Loss of Usenet Messages
Eric Joslin
In article <3291A9...@earthlink.net>, bou...@earthlink.net says...
> James Garner wrote:
> >
> > It appears that we have once again had a loss of Usenet messages.
>
>
> Probably censorship of articles deemed not appropriate for you.
>
> Steve
TIAC does not censor news articles in any way.
Eric Joslin
TIAC Customer Service
Frank Sandy
In article <56shoe$8...@news-central.tiac.net>,
Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
> da...@laraby.tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
>
> >It appears that we have once again had a loss of Usenet messages. The
> >groups indicate X number of messages from the newsgroup listing screen
> >(which numbers are well below normal numbers) but when I actually enter a
> >newsgroup, which for example has normally 30-40 messages overnight, I find
> >that it only has 4-5 messages.
> >What is it now?
> I suppose you have the group's name, right?
> Tim
I have also seen that problem in almost every group, this morning.
I do not understand why TIM always first has to pretend he has no idea
a problem exists, when just looking at news will show it. But if you
really need an example, here is a clip from rolling back my screen to
the group I just read (with trn on sunspot).
====== 118 unread articles in rec.backcountry -- read now? [+ynq]
Threading 66 articles....
---
Frank Sandy fsa...@tiac.net
Timothy W. Jackson
Stephen Boursy
James Garner wrote:
>
> It appears that we have once again had a loss of Usenet messages. The
> groups indicate X number of messages from the newsgroup listing screen
> (which numbers are well below normal numbers) but when I actually enter
> a newsgroup, which for example has normally 30-40 messages overnight,
> I find that it only has 4-5 messages.
>
> What is it now?
Probably censorship of articles deemed not appropriate for you.
That's where it pays to have multiple providers--you can see for
yourself what it being kept from you on a given provider. What
group is it--will check various providers if you like and repost
those your missing if you like.
Steve
Peter Mannix
Eric Joslin (er...@tiac.net) wrote:
: In article <3291A9...@earthlink.net>, bou...@earthlink.net says...
: >
: > Probably censorship of articles deemed not appropriate for you.
: >
: TIAC does not censor news articles in any way.
Pssst... i think he was kidding...
-peter mannix
--
PGP2.6.3 Key fingerprint = 85 A3 2F 39 9B 73 05 54 9A EB 5D 37 72 FA FA DE
John Reder
Stephen Boursy wrote:
>
> James Garner wrote:
> >
> > It appears that we have once again had a loss of Usenet messages. The
> > groups indicate X number of messages from the newsgroup listing screen
> > (which numbers are well below normal numbers) but when I actually enter
> > a newsgroup, which for example has normally 30-40 messages overnight,
> > I find that it only has 4-5 messages.
> >
> > What is it now?
>
> yourself what it being kept from you on a given provider. What
> group is it--will check various providers if you like and repost
> those your missing if you like.
>
SALINGER!!!!
--
_\|/_
(o o)
--------o00-(_)-00o---------
John Reder (jre...@tiac.net)
Steven P. Underwood
er...@tiac.net (Eric Joslin) wrote:
>In article <3291A9...@earthlink.net>, bou...@earthlink.net says...
>> James Garner wrote:
>> >
>> > It appears that we have once again had a loss of Usenet messages.
>>
>>
>> Probably censorship of articles deemed not appropriate for you.
>>
>> Steve
>
>TIAC does not censor news articles in any way.
>
>Eric Joslin
>TIAC Customer Service
>
Except that I can not get ne.internet.services.ads because TimJ does not like
it.
Steve
Steve & Beth Underwood
sunde...@sysmaint.com - work
ste...@ultranet.com - soon to be replaced
ste...@tiac.net - current test account
EskWIRED
James Garner (da...@laraby.tiac.net) wrote:
: It appears that we have once again had a loss of Usenet messages. The
: groups indicate X number of messages from the newsgroup listing screen
: (which numbers are well below normal numbers) but when I actually enter a
: newsgroup, which for example has normally 30-40 messages overnight, I find
: that it only has 4-5 messages.
: What is it now?
This could be a glitch in your newsrc. I had a similar problem (when using tin,
not freeagent) and I cured it via some newsrc housekeeping.
--
=========================================================
--------...@shore.net------------
=========================================================
Charles M Richmond
Steven P. Underwood wrote:
>
> er...@tiac.net (Eric Joslin) wrote:
>
> >In article <3291A9...@earthlink.net>, bou...@earthlink.net says...
> >> >
> >> > It appears that we have once again had a loss of Usenet messages.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> >TIAC does not censor news articles in any way.
> >
> >Eric Joslin
> >TIAC Customer Service
> >
>
> Except that I can not get ne.internet.services.ads because TimJ
> does not like it.
>
and Tim D's account was cut by TIAC solely because of his posts. Posts
which did not contain any foul language or commercial spam.
But what the heck, just because a newsgoup is censored in its entirety
and a user is completely cut off based on the contents of the posts...
That cn't be censorship.... TIAC tells us that they don't practice
censorship. Pardon me while I vomit.
Charlie
--
***********************************************************************
* Charles Richmond Integrated International Systems Corporation *
* c...@iisc.com c...@koibito.iisc.com c...@shore.net *
* UNIX Internals, I18N, L10N, X, Realtime Imaging, and Custom S/W *
* One Longfellow Place Suite 3309 , Boston , Ma. USA 02114-2431 *
* (617) 723 7695 (617) 367 3151 FAX (617) 723 6861 *
***********************************************************************
Bob Zwarick
I'm not seeing that here. Everything seems to "add up".
Bob
James Garner <da...@laraby.tiac.net> wrote in article
<56s2nq$m...@news-central.tiac.net>...
Ed Foster
> er...@tiac.net (Eric Joslin) wrote:
> >TIAC does not censor news articles in any way.
> >
> >Eric Joslin
> >TIAC Customer Service
> >
>
> Except that I can not get ne.internet.services.ads because TimJ does not like
> it.
Well, you could drop TIAC and try Ziplink. Voting with your feet, so to
speak, can send a powerful message.
--
Ed Foster
erfo...@ziplink.net
Stephen Boursy
Ed Foster wrote:
>
>> Except that I can not get ne.internet.services.ads because TimJ
>> does not like it.
Yes--open competition is a terrible thing!
> Well, you could drop TIAC and try Ziplink. Voting with your feet,
> so to speak, can send a powerful message.
>
Yes--Ziplink is very good and Ed and I can't stand each other
and never agree on anything else. What's more--the set up is
very easy--if Ed can do it than anyone can.
Any decent provider carries any news group a customer requests;
in fact reading ne.internet.services regularly for quite sometime
now indicates TIAC is the only local New England provider that
will not give their customers any group requested.
Steve
> --
> Ed Foster
> erfo...@ziplink.net
Stephen Boursy
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Eric Joslin
> TIAC Customer Service
>
Nice to hear. So you by default have cancels turned off??
Users who check 'control' will note a majority of them are
forged. At earthlink and dhp they have them turned off by
default as well--much better--no 'missing' articles.
Another way you can miss articles though is if your provider
does not have redundancy in its newsfeeds--for example if they
rely soley on UUNET they'll get a very filtered feed coming
in. Check with your provider to ensure they are getting
multiple feeds so that you may do your own filtering.
Steve
James E. Carpenter
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 06:37:32 -0500, Stephen Boursy <bou...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> TIAC does not censor news articles in any way.
> Nice to hear. So you by default have cancels turned off??
>Users who check 'control' will note a majority of them are
>forged. At earthlink and dhp they have them turned off by
>default as well--much better--no 'missing' articles.
I guess I'll never be an earthlink or dhp customer then. I _think_ you'll
find a majority of those forged cancel messages are from cancelbots mopping
up spam. That type of censorship I'd want!
I just had to close a gateway between my mailing list, pdp8-lovers, and
alt.sys.pdp8 because in less then 48 hours we had a half-dozen spams! Now
I have to find another NNTP server that _does_ process cancel messages so
I can re-open it.
If every site stops processing cancel messages I think even the most
tolerent users would find USENET to be un-readable.
> Another way you can miss articles though is if your provider
>does not have redundancy in its newsfeeds--for example if they
>rely soley on UUNET they'll get a very filtered feed coming
>in. Check with your provider to ensure they are getting
>multiple feeds so that you may do your own filtering.
True. However I think UUNET's feed is pretty good. But this is the least of
TIAC's problems. It looks to me like for the second time in a few weeks
they've lost thousands or tens of thousands of articles. If thats happening
it doesn't really matter how good your feed is or whether or not you process
cancel messages! :-(
- Jim
--
James E. Carpenter E-Mail: ji...@zach1.tiac.net
6 Munroe Drive
Plainville, MA 02762-1108 ICBM: 42 00' 15"N 71 20' 00"W
Peter Peck
In article <erfoster-ya023180...@news.ziplink.net>,
erfo...@zipnet.net (Ed Foster) wrote:
Voting with your feet, so to
|speak, can send a powerful message.
|
Yea especially if your feet stink. ;-)
Good Luck - Peter
Rich Sena
james the tos - is the basis of the business relationship between tiac
and it's customers - it is not insulting or stupid - it's simply the
terms in which the customer and the provider have entered into business
together
i personally think it is quite foolish to purchase something without
knowing the terms of purchase
check it out
peacelovejoyrich
* * * . * * * . * * * . * * * . * * * . * | Richard A. Sena, Jr.
* . . * . . . * . . * . * . * . . . * | macintosh tech sr
* * . . * . . . * . . * * * . * . . . * * | r...@tiac.net
* . . * . . . * . . * . * . * . . . * | m...@tiac.net
* . . * . . * * * . * . * . * * * . * * * | http://richsena.tiac.net
On 21 Nov 1996, James Garner wrote:
> Rich Sena (r...@tiac.net) wrote:
>
> : mr jackson has the right to do so under the tos for tiac service - it's
> : available on the web page if you would like to take a look at it
>
> Rich, please, don't insult the intelligence of everyone on the
> newsgroup. This is such a stupid comment, even my computer noticed it.
>
> "mr jackson" writes whatever he wants to in the "tos" (terms of
> service). If he doesn't like something, he can change it. It's not as if
> he is being held to any objective requirement placed by an objective
> observer.
>
>
>
Steven P. Underwood
erfo...@zipnet.net (Ed Foster) wrote:
>In article <329246db...@news.tiac.net>, ste...@tiac.net wrote:
>
>> er...@tiac.net (Eric Joslin) wrote:
>
>> >TIAC does not censor news articles in any way.
>> >
>> >Eric Joslin
>> >TIAC Customer Service
>> >
>>
>> Except that I can not get ne.internet.services.ads because TimJ does not like
>> it.
>
>
>Well, you could drop TIAC and try Ziplink. Voting with your feet, so to
>speak, can send a powerful message.
>
>--
>Ed Foster
>erfo...@ziplink.net
I am at TIAC now only because I could not find a better ISP local to
Whitinsville, MA (508-234). I have checked with your company, and they are
supposed to e-mail me when you become local to me. I need to spend as little
for internet access as possible with the new house and all, so the expanded
calling plans are out. thecia.net is supposed to be "coming to a phone number
near me" any time now. I just wish they would hurry up. Thank you for the
reply. As soon as I get a better offer, I am out of here.
Misty K Dean
Charles M Richmond <c...@iisc.com> wrote:
>Steven P. Underwood wrote:
>>
>> er...@tiac.net (Eric Joslin) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3291A9...@earthlink.net>, bou...@earthlink.net says...
>> >> James Garner wrote:
>> >> >
(snip)
>and Tim D's account was cut by TIAC solely because of his posts. Posts
>which did not contain any foul language or commercial spam.
