the subject of Iraq relation
> with Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.
>
> 5. In light of this we suggest to write to the Commission of the above
> information.
> Please view... Yours... With regards
> Signature:......, Initials : A.M.M, 15/9/2001
> Foot note: Immediately send to the Chairman of Commission
> Signature:.............
>
> Zarqawi a pre-war presence?
> Mansfield pointed to another document showing that less than a year
> after the 9-11 attacks, Saddam's government had identified at least
> one active al-Qaida cell in his country.
>
>
> The document, released only in Arabic, is described by the U.S.
> government as follows:
>
> 2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-
> Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a
> suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist
> group. Moreover, it includes photos and names.
>
> Mansfield said a translation of the document shows the al-Qaida
> terrorist Saddam's government had identified was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,
> who emerged as one of the leading terrorists in post-Saddam Hussein
> Iraq.
>
> The document, dated Aug. 17, 2002, identifies the al-Qaida member as
> Ahmed Fadil Nizal Al Khalaylah, the real name of Zarqawi, and
> includes a series of photos.
>
> A memo within the document shows that as early Aug. 8, 2002, Zarqawi
> was identified as a member of "Tanzeem al-Qaida," or the "Al-Qaida
> Organization".
>
> "This document provides startling documentation that at the very least
> that Saddam Hussein's government knew that al-Qaida was active and
> functioning in Iraq," Mansfield said.
>
> She pointed out that although the document goes on to outline
> activities of the group, there is no indication the Iraqi government
> took any steps to stop al-Qaida from operating within Iraq, in clear
> defiance of international law.
>
> Caveat
> Weekly Standard reporter Stephen Hayes, whose reporting has helped
> move members of Congress to call for release of the documents,
> nevertheless, has cautioned that they are published with a caveat.
> The Pentagon website says: "The U.S. Government has made no
> determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity
> or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the
> quality of any translations, when available."
>
> The administration's intent is to allow lawmakers and the public to
> investigate the documents' claims about controversial issues such as
> weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaida's relationship to the regime
> prior to the March 2003 invasion.
>
> House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., requested the
> release, and last weekend Negroponte agreed to set up the website.
>
> Hoekstra said in a statement he welcomed the opportunity to answer
> questions critical to the debate over the war.
> "Whether Saddam Hussein destroyed Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
> or hid or transferred them, the most important thing is we discover
> the truth of what was happening in the country prior to the war," he
> said.
>
> In 2003, a 16-page top secret government memo to the Senate
> Intelligence Committee said bin Laden and Saddam had an operational
> relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in
> explosives and weapons of mass destruction, as well as financial and
> logistical support, and may have included the bombing of the USS Cole
> and the Sept. 11 attacks.
>
> "The memo, dated Oct. 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of
> Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay
> Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate
> Intelligence Committee," reported the Weekly Standard. It was written
> in response to a request from the committee as part of its
> investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the
> administration.
>
> According to the Weekly Standard, the memo reports Saddam's
> willingness to help bin Laden plot against Americans began in 1990,
> shortly before the first Gulf War, and continued until the eve of the
> U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. It says bin Laden sent
> ''emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government
> officials.'' At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA
> analysis, ''Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to
> al-Qaida.''
If we knew all this, that would mean we could have considered pursing
diplomatic solutions, and monitored the terrroists activities.
We didn't follow this option, why didn't we? Could it be Chaney didn't think
the profit margin was in the interest of Halliburton's profit goals?
Alias
> In article <OER2lKcS...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>,
> xpn...@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com says...
> diverted by Iraq, the years of letting them kill us, didn't count in
> your mind?
>
Let's see, the USA has the largest stockpile of WMDs in the world. Bush
used and is using WMDs in Iraq and Afghanistan and you think the USA is
in a position to tell countries that they have no right to WMDs?
And you think you can lecture people on integrity and morals ... It's
Ugly Americans like you that give the USA a bad name.
Michael Stevens
> In article <OER2lKcS...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>,
> xpn...@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com says...
> diverted by Iraq, the years of letting them kill us, didn't count in
> your mind?
I am throughly embarrassed by this current administration, and you did not
address a single concern I listed in my post. Iraq was not responsible for
the 911 attack!
We are now responsible for more deaths of innocent Iraq citizens than Saddam
Hussien is being tried for and the court is seeking the death penealty for
his crimes. Who should be tried for the innocent deathts incurred since his
capture? How do you ratioinalize this carnage?
The bottom line is we should have never invaded this country when we still
had other alternatives. Bush and his advisors were and still are idiots, and
with a 37% approval and going down, it looks like America is finally getting
message on how inept the Bush administration has handled the interests of
our country.