But which did contain derogatory statements regarding his wife, no
matter how much it was supposed to be deemed as "humor", and many have
agreed that they would have done the same thing.
>But what the heck, just because a newsgoup is censored in its entirety
>and a user is completely cut off based on the contents of the posts...
The whole story about ne.ads is something that was never resolved.
Judging a companies so called "censorship" by a decision not to carry
a group that was put up to a vote, and from what I heard, lost badly,
is not really a valid thing to do. And Tim D was never censored, he is
can still speak freely. He was just asked to speak somewhere else.
>That cn't be censorship.... TIAC tells us that they don't practice
>censorship. Pardon me while I vomit.
I work at TIAC, and we don't. I'm sorry your not feeling well.
EskWIRED
Misty K Dean (flna...@tiac.net) wrote:
: But which did contain derogatory statements regarding his wife, no
Umm.....No it didn't. Correct me if I'm wrong, by quoting the derogatory
statement.
: a group that was put up to a vote, and from what I heard, lost badly,
: is not really a valid thing to do. And Tim D was never censored, he is
Hey Misty--spouting inaccuracies, especially when they are based (as this one is)
on hearsay, is also "not really a valid thing to do". The vote was not
determinative. The group did not, by any stretch, lose "badly".
Thank God for Deja News. It lets historical realities be recreated, even in the
face of selective memory.
--
=========================================================
--------...@shore.net------------
=========================================================
Bruce Wyman
In article <Pine.NEB.3.91.961120...@max.tiac.net>, Rich
Sena <r...@tiac.net> wrote:
>james the tos - is the basis of the business relationship between tiac
>and it's customers - it is not insulting or stupid - it's simply the
>terms in which the customer and the provider have entered into business
>together
>
>i personally think it is quite foolish to purchase something without
>knowing the terms of purchase
Hmm, some of us have been here longer than the terms of service existed...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bruce Wyman bwy...@neaq.org / b...@tiac.net
Webmaster, New England Aquarium <http://www.neaq.org/>
"I like reality, It tastes of bread." -J. Aliyoueh
Stephen Boursy
Charles M Richmond <c...@iisc.com> wrote:
>
>Steven P. Underwood wrote:
>>
>> er...@tiac.net (Eric Joslin) wrote:
>>
>>>bou...@earthlink.net says...
>>>
>>>> James Garner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Probably censorship of articles deemed not appropriate for you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Eric Joslin
>>>TIAC Customer Service
>>>
>>
>> Except that I can not get ne.internet.services.ads because TimJ
>> does not like it.
>>
>
>which did not contain any foul language or commercial spam.
>
That's true--and in any event 'foul language' is no
business of an ISP anyway--hell--you'd be in deep shit if
it was.
>But what the heck, just because a newsgoup is censored in its entirety
>and a user is completely cut off based on the contents of the posts...
>
It says a great deal about the character of the CEO of
TIAC and how they view their customers. There was another
customer in who posted in this group stating he lost his
TIAC account because he would not apologize to their CEO
for saying 'fuck' in email!!!
>That cn't be censorship.... TIAC tells us that they don't practice
>censorship. Pardon me while I vomit.
>
>Charlie
One of the few times we agree on anything Charlie. They
are actually trying to have the group removed this time--seems
like competitive advertising is a no-no for TIAC--imagine
if customers realized they had better options!
Steve
Roger Williams
Stephen Boursy (bou...@zipnet.net) wrote:
<snip>
: It says a great deal about the character of the CEO of
: TIAC and how they view their customers. There was another
: customer in who posted in this group stating he lost his
: TIAC account because he would not apologize to their CEO
: for saying 'fuck' in email!!!
Steve, you've become quite famous for believing anything you're told by
anyone. Your weird Grubor groupie-ism is proof enough of that. Just
because I claim the moon is made from green cheese doesn't mean it's so,
Skippy.
<Boursy gibberish deleted>
--
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} read alt.fan.speedbump!
{} Roger W. TIAC Customer Service Rep {} \|/ /
{} (617) 276-7200 rog...@max.tiac.net {} 0<
{} Only Boursy could say my opinion = TIAC's {} ^^^^(*)^^^^
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ^^ / \ ^^
Macaws...Senegals...Greys...get the FAQ! http://www.upatsix.com/faq/
Stephen Boursy
>
>>and Tim D's account was cut by TIAC solely because of his posts. Posts
>>which did not contain any foul language or commercial spam.
>
So what??? TIAC just stated in this group that they do not censor
and here you are openly admitting and defending it.
> no matter how much it was supposed to be deemed as "humor", and many
> have agreed that they would have done the same thing.
Shouldn't matter--TIAC just claimed in this group it didn't censor
and that as you have just admitted is untrue. I have questions about
Tim Jacksons wife as well--to be married to such a fool shows at the
very least poor taste and/or desparation.
> >That cn't be censorship.... TIAC tells us that they don't practice
> >censorship. Pardon me while I vomit.
>
> I work at TIAC, and we don't. I'm sorry your not feeling well.
Tough finding a decent job huh?
Steve
EskWIRED
James Garner (da...@laraby.tiac.net) wrote:
: Let's cut through the BS.
: If TIAC users request that TIAC get this newsgroup, will the CEO
: of TIAC, TimJ, get the newsgroup, or will he continue to refuse?
Jim--There's only one way to find out!
--
=========================================================
--------...@shore.net------------
=========================================================
Stephen Boursy
EskWIRED wrote:
>
> James Garner (da...@laraby.tiac.net) wrote:
>
>: Let's cut through the BS.
>
>: If TIAC users request that TIAC get this newsgroup, will the CEO
>: of TIAC, TimJ, get the newsgroup, or will he continue to refuse?
>
> Jim--There's only one way to find out!
>
All other New England providers--shore.net, ziplink.net, thecia.net,
etc. that I've seen have pledged to carry any group a customer
requests. TIAC is the exception already given that they are reading
posts from their own customers which publically complain that they
cannot read ne.internet.services.ads.
Perhaps TIAC does not believe in having their customers know of
other options.
Steve
Timothy W. Jackson
Stephen Boursy <bou...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Shouldn't matter--TIAC just claimed in this group it didn't censor
>and that as you have just admitted is untrue. I have questions about
>Tim Jacksons wife as well--to be married to such a fool shows at the
>very least poor taste and/or desparation.
Boy, you are an assaholic (chronic asshole). Perhaps you cannot find
someone who loves you and therefor you must scorn other peoples
success in finding lifelong partners. You are a pathetic, depraved
and generally a despot. Crawl back into the primordial ooze and try
to get it right this time.
Tim
Rich Sena
steve again - their is nothing censoriuos (geez is that a word) in
terminating a buisness relationship according to the terms that both
parties afreed upon at it's inception - and censorship would be filterring
out td's posts - everyone of them is/was there even the one that led to
mr jackson's decision to terminate the relationship
also as stated time and again - td has every oportunity to access to the
interenet - just not with TIAC - he is not being censored
peacelovejoyrich
* * * . * * * . * * * . * * * . * * * . * | Richard A. Sena, Jr.
* . . * . . . * . . * . * . * . . . * | macintosh tech sr
* * . . * . . . * . . * * * . * . . . * * | r...@tiac.net
* . . * . . . * . . * . * . * . . . * | m...@tiac.net
* . . * . . * * * . * . * . * * * . * * * | http://richsena.tiac.net
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Stephen Boursy wrote:
> Misty K Dean wrote:
> >
> > Charles M Richmond <c...@iisc.com> wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >>and Tim D's account was cut by TIAC solely because of his posts. Posts
> >>which did not contain any foul language or commercial spam.
> >
> > But which did contain derogatory statements regarding his wife,
>
>
> So what??? TIAC just stated in this group that they do not censor
> and here you are openly admitting and defending it.
>
>
> > no matter how much it was supposed to be deemed as "humor", and many
> > have agreed that they would have done the same thing.
>
> Shouldn't matter--TIAC just claimed in this group it didn't censor
> and that as you have just admitted is untrue. I have questions about
> Tim Jacksons wife as well--to be married to such a fool shows at the
> very least poor taste and/or desparation.
>
>
S.M.S.
Stephen Boursy (bou...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: >>and Tim D's account was cut by TIAC solely because of his posts. Posts
: >>which did not contain any foul language or commercial spam.
: >
: > But which did contain derogatory statements regarding his wife,
:
:
: So what??? TIAC just stated in this group that they do not censor
: and here you are openly admitting and defending it.
Once again you seem to be missing the point, speedbump. TIAC never censored
what Tim Duggan wrote. He was allowed to post whatever he wanted up until
the point where Tim Jackson felt that Duggan's "satire" crossed the boundary
of good taste. The removal of his account was not censorship.
: > no matter how much it was supposed to be deemed as "humor", and many
: > have agreed that they would have done the same thing.
: Shouldn't matter--TIAC just claimed in this group it didn't censor
: and that as you have just admitted is untrue.
No, she didn't.
: I have questions about Tim Jacksons wife as well--to be married to such a
: fool shows at the very least poor taste and/or desparation.
One could make the same statement about your wife, Steve.
--
sla...@shore.net "Those who would trade liberty for
safety deserve neither." - Ben Franklin
joe tomkowitz
>>i personally think it is quite foolish to purchase something without
>>knowing the terms of purchase
>
>Hmm, some of us have been here longer than the terms of service existed...
Since we're talking about what's analagous to a "tenant at will" situation, it
would be safe to assume that any changes in the terms would be binding as soon
as they're announced (or at the end of the month or whatever). Without a
lease, your landlord is free to raise the rent whenever he chooses and you're
free to move out without penalty whenever you choose.
-joet
Martin Hannigan
ten.ruojud-xiffus@piZ (A evetS) wrote:
>X-No-Archive: YES
>
> In the ne.internet.services Newsgroup
> On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 21:06:52 -0501, Rich Sena <r...@tiac.net> wrote:
>Personally I think it is **ULTRA** childish for tiac not to add a
>newsgroup that is such a regional value.
One of the reasons for the vote actually. Both
supporting Tims position, but also to end it if
it comes out so.
I hope Tim will carry ne.internet.services.ads if
the informal vote comes out to keep it in one
way or another.
Regards,
--
Martin Hannigan (hann...@firefly.net) Voice: 617.234.5482
Firefly Network, Inc. - Systems Group Fax: 617.234.5414
Network Engineer www.firefly.com
Firefly Alias: Skala
Martin Hannigan
ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W. Jackson) wrote:
>Stephen Boursy <bou...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Shouldn't matter--TIAC just claimed in this group it didn't censor
>>and that as you have just admitted is untrue. I have questions about
>>Tim Jacksons wife as well--to be married to such a fool shows at the
>>very least poor taste and/or desparation.
>Boy, you are an assaholic (chronic asshole). Perhaps you cannot find
>someone who loves you and therefor you must scorn other peoples
>success in finding lifelong partners. You are a pathetic, depraved
>and generally a despot. Crawl back into the primordial ooze and try
>to get it right this time.
Okay, at the risk of being accused of being Tim Jacksons pal,
or an ass swabber ;-), I have to agree.
Where does Boursy get this stuff?
Followups set to alt.fan.speedbump.
Shawn Murphy
James Garner wrote:
>Rich Sena (r...@tiac.net) wrote:
>
>: mr jackson has the right to do so under the tos for tiac service - it's
>: available on the web page if you would like to take a look at it
>
> Rich, please, don't insult the intelligence of everyone on the
>>newsgroup. This is such a stupid comment, even my computer noticed it.
newsgroup. This is such a stupid comment, even my computer noticed it. :-)
Hey James, learn how to use emoticons. :-)
IF it wasn't a joke how did your computer notice it?
Or are you too lazy to explain?
It's a free country. Go to another provider if your that pissed
off.
Look it. TIAC has it's problems. TIAC wasn't even here
( to push around ) a couple of years ago. When I first started reading Usenet when
I worked at MIT Lincoln Labs when I was a "college student" (alias: partying :-)),
about ten years ago. it was still only for big universities and government.
In other words, unless your company wanted to pay $30,000/year to go through
Nearnet, you didn't get on the internet.
( I don't know or care about the $ particuliars or who else was available
at the time. Like I said, I was a college student )
TIAC is going through growing pains. Lighten up. That goes for all of you. ;-)
Don't get me wrong, I put my reputation on the line by going with TIAC for a
56Kpbs connection to the internet.
I started at a small company a little over a year ago. They had a
14.4 connection through PSInet at the time. Inadequate for a company with a hundred
employees. ;-)
I did some research, found that we'd get the best bang for the buck, going with TIAC.
I researched PSInet, Ultranet, (who I'm a fan of, at least dial-up accounts in the
Lowell area), and TIAC.
HOWEVER, it took us damn near 3 month's to get on-line. The reason for the delay was
NYNEX, mis-comunication between TIAC staff, and the 'NIC. But they learned from it,
and according to TIAC, they've changed the way they interact with new customers and
the 'Nic.
Since we've been up and running with TIAC, we've been off the air ONCE, and that
was just e-mail.
>
> "mr jackson" writes whatever he wants to in the "tos" (terms of
>service). If he doesn't like something, he can change it. It's not as if
>he is being held to any objective requirement placed by an objective
>observer.
>
Damn straight.
--
Shawn Murphy
sha...@tiac.net
Misty K Dean
Stephen Boursy <bou...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Misty K Dean wrote:
>>
>> Charles M Richmond <c...@iisc.com> wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>>and Tim D's account was cut by TIAC solely because of his posts. Posts
>>>which did not contain any foul language or commercial spam.
>>
>> But which did contain derogatory statements regarding his wife,
> So what??? TIAC just stated in this group that they do not censor
>and here you are openly admitting and defending it.
Openly admitting censorship? You obviously missed the RIF van last
time it stopped by the local libray, because your not reading well.
Please stop manipulating what I say for your cause. Noone's buying it.
> Tough finding a decent job huh?
Actually, none at all. I have one. TIAC.
Eric Joslin
In article <574q8i$t...@zip1.ziplink.net>, upse...@zipnet.net says...
> Rich Sena (r...@tiac.net) wrote:
> : james the tos - is the basis of the business relationship between tiac
> : and it's customers - it is not insulting or stupid - it's simply the
> : terms in which the customer and the provider have entered into business
> : together
>
>
> Go back and read James' post again. His point was that since Tim Jackson
> *writes* the TOS, he can include or exclude anything he wants, depending
> on his whim.
>
> --Art
No kidding.
And Rich's point is that, since you have the ability to *read* the TOS
(or have them read to you), by using TIAC's service you are agreeing to
those terms. Which is something you can choose not to do, depending on
your whim.
Eric Joslin
TIAC
John Reder
The newsgroup messages are not lost, they have been stolen by
Bill Gates and the CIA, in a genecide plot. The messages will be placed
inside a 747 which will explode spreading them over the inner city and
making all the people become addicted to the internet. this plot is
being financed by an aasian banking group which plans to use the inner
city internet fees to raise funds for political payoffs, to be delivered
by black helicopters from Area 51.
_\|/_
(o o)
--------o00-(_)-00o---------
John Reder (jre...@tiac.net)
Peter Peck
|
|Where does Boursy get this stuff?
|
|Followups set to alt.fan.speedbump.
|
All I can say is that if SB was a fisherman the oceans would be empty. ;-)
Good Luck - Peter
Peter Peck
|The newsgroup messages are not lost, they have been stolen by
|Bill Gates and the CIA, in a genecide plot. The messages will be placed
|inside a 747 which will explode spreading them over the inner city and
|making all the people become addicted to the internet. this plot is
|being financed by an aasian banking group which plans to use the inner
|city internet fees to raise funds for political payoffs, to be delivered
|by black helicopters from Area 51.
John it's nice to see you also have time to be ....
Good Luck - Peter Andover, MA
------------------------------------
Go ahead, jump. 100,000 lemmings can't ALL be wrong...
Steven P. Underwood
da...@laraby.tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
>Roger Williams (rog...@tiac.net) wrote:
>
>: Steve, you've become quite famous for believing anything you're told by
>: anyone. Your weird Grubor groupie-ism is proof enough of that. Just
>: because I claim the moon is made from green cheese doesn't mean it's so,
>: Skippy.
>
> Let's cut through the BS.
>
> If TIAC users request that TIAC get this newsgroup, will the CEO
>of TIAC, TimJ, get the newsgroup, or will he continue to refuse?
>
> Never mind how it got started. TIAC users want the group, whether
>it's 2 users or 20 users. There are plenty of other groups among the
>15-20 thousand that TIAC gets that have less interest in them.
>
> Will TIAC get a Usenet newsgroup that its users request, or will
>TImJ continue to personally censor his newsfeed?
We should see soon as I recently "officially" requested the ng by emailing
ne...@tiac.net. I am checking the new groups every day to see if it is added,
and will let people know when (if) it does. Personnally, I doubt it as TimJ has
taken such a strong stance against it.
As a sidebar, there seems to be an undercurrent of discussion starting in the
tiac ng reguarding this very issue, so maybe enough people will request it to
change TimJ's mind.
Steve
Steve & Beth Underwood
ste...@poboxes.com
Stephen Boursy
Steven P. Underwood wrote:
>
> da...@laraby.tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
>
>>
>> Let's cut through the BS.
>>
>> If TIAC users request that TIAC get this newsgroup, will the CEO
>>of TIAC, TimJ, get the newsgroup, or will he continue to refuse?
>>
>> Never mind how it got started. TIAC users want the group, whether
>>it's 2 users or 20 users. There are plenty of other groups among the
>>15-20 thousand that TIAC gets that have less interest in them.
>>
>> Will TIAC get a Usenet newsgroup that its users request, or will
>>TImJ continue to personally censor his newsfeed?
>
> We should see soon as I recently "officially" requested the ng by
> emailing ne...@tiac.net. I am checking the new groups every day to
> see if it is added, and will let people know when (if) it does.
> Personnally, I doubt it as TimJ has taken such a strong stance
> against it.
>
> As a sidebar, there seems to be an undercurrent of discussion
> starting in the tiac ng reguarding this very issue, so maybe enough
> people will request it to change TimJ's mind.
>
What is so odd is that TIAC is the only NE ISP that I've seen
(in ne.internet.services and ne.internet.services.ads) that refuses
to carry any news group a customer requests. In this instance
it seems solely based on the fact that they don't want their
customers to review ads for alternative providers.
Steve
Pete Davis
Stephen Boursy (bou...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: What is so odd is that TIAC is the only NE ISP that I've seen
: (in ne.internet.services and ne.internet.services.ads) that refuses
: to carry any news group a customer requests. In this instance
: it seems solely based on the fact that they don't want their
: customers to review ads for alternative providers.
ne.internet.services.ads was added to our feed yesterday.
-Pete
--
=========================================================================
Peter Davis - Sr. Systems & Network Engineer <pe...@tiac.net>
The Internet Access Company PO Box 1098 Bedford MA 617-932-2000
Mail in...@tiac.net for a list of access-points!
=========================================================================
Rich Sena
and which point did you miss in my statement sophocles - regardless of the
fact that tiac wrote the tos - it is binding on the condition of service
between tiac and its customers
peacelovejoyrich
* * * . * * * . * * * . * * * . * * * . * | Richard A. Sena, Jr.
* . . * . . . * . . * . * . * . . . * | macintosh tech sr
* * . . * . . . * . . * * * . * . . . * * | r...@tiac.net
* . . * . . . * . . * . * . * . . . * | m...@tiac.net
* . . * . . * * * . * . * . * * * . * * * | http://richsena.tiac.net
On 22 Nov 1996, Scratchie wrote:
> Rich Sena (r...@tiac.net) wrote:
> : james the tos - is the basis of the business relationship between tiac
> : and it's customers - it is not insulting or stupid - it's simply the
> : terms in which the customer and the provider have entered into business
> : together
>
> No kidding, Einstein.
>
> Go back and read James' post again. His point was that since Tim Jackson
> *writes* the TOS, he can include or exclude anything he wants, depending
> on his whim.
>
> --Art
>
>
> : On 21 Nov 1996, James Garner wrote:
>
> : > Rich Sena (r...@tiac.net) wrote:
> : >
> : > : mr jackson has the right to do so under the tos for tiac service - it's
> : > : available on the web page if you would like to take a look at it
> : >
> : > Rich, please, don't insult the intelligence of everyone on the
> : > newsgroup. This is such a stupid comment, even my computer noticed it.
> : >
> : > "mr jackson" writes whatever he wants to in the "tos" (terms of
> : > service). If he doesn't like something, he can change it. It's not as if
> : > he is being held to any objective requirement placed by an objective
> : > observer.
> : >
> : >
> : >
>
> --
>
> *NEW* Interactive Ska & Reggae Calendar:
> http://www.cybercom.net/~upsetter/ska/calendar.html
>
>
Martin Hannigan
pe...@eagle.deardorff.com (Pete Davis) wrote:
>Stephen Boursy (bou...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>: What is so odd is that TIAC is the only NE ISP that I've seen
>: (in ne.internet.services and ne.internet.services.ads) that refuses
>: to carry any news group a customer requests. In this instance
>: it seems solely based on the fact that they don't want their
>: customers to review ads for alternative providers.
>ne.internet.services.ads was added to our feed yesterday.
Geez, da bump is a little out of date, eh? <snicker>.
One more notch on the Boursy Credibility index.
Stephen Boursy
>:>>which did not contain any foul language or commercial spam.
>:>
>:> But which did contain derogatory statements regarding his wife,
>:
>:
>: So what??? TIAC just stated in this group that they do not censor
>: and here you are openly admitting and defending it.
>
>
>what Tim Duggan wrote. He was allowed to post whatever he wanted up until
>the point where Tim Jackson felt that Duggan's "satire" crossed the boundary
>of good taste. The removal of his account was not censorship.
That's an odd take on things. The CEO Timmy Jackson pulled Duggan's
plug when he didn't personally approve of the contents of his posts. That's
censorship pure and simple.
>:> no matter how much it was supposed to be deemed as "humor", and many
>:> have agreed that they would have done the same thing.
>
>: Shouldn't matter--TIAC just claimed in this group it didn't censor
>: and that as you have just admitted is untrue.
>
>No, she didn't.
Says who?
>: I have questions about Tim Jacksons wife as well--to be married to such a
>: fool shows at the very least poor taste and/or desparation.
>
>
>One could make the same statement about your wife, Steve.
>
Well sure they could--at least hopefully they'd be
free so. She's more into the web but does follow the new
england groups as well as the christian theology rubbish
in that set of groups but she's an AOL lurker despite my
best efforts.
Steve
Stephen Boursy
Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>: (in ne.internet.services and ne.internet.services.ads) that refuses
>>: to carry any news group a customer requests. In this instance
>>: it seems solely based on the fact that they don't want their
>>: customers to review ads for alternative providers.
>
>>ne.internet.services.ads was added to our feed yesterday.
>
> Geez, da bump is a little out of date, eh? <snicker>.
>
> One more notch on the Boursy Credibility index.