Kerry Brown
<snipped>
>
> I am throughly embarrassed by this current administration, and you
> did not address a single concern I listed in my post. Iraq was not
> responsible for the 911 attack!
> We are now responsible for more deaths of innocent Iraq citizens than
> Saddam Hussien is being tried for and the court is seeking the death
> penealty for his crimes. Who should be tried for the innocent deathts
> incurred since his capture? How do you ratioinalize this carnage?
> The bottom line is we should have never invaded this country when we
> still had other alternatives. Bush and his advisors were and still
> are idiots, and with a 37% approval and going down, it looks like
> America is finally getting message on how inept the Bush
> administration has handled the interests of our country.
If you want some scary reading that may help to explain at least some of
Bush's policies check some of the links in this search.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+advisors+leo+strauss&btnG=Google+Search
The really scary thing to me is that our newly elected PM here in Canada is
also known to have been influenced by Strauss.
Kerry
Alias
> In article <ON4E#ecSGH...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> It's
>> Ugly Americans like you that give the USA a bad name.
>
>
Once again, all you can come up with are ad hominem attacks and you
aren't capable of doing anything but snipping the issues due to your
inability to respond to the truth.
What has the illegal war on Iraq accomplished besides murdering over
100,000 innocent Iraqi citizens, throwing the country into civil war,
sending over 2000 Americans back home in a box, allowing Halliburton to
make billions on "reconstruction" and the Exxons of the world to make a
killing on the rise of the price of oil?
Prediction: Bush will allow another 9/11 before the November elections
and will blame it on the Iranians and attack them.
Alias
> In article <eplrrldS...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> What has the illegal war on Iraq
>
> you're just coming up with "ad hominem attacks".
I call it illegal. It's my opinion, one shared by *most* of the world.
Iraq didn't attack the USA or even threaten to attack the USA (or anyone
else for that matter). If your argument is maybe they had WMDs, China,
N. Korea, Israel, et al have WMDs but the USA isn't attacking them. For
that matter, the USA has the biggest stockpile of WMDs in the world and
I doubt you would think that an attack on the USA would be justified due
to this.
> If you stuck with facts you would be a lot better off.
LOL! You have avoided just about every fact I've posted.
For example, can you answer this question that you snipped?:
What has the illegal war on Iraq accomplished besides murdering over
100,000 innocent Iraqi citizens, throwing the country into civil war,
sending over 2000 Americans back home in a box, allowing Halliburton to
make billions on "reconstruction" and the Exxons of the world to make a
killing on the rise of the price of oil?
Alias
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
You did NOT say "wish", you said "hope", go back and read what you said,
perhaps it will be news to you.
You are changing your own words.
The context---you hoped my family would starve and dehydrate so that I could
see what it is like to see my family suffer.
Your hate drives you so much you feel it is important enough for others
unknown to you to be hurt to teach me something you ASSUME I do not know.
If you do know, post the source for this fact, otherwise it is an assumption
on your part.
If it is not hate, what is it that drives you to want others unknown to you
to suffer so much?
I would NEVER wish or hope for anything bad to happen to your family.
You probably still can not comprehend that some would "NEVER" want something
bad to happen and that is a major difference between us.
Since I do not hate anyone, I will NEVER wish or hope bad to happen as you
do.
"I'm man enough not to cry about it"
And yet that is exactly what you are doing about your deleted posts.
Perhaps you are not "man enough"
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org
"Uranus Umbaba [MSFU]" <umbaba...@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:br0l129bhcnp89agt...@4ax.com...
xheggenvy
<snipped conservative FUD & Propaganda at both ends>
>(c) 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
One, WorldNetDaily! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That's a more unreliable source than the CIA!
Two, Did you seek and get their permission to reprint their
copyrighted material in its entirety here?
xheggenvy
>In article <OER2lKcS...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>,
>xpn...@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com says...
>Mike, you mean the 10 years of sanctions, the monitoring that was
>diverted by Iraq, the years of letting them kill us, didn't count in
>your mind?
When did Iraq kill any American after the first Gulf War?
And the sanctions & inspections worked good enough to rid Saddam of
WMDs by the mid-1990s!
xheggenvy
<kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+advisors+leo+strauss&btnG=Google+Search
Yep, them Neo-Nazis, er, I mean NeoCons are a greater danger to the
world than Radical Islam.
Alias
> In article <en8pIsdS...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> LOL! You have avoided just about every fact I've posted.
>>
>> For example, can you answer this question that you snipped?:
>
> don't see the point in answering it - to answer any part would indicate
> I believe in what you state in parts of the question - and I'm not
> falling for that crap from you.
>
Translation: Leythos has no credible response and, once again, relies on
ad hominems to lamely try to hide that fact.