You're such low life liar Martin--all a user need do is
check Alta Vista and read the very long history of trying to
get TIAC to carry the group. It was only when it was posted
out to the ne.general group that they finally caved in--also
note recent posts regarding growing complaints of TIAC users
that they would not carry it.
Steve
Stephen Boursy
Timothy B Duggan wrote:
>
> pe...@eagle.deardorff.com (Pete Davis) wrote:
>
> >ne.internet.services.ads was added to our feed yesterday.
>
>
> How does TimJ keep his customers from reading ne.i.s.a ? The same way
> he keeps them from reading all of the other newsgroups - HE ADDS THE
> GROUP TO THE TIAC NEWSSERVER.
>
> Clever, Tim, very clever.
>
> tim
Probably his wife's idea.
Steve
Rich Sena
hmmmmm - customers voiced a valid interest in the group - not just a
reactionary few - and mr jackson put aside his personal feelings
regarding the group and decided to add it
what don't you understand bump?
peacelveojoyrich
* * * . * * * . * * * . * * * . * * * . * | Richard A. Sena, Jr.
* . . * . . . * . . * . * . * . . . * | macintosh tech sr
* * . . * . . . * . . * * * . * . . . * * | r...@tiac.net
* . . * . . . * . . * . * . * . . . * | m...@tiac.net
* . . * . . * * * . * . * . * * * . * * * | http://richsena.tiac.net
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Stephen Boursy wrote:
> Martin Hannigan wrote:
> >
> > pe...@eagle.deardorff.com (Pete Davis) wrote:
> >
> >>Stephen Boursy (bou...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> >
> >>: What is so odd is that TIAC is the only NE ISP that I've seen
> >>: (in ne.internet.services and ne.internet.services.ads) that refuses
> >>: to carry any news group a customer requests. In this instance
> >>: it seems solely based on the fact that they don't want their
> >>: customers to review ads for alternative providers.
> >
> >>ne.internet.services.ads was added to our feed yesterday.
> >
Timothy B Duggan
pe...@eagle.deardorff.com (Pete Davis) wrote:
>ne.internet.services.ads was added to our feed yesterday.
>-Pete
cra...@os.com
eskw...@shore.net (EskWIRED) wrote:>James Garner (da...@laraby.tiac.net) wrote:
>This could be a glitch in your newsrc. I had a similar problem (when using tin,
>not freeagent) and I cured it via some newsrc housekeeping.
>
Combine that with a news server that has very short expires and you'll often see
incorrect article counts.
-Craig
S.M.S.
Stephen Boursy (bou...@zipnet.net) wrote:
: >Once again you seem to be missing the point, speedbump. TIAC never
: >censored what Tim Duggan wrote. He was allowed to post whatever he
: >wanted up until the point where Tim Jackson felt that Duggan's
: >"satire" crossed the boundary of good taste. The removal of his
: >account was not censorship.
:
: That's an odd take on things. The CEO Timmy Jackson pulled Duggan's
: plug when he didn't personally approve of the contents of his posts.
: That's censorship pure and simple.
No, it's not. If Tim Jackson had Tim Duggans posts cancelled, then it
could beconsidered censorship. Your definition of the word is incorrect.
: >: Shouldn't matter--TIAC just claimed in this group it didn't censor
: >: and that as you have just admitted is untrue.
: >
: >No, she didn't.
:
: Says who?
Says her, and anyone else that read her post and had reading comprehension
skills above a third grade level.
Ed Foster
In article <577s8s$e...@zip1.ziplink.net>, bou...@zipnet.net (Stephen
Boursy) wrote:
> S.M.S. <sla...@shore.net> wrote:
> >
> >Stephen Boursy (bou...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> >
> >:>>and Tim D's account was cut by TIAC solely because of his posts. Posts
> >:>>which did not contain any foul language or commercial spam.
> >:>
> >:> But which did contain derogatory statements regarding his wife,
> >:
> >:
> >: So what??? TIAC just stated in this group that they do not censor
> >: and here you are openly admitting and defending it.
> >
> >
> >Once again you seem to be missing the point, speedbump. TIAC never censored
> >what Tim Duggan wrote. He was allowed to post whatever he wanted up until
> >the point where Tim Jackson felt that Duggan's "satire" crossed the boundary
> >of good taste. The removal of his account was not censorship.
>
>
> That's an odd take on things. The CEO Timmy Jackson pulled Duggan's
> plug when he didn't personally approve of the contents of his posts. That's
> censorship pure and simple.
It's not an odd take and it's not censorship. Tim Jackson simply told an
obnoxious customer to take his business elsewhere. Tim Duggan's posts,
from his new ISP, can still be read by TIACs customers, so where is the
censorship? Try to understand a simple fact - an owner of a business can,
for almost any reason, or for no reason whatsoever, tell an obnoxious
customer to take a hike, a fact that Barry Shein recently brought home to
you. YOU can call it censorship all you want but it doesn't make it so.
Your continuing to do so simply destroys you credibility (outside the kook
cabal, of course) so that if some day you actually say something reasonable
no one will take you seriously.
--
Ed Foster
erfo...@ziplink.net
also appearing at http://www.mindspring.com/~netscum/fostere0.html
Stephen Boursy
Rich Sena <r...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
>hmmmmm - customers voiced a valid interest in the group - not just a
>reactionary few - and mr jackson put aside his personal feelings
>regarding the group and decided to add it
>
>what don't you understand bump?
>
Ah--but I do understand--your statement is not
inconsistent with my statement below but it does
differ from the Hannigan propoganda. You must
admit TIACs refusal to carry ne.internet.services.ads
was a major ongoing topic in ne.internet.services for
quite some time--it was only when it was adequately
discussed via crossposting that enough of your
customers got angry about it.
Now it appears all New England service providers
in ne.internet.services have agreed to carry any
group a customer requests--is this not now the TIAC
policy?
Steve
>peacelveojoyrich
>
>
>* * * . * * * . * * * . * * * . * * * . * | Richard A. Sena, Jr.
> * . . * . . . * . . * . * . * . . . * | macintosh tech sr
>* * . . * . . . * . . * * * . * . . . * * | r...@tiac.net
> * . . * . . . * . . * . * . * . . . * | m...@tiac.net
>* . . * . . * * * . * . * . * * * . * * * | http://richsena.tiac.net
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Stephen Boursy wrote:
>
>> Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> >
>> > pe...@eagle.deardorff.com (Pete Davis) wrote:
>> >
>> >>Stephen Boursy (bou...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>> >
>> >>: What is so odd is that TIAC is the only NE ISP that I've seen
>> >>: (in ne.internet.services and ne.internet.services.ads) that refuses
>> >>: to carry any news group a customer requests. In this instance
>> >>: it seems solely based on the fact that they don't want their
>> >>: customers to review ads for alternative providers.
>> >
>> >>ne.internet.services.ads was added to our feed yesterday.
>> >
Timothy W. Jackson
bou...@zipnet.net (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
>Rich Sena <r...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>
>>hmmmmm - customers voiced a valid interest in the group - not just a
>>reactionary few - and mr jackson put aside his personal feelings
>>regarding the group and decided to add it
>>
>>what don't you understand bump?
>>
> Ah--but I do understand--your statement is not
>inconsistent with my statement below but it does
>differ from the Hannigan propoganda. You must
>admit TIACs refusal to carry ne.internet.services.ads
>was a major ongoing topic in ne.internet.services for
>quite some time--it was only when it was adequately
>discussed via crossposting that enough of your
>customers got angry about it.
> Now it appears all New England service providers
>in ne.internet.services have agreed to carry any
>group a customer requests--is this not now the TIAC
>policy?
> Steve
Nice bait job, but at the risk of pissing you off so you can endlessly
drone on about how I censor USENET, TIAC has the right to carry or not
carry any newsgroup as it sees fit. Every new group is granted access
on a case by case basis. I am not going to sit around and watch you
attempt to create any group that you want and then we have to honor it
because of your lame brained concept that ISP's should just accept any
amount of shit you dish out. You show me some proof that *all*
providers have this policy. You don't even know all the providers in
New England. You make this stuff up.
Tim
Stephen Boursy
Timothy W. Jackson (CEO of TIAC) wrote:
>
> bou...@zipnet.net (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
>
> > Now it appears all New England service providers
> >in ne.internet.services have agreed to carry any
> >group a customer requests--is this not now the TIAC
> >policy?
>
>
Thank you Timmy. But it really wasn't a 'bait job'--
only an attempt at clarity regarding your policies.
> but at the risk of pissing you off so you can endlessly
> drone on about how I censor USENET, TIAC has the right to
> carry or not carry any newsgroup as it sees fit. Every
> new group is granted access on a case by case basis.
But you didn't answer the basic question Timmy. Every
other New England provider in ne.internet.services, when
asked, has clearly stated they carry ANY newsgroup a
customer requests. This includes ziplink, shore.net,
thecia.net, etc. It appears your answer is that you will
not but again you're being very vague.
> I am not going to sit around and watch you
> attempt to create any group that you want and then we have to honor it
> because of your lame brained concept that ISP's should just accept any
> amount of shit you dish out.
I've requested and received almost instantly any group
I requested at ziplink, thecia, aol, earthlink, dhp, etc.
including alt.uunet.anti-trust, sci.med.cannabis,
misc.activism.cannabis, news.admin.policy,
alt.fan.karl-malden.nose, etc. I had no part in the
creation of any of those groups Timmy--with the exception
of the first. When on world.std they too carried any newsgroup
requested by a customer--haven't heard anything to the contrary.
Steve
Stephen Boursy
A evetS wrote:
>
>Rich Sena <r...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
>>hmmmmm - customers voiced a valid interest in the group - not just a
>>reactionary few -
>
> something for your users. does it? I mean do you do a psychological
> evaluation on every one of your customers requests??
From CEO Timmy Jackson's recent comments it seems TIAC is the
only New England provider which conducts such a psychological
profile--the others just add any group a customer requests.
>> and mr jackson put aside his personal feelings
>>regarding the group and decided to add it
>
> Mr. Jackson had no choice in it. I seriously think he realized he was
> being childish and decided to add it, just after his littlle public
> tantrum.
>
Yes--he had no choice and now he's angry.
Steve
Stephen Boursy
>>>
>>> bou...@zipnet.net (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now it appears all New England service providers
>>>>in ne.internet.services have agreed to carry any
>>>>group a customer requests--is this not now the TIAC
>>>>policy?
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice bait job,
>
>
>
>> But you didn't answer the basic question Timmy. Every
>>other New England provider in ne.internet.services, when
>>asked, has clearly stated they carry ANY newsgroup a
>>customer requests. This includes ziplink, shore.net,
>>thecia.net, etc. It appears your answer is that you will
>>not but again you're being very vague.
>
>discussed and approved in the big-eight or in alt.config.
Sure they did Martin and you know that--it
was discussed in ne.internet.services. shore.net,
ziplink.net, thecia.net, etc. specifically said
they carry any group a user requests--that was
also the case at world.std.co that would also
carry many non-UUNET approved Big Eight groups.
Name me one New England ISP that
participates in ne.internet.services that
will NOT carry any news group a cusomter
requests other than TIAC.
Steve
joe tomkowitz
> Now it appears all New England service providers
>in ne.internet.services have agreed to carry any
>group a customer requests--is this not now the TIAC
>policy?
If it is, I bet we'll soon be hearing about "special communications" to "the
proper agencies" from Steve Quixotic regarding this new Kabal II and their
freely-admitted "agreements".
Tune in tomorrow...
-joet
Timothy W. Jackson
bou...@zipnet.net (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
> Sure they did Martin and you know that--it
>was discussed in ne.internet.services. shore.net,
>ziplink.net, thecia.net, etc. specifically said
>they carry any group a user requests--that was
>also the case at world.std.co that would also
>carry many non-UUNET approved Big Eight groups.
> Name me one New England ISP that
>participates in ne.internet.services that
>will NOT carry any news group a cusomter
>requests other than TIAC.
> Steve
Did you know that every time you say the word TIAC you are advertising
my company's name? I'm gonna get more mileage out of your ranting and
raving and my sales are gonna shoot right up. I am going to call this
the boursy effect. Hell, I am going to offer anyone a free month if
they sign up with TIAC on our web signup sheet. Just tell them Steve
Boursy sent you. Have a happy day, Steve.
Tim
EskWIRED
Timothy W. Jackson (ti...@tiac.net) wrote:
: Nice bait job, but at the risk of pissing you off so you can endlessly
: drone on about how I censor USENET, TIAC has the right to carry or not
: carry any newsgroup as it sees fit. Every new group is granted access
: on a case by case basis. I am not going to sit around and watch you
: attempt to create any group that you want and then we have to honor it
: because of your lame brained concept that ISP's should just accept any
: amount of shit you dish out. You show me some proof that *all*
: providers have this policy. You don't even know all the providers in
: New England. You make this stuff up.
Does
Tim have a ghost writer? Lately his responses have been well written and
dead on the mark. Maybe Steve brings out the best in him?
--
=========================================================
--------...@shore.net------------
=========================================================
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <erfoster-ya023180...@news.ziplink.net> Ed
Foster, erfo...@zipnet.net writes:
>It's not an odd take and it's not censorship. Tim Jackson simply told an
>obnoxious customer to take his business elsewhere. Tim Duggan's posts,
>from his new ISP, can still be read by TIACs customers, so where is the
>censorship? Try to understand a simple fact - an owner of a business can,
>for almost any reason, or for no reason whatsoever, tell an obnoxious
>customer to take a hike, a fact that Barry Shein recently brought home to
>you. YOU can call it censorship all you want but it doesn't make it so.
[note: I am uncertain of the validity of the complaint and address only
the logic]
An owner of a business *can* throw people out at whim, but this
doesn't mean that people have to *love* him for it, or that customers
should *tolerate* it. It is not "censorship" in the sense of government
oppression by force, but it IS censorship in the sense that if you want
to say what you want, you have to choose another provider.
To make a parallel case, if racial discrimination were legal, it would
be the responsibility not only of minorities but of all whites who
believe in racial equality, to refuse to patronize any establishment that
throws out patrons of one particular race. The capitalist
fundamentalists might say that establishment has the right to throw out
anyone it wants and that's not discrimination because they can go
somewhere else, but those who believe in equal rights would say it *is*
discrimination because it creates a place where the races are unequal,
and this must be countered by a vigorous economic campaign.
I am not, at this time, convinced that this instance has the proof
necessary to earn a "vigorous campaign", because meanwhile there is the
well-documented and far more dangerous case of the SPA, a vicious
organization that has long sponsored raids against people, companies, and
universities for "copyright violation", but which has now branched out
into demanding that ISPs sign a "code of conduct" or face lawsuits
designed to harass and intimidate them; and which is also sponsoring the
RSACi scheme, a "ratings" scheme for computer games and Web sites that
various governments are trying to quietly scare distributors and
providers into making mandatory. Meanwhile, an almost undiscussed
*international treaty* is trying to make lists of information a
proprietary resource - a new class of copyright that could have
far-reaching, devastating consequences for free speech on the Web and
elsewhere. In the face of such serious threats to the freedom of speech
- threats which will only be succeeded by more threats should they not be
stopped cold now - it seems like a waste of resources to mount any major
action against a company whose CEO suffers from a quick temper on
personal affairs. However, should he continue with such actions then it
will demand a second look, and there are few types of censorship indeed
which do not become expanded over time unless actively stopped.
Stephen Boursy
Timothy W. Jackson wrote:
>
> bou...@zipnet.net (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
>
>> Sure they did Martin and you know that--it
>>was discussed in ne.internet.services. shore.net,
>>ziplink.net, thecia.net, etc. specifically said
>>they carry any group a user requests--that was
>>also the case at world.std.co that would also
>>carry many non-UUNET approved Big Eight groups.
>
>> Name me one New England ISP that
>>participates in ne.internet.services that
>>will NOT carry any news group a cusomter
>>requests other than TIAC.
>
>
>my company's name? I'm gonna get more mileage out of your ranting and
>raving and my sales are gonna shoot right up. I am going to call this
>the boursy effect. Hell, I am going to offer anyone a free month if
>they sign up with TIAC on our web signup sheet. Just tell them Steve
>Boursy sent you. Have a happy day, Steve.
>
> Tim
Well yes I have considered that Timmy. All users need do is
check alta vista or dejanews for posts in ne.internet.services
and they will readily see what type of system performance, billing,
etc. that TIAC has engaged in for a very long time.
Steve
Ed Foster
In article <57b329$p...@zip1.ziplink.net>, bou...@zipnet.net (Stephen
Boursy) wrote:
> Name me one New England ISP that
> participates in ne.internet.services that
> will NOT carry any news group a cusomter
> requests other than TIAC.
Ziplink. It doesn't seem to carry either misc.activism.cannabis or
sci.med.cannabis and I seem to recall that you had earlier posted that you
were going to ask Ziplink to carry those groups.
--
Ed Foster
erfo...@ziplink.net
Stephen Boursy
Tommy the Terrorist wrote:
>
> Ed Foster, erfo...@zipnet.net writes:
>
>>It's not an odd take and it's not censorship. Tim Jackson simply told an
>>obnoxious customer to take his business elsewhere. Tim Duggan's posts,
>>from his new ISP, can still be read by TIACs customers, so where is the
>>censorship? Try to understand a simple fact - an owner of a business can,
>>for almost any reason, or for no reason whatsoever, tell an obnoxious
>>customer to take a hike, a fact that Barry Shein recently brought home to
>>you. YOU can call it censorship all you want but it doesn't make it so.
>
> [note: I am uncertain of the validity of the complaint and address only
> the logic]
>
> An owner of a business *can* throw people out at whim, but this
> doesn't mean that people have to *love* him for it, or that customers
> should *tolerate* it. It is not "censorship" in the sense of government
> oppression by force, but it IS censorship in the sense that if you want
> to say what you want, you have to choose another provider.
Hum--don't we usually disagree??
> To make a parallel case, if racial discrimination were legal, it would
> be the responsibility not only of minorities but of all whites who
> believe in racial equality, to refuse to patronize any establishment that
> throws out patrons of one particular race. The capitalist
> fundamentalists might say that establishment has the right to throw out
> anyone it wants and that's not discrimination because they can go
The ne.* groups are filled with capitalist fundamentalists. Really.
> somewhere else, but those who believe in equal rights would say it *is*
> discrimination because it creates a place where the races are unequal,
> and this must be countered by a vigorous economic campaign.
>
> I am not, at this time, convinced that this instance has the proof
> necessary to earn a "vigorous campaign", because meanwhile there is the
> well-documented and far more dangerous case of the SPA, a vicious
> organization that has long sponsored raids against people, companies, and
> universities for "copyright violation", but which has now branched out
> into demanding that ISPs sign a "code of conduct" or face lawsuits
That was with C2 was it not? They are even getting out of the
privacy business as I understand it.
> designed to harass and intimidate them; and which is also sponsoring the
> RSACi scheme, a "ratings" scheme for computer games and Web sites that
> various governments are trying to quietly scare distributors and
> providers into making mandatory. Meanwhile, an almost undiscussed
> *international treaty* is trying to make lists of information a
> proprietary resource - a new class of copyright that could have
> far-reaching, devastating consequences for free speech on the Web and
> elsewhere. In the face of such serious threats to the freedom of speech
> - threats which will only be succeeded by more threats should they not be
> stopped cold now - it seems like a waste of resources to mount any major
> action against a company whose CEO suffers from a quick temper on
> personal affairs. However, should he continue with such actions then it
> will demand a second look, and there are few types of censorship indeed
> which do not become expanded over time unless actively stopped.
Yes--both TIAC and world.std.com deserve very close watching. I
hate plug pullers--I find them to be very offensive people. But what
this type of attitude will lead to--that of sys admin as kind/queen,
will be government regulation. In my opinion this overdue--this may
be a point of disagreement.
Steve
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <329b5b99...@news.zipnet.net>, A evetS <ten.ruojud-
xiffus@piZ> writes
>Now how does my babbling relate to what ed said...Corporate policy
>stifled speech. I have in the past, and still for that matter,
>maintain that private business may conduct commerce with whom they
>choose. BUT the more I study this issue , the more I am relizing that
>ISPs are moving away from BBS type systems and more into public
>service .
>
>If they want protection from the likes of the SPA, then they must be
>able to responsibly reciprocate the same policy to their customers. If
>not, then what boursy BABBLES about the FCC may someday become
>reality.
This is called Common Carrier. Other than (i) a duty to pursue
serious threats or harassment mailed to individuals and (ii) a right to
put TECHNICAL restrictions as to repetiton or construction,
they should have to transmit all their users traffic irrespoective
of content and particularly of religious or political opinion.
See more about this on my website..../censor/eu_reply.html
####_ @@@@@@@ (!)
-- /__/ \ DON'T GET SCREWED by R-S-A-Ci @@/__/ _ \ /
|__| ((((((((() @@@ |__|{_}|
\__\__/ \__\___/
/ \ Da...@xemu.demon.co.uk / \
+--+ : .---' :
' L :.
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/censor/index.html#StrawPoll
Have *Y*O*U* voted yet on whether we want ratings ???
~~~~~~~
Shawn Lewis
Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote in article
<57ajnm$f...@news-central.tiac.net>...
> Nice bait job, but at the risk of pissing you off so you can endlessly
> drone on about how I censor USENET, TIAC has the right to carry or not
> carry any newsgroup as it sees fit. Every new group is granted access
> on a case by case basis. I am not going to sit around and watch you
> attempt to create any group that you want and then we have to honor it
> because of your lame brained concept that ISP's should just accept any
> amount of shit you dish out. You show me some proof that *all*
> providers have this policy. You don't even know all the providers in
> New England. You make this stuff up.
>
Well, this is not in defense for any person, but only state a what I
believe to be. The Internet is composed of many different individuals
and organizations. All of these representing and believing in many
different things, and having a wide variety of tastes. It is of "my"
belief that being the "PROVIDER" these people and groups, it falls
unto as having the responsibility to "offer" our paying customers,
the available services, and context available to them. It is not our
job to censor, oversee, or moderate "public" forums. Which I believe
newsgroups are, unless strictly chartered to be moderated.
If the "provider" chooses not to offer the entirety, they then are in
effect controlling the flow available information, which falls into
the area of censorship. It is by choice a person looks, reads,
or investigates the use of any specific item.
This variety in choice, and additional services is what will differentiate
true Information Service Providers to come. It is a lot more than
offering a phone #, and access to an existing backbone.
Closed minds, lead to dead ends and rude awakenings.
Just my personal .02
Shawn Lewis
Sr. Systems Engineer
sle...@thecia.net Complete Internet Access
617.225.4100 x122 http://www.thecia.net
frj
The only way that Tiacs desicion to not carry certain newsgroups could
be considered censorship is :
1. The Government forced them to do it
2. Tiac was the only internet provider in an area.
3. Tiac was conspiring with other ISP's to prevent access to a
newsgroup throughout the area.
None of these things is true, thus it is not censorship.
Staff Of The Fantasy Realms Roleplaying Game
_________________________________________
Joseph Teller * Kiralee McCauley * Cynthia Shettle
f...@tiac.net http://www.tiac.net/users/frj
___________________________________________
Timothy W. Jackson
ten.ruojud-xiffus@piZ (A evetS) wrote:
>X-No-Archive: YES
>
> In the ne.internet.services Newsgroup
> On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 12:33:12 GMT, f...@tiac.net (frj) wrote:
>Ok, how about if you rephrase it
>Discrimination and abuse definitions in this context
>Discrimination- against individuals that convey certain beliefs
>Abuse- action against what one considers "normally acceptable" net
>standard
>ie :
>tim duggans natural style" normally acceptable" of expression is
>satire.
>Normally satire, flaming and the like is "normally acceptable" on the
>internet.
>Now based on what action has taken place and subsequent discussion, it
>might appear that the ISP in question allows "normally acceptable"
>behaviour by its employees to be expressed towards other net citizens,
>but does not allow its customers to be netcitizens and reciprocate the
>"normally acceptable" expression if it is directed towards the said
>ISP in an otherwise ISP deemed unacceptable fasion.
>That is what I might consider abuse, and discrimination. And if the
>ISP in question has or had any government awarded contracts, it could
>also come in under censorship even though it did not involve
>"government accounts". It could provide the basis of a causal
>relationship to the standard business practice/service and that which
>would be conveyed under the government contract,because how do you
>seperate the two, If of course someone like aclu was to accept such a
>case.
>Remember, no clear position here, just another tangent ....so dont
>flame, add to the conversation.
>The Chaos Swirls While the Deamons moan
>And that piercing scream may be your own!
Right...and when you actually finish your law degree, please feel free
to review your current comments. Like it or not you still are in
America where the governement does not control our freedom to do
business with whom we wish. Happy Thanksgiving.
Tim
Ed Foster
In article <57dv88$i...@clark.zippo.com>, Tommy the Terrorist
<may...@super.zippo.com> wrote:
> In article <erfoster-ya023180...@news.ziplink.net> Ed
> Foster, erfo...@zipnet.net writes:
>
> >It's not an odd take and it's not censorship. Tim Jackson simply told an
> >obnoxious customer to take his business elsewhere. Tim Duggan's posts,
> >from his new ISP, can still be read by TIACs customers, so where is the
> >censorship? Try to understand a simple fact - an owner of a business can,
> >for almost any reason, or for no reason whatsoever, tell an obnoxious
> >customer to take a hike, a fact that Barry Shein recently brought home to
> >you. YOU can call it censorship all you want but it doesn't make it so.
>
> [note: I am uncertain of the validity of the complaint and address only
> the logic]
>
> An owner of a business *can* throw people out at whim, but this
> doesn't mean that people have to *love* him for it, or that customers
> should *tolerate* it. It is not "censorship" in the sense of government
> oppression by force, but it IS censorship in the sense that if you want
> to say what you want, you have to choose another provider.
Suppose you owned and operated some retail business and one customer
complained loudly and often that your service was lousy and you didn't know
squat about running your business. There are others similar businesses in
town that the complainer could go to with but no, he continues to come to
your store just so he can complain in front of the other customers. Don't
you think at some point you might tell him that if he doesn't like the way
you run your business he should take his business elsewhere and that you
don't want him in your store again? That's what Tim Jackson told Tim
Duggan. It appeared that Tim Duggan was deliberately escalating his
rhetoric specifically to goad Tim Jackson into doing what he finally did.
In other words, Tim Duggan was trying to get booted from TIAC and
succeeded.
> To make a parallel case, if racial discrimination were legal, it would
> be the responsibility not only of minorities but of all whites who
> believe in racial equality, to refuse to patronize any establishment that
> throws out patrons of one particular race. The capitalist
> fundamentalists might say that establishment has the right to throw out
> anyone it wants and that's not discrimination because they can go
> somewhere else, but those who believe in equal rights would say it *is*
> discrimination because it creates a place where the races are unequal,
> and this must be countered by a vigorous economic campaign.
This is not at all similar to refusing to deal with a rude customer.
--
Ed Foster
erfo...@ziplink.net
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <329b5b99...@news.zipnet.net> A evetS,
ten.ruojud-xiffus@piZ writes:
>If you have noticed the SPA was forced to cave in when the ISPs
>involved would not "roll over" and " confess" and promise to "obey"
>the SPA.
That's easy to say, but the fact is, c2.org is now CLOSED to new
accounts. They plan to get out of the business. They say that has
nothing to do with the SPA - I believe that about as much as I believe
that that CIA chief committed suicide.
In addition, look at http://www.tripod.com/tripod/membership/tos/
They were sued by the SPA and *they* gave in.
Apparently, the U.S. government has already slipped in this kind of
censorship by some back-door legal maneuvers; the SPA is just their dog.
But we still have things that we can do about it.
* We can *boycott* Adobe, Claris, and Travelers (from the c2.org suit)
forever. That's not to say we can't use their software if we choose to.
;)
* We can *fund* the Free Software Foundation and other manufacturers of
honest-to-God freeware and public domain software. With the same amount
of funding we can get just as much software written for free as ever was
done for copyright fees, and substantially more when you consider the
inefficiencies of distribution and multiple productions of equivalent
functions. We can also provide "freevertisements" for public domain
software so as to enhance its 'marketability'. Do they want to ACTUALLY
outlaw "piracy", not just in name? FINE - now we ANNIHILATE the
commercial software market FOREVER!
* Of course, they'll respond to that with more and more bogus laws.
Patents, algorithms, look and feel, and so on. See www.lpf.org. But
they'll lose the all-important "legitimacy" involved with "protecting
their property" when they resort to these extreme measures, and that's
the end of them.
* And, of course, the active resistance of ISP's who risk SPA attacks
and set-ups is always a much-appreciated heroism, even if they can't keep
it up indefinitely.
It's all just a question of where the on-line community will stand; so
there is every reason to start targeting the SPA for our fury, because it
will destroy them and everything they stand for.
Daniel Delamatta
f...@tiac.net (frj) wrote:
>The only way that Tiacs desicion to not carry certain newsgroups could
>be considered censorship is :
>
>1. The Government forced them to do it
>
>2. Tiac was the only internet provider in an area.
>
>3. Tiac was conspiring with other ISP's to prevent access to a
> newsgroup throughout the area.
>
>None of these things is true, thus it is not censorship.
>
My dictionary's definition of censorship is "the action of a censor". This is defined as "one who
acts as an overseer of morals and conduct" or "an official empowered to examine wirtten or printed
matter, motion pictures, etc., in order to forbid publication if objectionable."
None of your points are included in the above definitions, which is taken from a Webster's
dictionary.
Historically, especially lately, censorship has been seen as restricting access or refusal to carry
certain "objectionable" (as seen in the eyes of those who object) things (like books, art,
presnetation, etc.).
Stephen Boursy
A evetS wrote:
>
>I have reviewed my comments, very carefully.
>
>The statement of causal relation was in reference to the ISP
>terminatng the account of the "undesirable" but allowing
>employees/other customers to exhibit similar behaviors. The relation
>being termination-discrimination...the context of the paragraph
>somewhat blured that.
That's quite true--the original effort to get my plug pulled
several years ago--and I've checked on this carefully--was due
to crossposting to just a few groups--the owner of the ISP
himself that pulled my plug has been crossposting in a manner
since that would make me blush.
> By no clear definition of "terms" it would be easily arguable that
> some form of discrimination had taken place CAUSING the termination.
Indeed--all one need to is compare the posts of any user to
the contents of the binary groups on either TIAC or world.std.com
and you'd be hard pressed to say anyone-and I do mean anyone--was
out of line in comparison.
> My intention is to explore the possibility of inconsistencies in
> customer/employee treatments.
> You cannot willfully filter certain individuals for expressing
> themselves in ways that are conveyed in a similar fashion by your own
> employees, or for that matter other customers. That would not be
> necessarily considered censorship.
But this is done both at world.std.com and TIAC.
> That would be considered discrimination ,abusing someones civil
> rights, which are not part of the original discussion. I can certainly
> research further, But I prefer this new tangent forms the opinions of
> the posters . I think that the very action the ISP has taken against
> one of its customers may in fact tread very closely with some civil
> rights issues . Only debate will bring truly "substant" angles on
> each side. Like it or not , If it isn't illegal now,If not addressed
> on a commercial level via a community or commercial standard that ISPs
> follow "guidelines, it will be addressed by specific legislation in
> the future. TOS are not a specifically outlined document. This is not
> kookdom, this is reality, the online community has an enormous voice.
>
> FWIW I do , as I have stated in numerous other posts, believe that
> companies have the right to choose who they do business with.
> However on the same token I also would expect that a valid set of
> guidelines be in place for the termination of someones service and
> also what the community/companies would consider unarguably
> "unserviceable" .
> Until then It would appear that certain individuals are getting
> discriminated against and subsequently their rights abused.
That is as clear as can be.
> And the last paragraph of my post was RIGHT on target...with the
> exception of the ACLU being involved. If it was a public contract it
> would in fact be the State judicial system (federally likewise the
> federal system). The ACLU would be the organization that would get
> involved in civil rights issues......keyboard run I guess, of course I
> disclaim my work too...look at my summary
>
> A evetS
>
The ACLU has an excellent record regarding free speech and the
defense of it on the net. They take the perspective of the user;
not the business owner. The EFF on the other hand is controlled
by business interests and always sides with ISP owners when there
is a conflict between them and consumers--they are corporate whores
who derive a majority of their funding from corporations.
Steve
joe tomkowitz
In article <32A025...@earthlink.net>, Stephen Boursy
>
> The ACLU has an excellent record regarding free speech and the
>defense of it on the net. They take the perspective of the user;
>not the business owner. The EFF on the other hand is controlled
>by business interests and always sides with ISP owners when there
>is a conflict between them and consumers--they are corporate whores
>who derive a majority of their funding from corporations.
>
> Steve
See how simple life can be? There are good guys and bad guys, And apparently
the way to tell who's who is that everyone is totally good until they disagree
with you about something at which point they become totally bad.
This method of discrimination is very efficent in terms of conserving actual
thought.
-joet
Stephen Boursy
Ed Foster wrote:
>
> bou...@zipnet.net (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
>
> > Name me one New England ISP that
> > participates in ne.internet.services that
> > will NOT carry any news group a cusomter
> > requests other than TIAC.
>
> Ziplink. It doesn't seem to carry either
> misc.activism.cannabis or sci.med.cannabis
But that's completely untrue Ed--in fact they
added those groups when I got an account there.
There was a forged remove group that went out
and took out these groups as well as
news.admin.net-abuse.misc; they will be
readded after the holidays--I've the personal
written guarentee of Chris Jenkins in regards
to both of these groups as well as public
and private statements that ziplink will
carry any group upon request of a customer.
Are you suggesting that Mr. Jenkins is
dishonest? shore.net, thecia.net, etc.
have made similiar guarentees.
As to pressure not to carry non-UUNET
approved groups ISPs that are contacted,
especially by reps of other ISPs, should
contact the Federal Trade Commission
regarding any attempts to fix product
and/or price.
Steve
Timothy W. Jackson
Daniel Delamatta <ste...@tiac.net> wrote:
>f...@tiac.net (frj) wrote:
>>The only way that Tiacs desicion to not carry certain newsgroups could
>>be considered censorship is :
>>
>>1. The Government forced them to do it
>>
>>2. Tiac was the only internet provider in an area.
>>
>>3. Tiac was conspiring with other ISP's to prevent access to a
>> newsgroup throughout the area.
>>
>>None of these things is true, thus it is not censorship.
>>
>My dictionary's definition of censorship is "the action of a censor". This is defined as "one who
>acts as an overseer of morals and conduct" or "an official empowered to examine wirtten or printed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It means government.
Ed Foster
In article <32A027...@earthlink.net>, Stephen Boursy
<bou...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ed Foster wrote:
> >
> > bou...@zipnet.net (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
> >
> > > Name me one New England ISP that
> > > participates in ne.internet.services that
> > > will NOT carry any news group a cusomter
> > > requests other than TIAC.
> >
> > Ziplink. It doesn't seem to carry either
> > misc.activism.cannabis or sci.med.cannabis
>
>
> But that's completely untrue Ed--in fact they
> added those groups when I got an account there.
> There was a forged remove group that went out
> and took out these groups as well as
> news.admin.net-abuse.misc; they will be
> readded after the holidays
Steve, we've been through this before; is your problem with reading
comprehension or memory loss? At the time I posted, it was completely
true. See article <erfoster-ya023180...@news.ziplink.net>
for my detailed response.
> --I've the personal
> written guarentee of Chris Jenkins in regards
> to both of these groups as well as public
> and private statements that ziplink will
> carry any group upon request of a customer.
> Are you suggesting that Mr. Jenkins is
> dishonest?
Ah, your reading comprehension problem again. Just where am I saying Mr.
Jenking is dishonest?
<standard Boursy nonsense about reporting conspiracies deleted>
--
Ed Foster
erfo...@ziplink.net
Ed Foster
> X-No-Archive: YES
>
>
> In the ne.internet.services Newsgroup
> I would say to that customer, as I have in the past, what can I do to
> help you.
The point isn't the "right', "best", or most diplimatic way of handling the
situation. The issue is whether kicking Tim Duggan off TIAC was
censorship. In my example, you can suggest better ways of handling a
difficult customer, but you probably wouldn't call the action I described
"censorship." My contention is that Tim Jackson's handling of Tim Duggan
wasn't censorship either.
My concern is that when we start calling lots of things censorship that
really aren't, we won't be taken seriously when we point out a real case.
--
Ed Foster
erfo...@ziplink.net
John Reder
Daniel Delamatta wrote:
>
> f...@tiac.net (frj) wrote:
> >The only way that Tiacs desicion to not carry certain newsgroups could
> >be considered censorship is :
>
My dictionary spells "desicion" D E C I S I O N
_\|/_
(o o)
--------o00-(_)-00o---------
John Reder (jre...@tiac.net)
Brian Charles Kohn
Daniel Delamatta wrote:
> f...@tiac.net (frj) wrote:
> My dictionary's definition of censorship is "the action of a censor".
> printed matter, motion pictures, etc., in order to forbid publication
> if objectionable."
An ISP is not an "official" either in effect or in fact, so therefore
the term "censorship" is likely not applicable.
--
Brian Charles Kohn Senior Lead Assessor
bic...@concentric.net RAB QS-LA #Q01926
IRCA C-LA #A006644
"Hope, not fear, is the best advocate of action."
(As always...speaking only for myself...)
Stephen Boursy
>>Now how does my babbling relate to what ed said...Corporate policy
>>stifled speech. I have in the past, and still for that matter,
>>maintain that private business may conduct commerce with whom they
>>choose. BUT the more I study this issue , the more I am relizing that
>>ISPs are moving away from BBS type systems and more into public
>>service .
>>
>>If they want protection from the likes of the SPA, then they must be
>>able to responsibly reciprocate the same policy to their customers. If
>>not, then what boursy BABBLES about the FCC may someday become
>>reality.
> This is called Common Carrier.
Indeed it is--and that status is very desirable and cerainly
will soon become a reality.
> Other than (i) a duty to pursue serious threats or harassment
> mailed to individuals and (ii) a right to put TECHNICAL
> restrictions as to repetiton or construction, they should have
> to transmit all their users traffic irrespoective
> of content and particularly of religious or political opinion.
>
> See more about this on my website..../censor/eu_reply.html
Yes--all true. The FCC is also accepting public comment
regarding these issues at their web site--interested users
should save sample threats, posts, etc. from asshole admins
that think they are anything but employees of their users and
forward them to the FCC. Sys Admin as King/Queen days are
coming to an end thank god--can't wait for cable service
to get here.
Steve
Charles M Richmond
frj (Staff Of The Fantasy Realms Roleplaying Game) wrote:
>
>The only way that Tiacs desicion to not carry certain newsgroups could
>be considered censorship is :
>
You *are* fantasizing ,,,
>
> 2. Tiac was the only internet provider in an area.
Still fantasizing (-:
>
> 3. Tiac was conspiring with other ISP's to prevent access to a
> newsgroup throughout the area.
But the strangest fantasy , is that TIAC might work together with
the other ISPs. (remember the libelous web page!)
>
> None of these things is true, thus it is not censorship.
This is the nonsequitur. You might as well say: "...thus it is
not a ballet performance." You set up 3 strawmen, tore them down
and claim victory. It is a silly thing to do when people can
read and reflect on your words, although it would have been very
effective in verbal debate. The fact is , that censorship is the
act of censoring and censoring (on the basis of content) is exactly
what TIAC was doing with both the newsgroup that they didn't carry
and whith Tim Duggan. With Tim it was supposedly upfront while with
the newsgroups the reasons always sounded like evasions. It is perhaps
pertinent that the ony sources that TIAC has seen fit to censor have
been those that contain criticism of TIAC and/or those that are an
official avenue for TIAC's competitors to advertise on.
Charlie
PS I understand that TIAC is now carrying neis.ads , that they are
within reason if they do not want Tim D. to come back and that all
of the above issues are history. (for now (-: )
--
***********************************************************************
* Charles Richmond Integrated International Systems Corporation *
* c...@iisc.com c...@koibito.iisc.com c...@shore.net *
* UNIX Internals, I18N, L10N, X, Realtime Imaging, and Custom S/W *
* One Longfellow Place Suite 3309 , Boston , Ma. USA 02114-2431 *
* (617) 723 7695 (617) 367 3151 FAX (617) 723 6861 *
***********************************************************************
Daniel Delamatta
ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W. Jackson) wrote:
>Daniel Delamatta <ste...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
>>My dictionary's definition of censorship is "the action of a censor". This is defined as "one who
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>It means government.
No it doesn't. YOU are an official (ie, the PRESIDENT) of TIAC. The definition is "one holding or
invested with an office."
You qualify.
Daniel Delamatta
>> My dictionary's definition of censorship is "the action of a censor".
>> printed matter, motion pictures, etc., in order to forbid publication
>> if objectionable."
>
>An ISP is not an "official" either in effect or in fact, so therefore
>the term "censorship" is likely not applicable.
True, an ISP is NOT an official, as it is a body.
However... the "officers" (ie, the president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer, etc) ARE by
definition officials of that organization.
Brian Charles Kohn
Daniel Delamatta wrote:
> >An ISP is not an "official" either in effect or in fact, so therefore
> >the term "censorship" is likely not applicable.
> True, an ISP is NOT an official, as it is a body.
> However... the "officers" (ie, the president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer, etc) ARE by
> definition officials of that organization.
Oh, okay. So you plan on appealing this issue to the population of that
organization, i.e., its stockholders (the only voting "citizens" of the
organization). Go to it.
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <57okoe$b...@news-central.tiac.net> Daniel Delamatta,
ste...@tiac.net writes:
>My dictionary's definition of censorship is "the action of a censor". This is defined as "one who acts as an overseer of morals and conduct" or "an official empowered to examine wirtten or printed matter, motion pictures, etc., in order to forbid publication if objectionable."
Whenever somebody pulls out a dictionary and tries to tell you what
something means, it's the beginning of a long and bogus argument.
Especially when linking paraphrases of one word's definition to
paraphrases of another. I have often encountered this sort of nonsense
when arguing for anarchism; there seem to be a limitless pool of
dull-witted people who think that a dictionary author who has no clue
about the philosophy is entitled to have a more authoritative judgment
about what anarchy is than an actual believer in the concept. Of course,
"authoritative" is the keyword here - we're arguing what censorship *is*,
and you automatically assume that someone, distinguished by the singular
honor of having had a small drudge role in the compilation of a tome of
word definitions for profit, speaking in a limited space, has an
unchallengeable power to tell us what we should or should not oppose.
The whole reason why I support freedom of speech so vigorously, is that,
as you see in that example, the power to define concepts, to set the
agenda of discussion, is a power with far-reaching consequences.
Now to get back to the point, what you describe is *prior restraint* by a
government agency. This is recognized by the courts, but it is by no
means the only form of censorship. When some anti-gay murderer attacks
and kills a man who expressed a sexual desire on a talk show, for
instance, this is the ultimate censorship, deliberately intended to
suppress propagation of views tolerant of homosexuality, and yet there is
no government official involved in any capacity. [at least, unless you
take the radical anarchist perspective that there is no distinction
between a government and any other individual or group using violence to
influence people by fear]
>Historically, especially lately, censorship has been seen as restricting access or refusal to carry certain "objectionable" (as seen in the eyes of those who object) things (like books, art, presnetation, etc.).
The real truth of the matter is that there is not only one kind of
censorship. There is the governmental level of censorship - and it would
be censorship on that level if they commanded ISP's to *not* censor their
customers, because it would be a control and a penalty on the ISP's
conduct. Yet within the ISP, no longer enforced by prison but merely by
being thrown out, there is another kind of censorship with the lesser
sanction. In that arena, people should seek free speech by economic and
electronic measures, but not by getting the government involved.
[special cases apply, however, when other ISP's are banned and the ISP
effectively becomes a government agency, or when all ISP's are threatened
by the government and a show of solidarity is needed]. And even within
the ISP, there are places where it must allow a lower class of censorship
in order to avoid committing a higher class itself, as when a person
wishes to operate a moderated mailing list and would place certain
content restrictions on it - in a case like that, the mailing list
subscribers might choose to move to a freer forum, but they should not
seek the ISP to throw the moderator off. When it gets to low levels
where a person has a real and instant choice of forums, censorship gives
way to mere moderation or filtering - a service provided only to those
who wish to see a subset of materials, rather than an abuse against the
citizen, customer, or subscriber. But on every level where there is *in
fact* a free choice, it is ultimately up to the individual to make his
decision, and if he *truly* prefers a censored ISP or a censored mailing
list to one which is not, then it is not censorship *for him*, because he
made that choice.
That is my take on the matter, and I encourage you to try to figure out a
way to place such a definition in three lines in your dictionary.
Meanwhile: Boursy, don't even try it. We're not falling for this
attempt to start a faction split - the EFF is on our side AND the ACLU is
on our side. Yes, they have different emphases and different utilities.
But you don't throw away a hammer because you can't use it for a
screwdriver - if you don't have a screwdriver you'd bloody well better
GET one and hurry, at least if something as important as Internet freedom
depends on it.
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <32A027...@earthlink.net> Stephen Boursy,
bou...@earthlink.net writes:
> As to pressure not to carry non-UUNET
>approved groups ISPs that are contacted,
>especially by reps of other ISPs, should
>contact the Federal Trade Commission
>regarding any attempts to fix product
>and/or price.
This is what the Air Force calls a "C2 attack" [Command and Control
attack]. They want to get the government involved with decisions of what
"big 7" groups are created. We have a working process to create such
groups. [knock on wood - there have been many efforts by this little
group of folks from COINTELPRO to screw it up, by putting Calls For Votes
with inaccurate content to unrelated newsgroups, by forging newgroup
messages, and by misrepresenting the newsgroup creation process] The
process involves a standard procedure for ensuring that garbage groups
aren't created, by collecting the votes of those speaking on similar
topics.
I encourage readers to get the information on "counterinformation" [i.e.
control over all Internet procedures] and "C2 attack" straight from the
horse's mouth at:
http://www.dtic.dla.mil/airforcelink/pubs/corner.html
There is ***NO*** "price-fixing" involved here. The reason's simple as
it can be - there are only 7 of these "big 7" groups, and your ISP - and
generally YOU - have the choice to use other hierarchies - any other
prefix you can imagine besides those 7. Those other hierarchies can set
up any procedure they want - complete freedom. And in fact, the alt.*
hierarchy lets anyone start a group - I know because I started one.
Those groups are not, unfortunately, always so well propagated - but that
is the choice of the carriers of the newsgroups. I might bitterly
protest their choice not to carry all alt.* groups that have non-spam
content on them, but I will also fight to defend their right to make that
choice. Because there are lesser evils and greater evils, and the
greatest evil of all [for Usenet] would be for the government to have ANY
opening toward controlling newsgroup creation.
We do not want the FCC - or the FBI, or the SS, or the NSA - involved in
this process. We want to viciously defend our rights against all those
who seek, by main force or by subtle subversion, to take them away.
samson.fischkind
In article <57rdj2$7...@news-central.tiac.net>, Daniel Delamatta
<ste...@tiac.net> wrote:
> Brian Charles Kohn <bic...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >> My dictionary's definition of censorship is "the action of a censor".
> >> This is defined as ... "an official empowered to examine wirtten or
> >> printed matter, motion pictures, etc., in order to forbid publication
> >> if objectionable."
> >
> >An ISP is not an "official" either in effect or in fact, so therefore
> >the term "censorship" is likely not applicable.
> However... the "officers" (ie, the president, vice-president, secretary,
> treasurer, etc) ARE by definition officials of that organization.
[blah, blah]...
Dictionary, shmictionary. Official...um, (something that rhymes with official.)
This has been dicussed, but it deserves reiterating, that the question is
not whther TJ's actions constitute "censorship". Of course they do. Just
the way you "censor" yourself when you come upon the urge to tell your
boss he is a 'fucking asshole'. Or the way a publisher "censors" by
refusing to publish the "Unabomber Manifesto". These are personal and
proprietary matters, matters of ethics.
The debate over whether TJ's action constituted censorship is moot. Of
course it did. If the question is, rather, was it a legal act of
censorship and/or an ethical act of censorship, then there is room for
dispute. As far as the legality of the act, TJ is on perfectly safe
ground. Unless he is in cahoots with LG, BS, Xenu..er..Sky Dayton and the
rest, which anyone who follows these ng's knows is not the case, then he
is in the same position as the publisher who tells his prospective author
to take his business elsewhere.
Whether the act was ethical is another issue. We do not know to what
extent TD was warned, given the opportunity to explain his behavior, given
time to find a new ISP before being terminated, etc. (And i doubt we're
going to get a reliable account of this sequence of events from the
parties involved). So, perhaps, just perhaps, TD knew well that he was
going to leave TIAC voluntarily or involuntarily, knew he had other
communication outlets open to him (which he seemed to be seeking anyway).
That was TD's problem. Or maybe he _was_ left 'high and dry' for a while,
and thus had a legitimate gripe over TJ's handling of the situation. TJ's
bad.
But who really cares? TD clearly was not happy with the service he was
getting from TIAC, and if he had any sense, he should have just left,
instead of "testing" TJ to see how much abuse he would tolerate -- just
for 'fun', I suppose. I wouldn't exactly describe _his_ behavior as
'ethical', even if it surely was 'legal'. (And not particularly offensive
to _me_, either, but it was not my call).
This has all been said in so many words. What hasn't been said is that
TIAC is not 'losing' articles. The feed is fine. Customer service is fine.
Bandwidth is fine (at least in Greater Boston). It is a healthy ISP, as
far as i and probably the vast majority of customers are concerned.
But, that having been said, TIAC ng is a hell of a lot more entertaining
when 'problems' are aired across the *.i.s groups. Especially now that
there aren't any real problems. When there _were_ problems, that was a
different story...
Timothy W. Jackson
smi...@tiac.not (samson.fischkind) wrote:
>--
>smi...@tiac.net
Oh stop your indignant whining. Tim Duggan is/was an asshole and I
don't want to be beholden to him by taking his money and having to do
work for him. We all have a choice to whom we work. I take it from
your crap that you wouldn't want to work for me and yet this is not
censorship, restraint of trade, monopolism, communism, captitalism or
ismism. It's called choice and it's what happens when you run a free
society. As far as ethical is concerned, you are way out of line.
You cannot be a judge of ethical concerns unless you have studied the
facts. Since I have never had a conversation with you, you are
unknowledgable about the motives.
I hear all this guessing about why I kicked the goober off of TIAC and
it comes down to that nobody should be forced to business with
dangerous freak such as Duggan who could snap at any moment and make
real his violent fantasies of conquereing his enemies. It doesn't
make sense. I hear lots of pontificating about rights, ethics and law
and what has been forgotten in all this adolescent droning is common
descency. Duggan had and continues not to have a shred of it and he
got what he needed, a swift kick in the pants.
Tim
Peter Peck
In article <32a218b6....@news.zipnet.net>, spaz.at.ultranet.com wrote:
|
|I for one, can not judge Tim Duggans "scruple level" by the parodi(p?)
|that he posted towards you. I can however suggest you look around , at
|these groups specifically, and look at what some of these people write
|about.....and they truly believe in what they are saying.
|I cant honestly say that I believe Tim Duggan was malicious in his
|statements, he might of been, but I didnt see it. And I really dont
|think he believes what he said would happen
|
We are all free to judge for ourselves but that's all. Not you for me nor
me for you. It really is 100% subjective. TJ just happens to carry a
bigger stick. Think what you want - say what you want - but in the end TJ
has the final word because it is his company. All this verbiage and opinion
not withstanding.
Good Luck - Peter
samson.fischkind
In article <57t316$3...@news-central.tiac.net>, ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W.
Jackson) wrote:
> smi...@tiac.not (samson.fischkind) wrote:
> >But who really cares? TD clearly was not happy with the service he was
> >getting from TIAC, and if he had any sense, he should have just left,
> >instead of "testing" TJ to see how much abuse he would tolerate -- just
> >for 'fun', I suppose. I wouldn't exactly describe _his_ behavior as
> >'ethical', even if it surely was 'legal'. (And not particularly offensive
> >to _me_, either, but it was not my call).
> Oh stop your indignant whining. Tim Duggan is/was an asshole and I
> don't want to be beholden to him by taking his money and having to do
> work for him. [snip] As far as ethical is concerned, you are way out of
> line. You cannot be a judge of ethical concerns unless you have studied the
> facts. Since I have never had a conversation with you, you are
> unknowledgable about the motives.
Indignant whining? I think i made my agnosticism pretty clear. No, i have
no idea what transpired between you and Duggan. So I pass no judgement. I
kind of thought i was defending you. That i called your action
"censorship" was just an attempt at resolving a stupid semantic quibble.
You accused me of whining indignantly. I disagree strongly, and feel
somewhat indignant _now_ -- but i am willing to "censor" myself. I'm sure
it was just a minor misunderstanding. I hope...
> I hear all this guessing about why I kicked the goober off of TIAC and
> it comes down to that nobody should be forced to business with
> dangerous freak such as Duggan who could snap at any moment and make
> real his violent fantasies of conquereing his enemies.
And i made no such guesses. If you read the whole post, you can see that i
offerred alternative hypotheses. Which is correct, only you know.
Try to relax, eh?
Timothy B Duggan
ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W. Jackson) wrote:
>Oh stop your indignant whining. Tim Duggan is/was an asshole and I
>don't want to be beholden to him by taking his money and having to do
>work for him. We all have a choice to whom we work. I take it from
>your crap that you wouldn't want to work for me and yet this is not
>censorship, restraint of trade, monopolism, communism, captitalism or
>ismism. It's called choice and it's what happens when you run a free
>society. As far as ethical is concerned, you are way out of line.
>You cannot be a judge of ethical concerns unless you have studied the
>facts. Since I have never had a conversation with you, you are
>unknowledgable about the motives.
>I hear all this guessing about why I kicked the goober off of TIAC and
>it comes down to that nobody should be forced to business with
>dangerous freak such as Duggan who could snap at any moment and make
>real his violent fantasies of conquereing his enemies. It doesn't
>make sense. I hear lots of pontificating about rights, ethics and law
>and what has been forgotten in all this adolescent droning is common
>descency. Duggan had and continues not to have a shred of it and he
>got what he needed, a swift kick in the pants.
(yawn)
Tim,
Could you please tell everyone exactly how many warnings you gave me?
Funny that you never address this issue in any of your responses - and
try to remember your sermon on decency before you answer with any
number greater than 0.
No warning whatsoever... that's what Father Tim means by a *swift
kick in the pants* (you should talk about violent fantasies).
tim
Stephen Boursy
Note that Tim Jackson is the CEO of TIAC.
>
>>Oh stop your indignant whining. Tim Duggan is/was an asshole and I
But you're an asshole Tim--and that certainly within your rights
to continue to be one.
>>don't want to be beholden to him by taking his money and having to do
>>work for him. We all have a choice to whom we work.
So in other words potential TIAC customers should keep in mind
that if Tim Jackson does not like them he'll pull their plug
without any notice.
>>I take it from
>>your crap that you wouldn't want to work for me and yet this is not
>>censorship, restraint of trade, monopolism, communism, captitalism or
>>ismism. It's called choice and it's what happens when you run a free
>>society. As far as ethical is concerned, you are way out of line.
>>You cannot be a judge of ethical concerns unless you have studied the
>>facts. Since I have never had a conversation with you, you are
>>unknowledgable about the motives.
>
> ...
>
> Tim,
>
> Could you please tell everyone exactly how many warnings you gave me?
>
> Funny that you never address this issue in any of your responses - and
> try to remember your sermon on decency before you answer with any
> number greater than 0.
Yes--world.std.com does the same thing--and note their very poor
CNET ratings. Censors have no place in this business.
> No warning whatsoever... that's what Father Tim means by a *swift
> kick in the pants* (you should talk about violent fantasies).
Tim Jackson, CEO of TIAC, is talking about content based
censorship--pure and simple.
Steve
Stephen Boursy
samson.fischkind wrote:
>
> Timothy W. Jackson) wrote:
Timothy Jackson is the CEO of TIAC.
>
>> smi...@tiac.not (samson.fischkind) wrote:
>
>> >But who really cares? TD clearly was not happy with the service he was
>> >getting from TIAC, and if he had any sense, he should have just left,
>> >instead of "testing" TJ to see how much abuse he would tolerate -- just
>> >for 'fun', I suppose. I wouldn't exactly describe _his_ behavior as
>> >'ethical', even if it surely was 'legal'. (And not particularly offensive
>> >to _me_, either, but it was not my call).
>
>> Oh stop your indignant whining. Tim Duggan is/was an asshole and I
>> don't want to be beholden to him by taking his money and having to do
>> work for him. [snip] As far as ethical is concerned, you are way out of
>> line. You cannot be a judge of ethical concerns unless you have studied the
>> facts. Since I have never had a conversation with you, you are
>> unknowledgable about the motives.
>
> Indignant whining? I think i made my agnosticism pretty clear.
I thought so--yes.
> No, i have no idea what transpired between you and Duggan. So I
> pass no judgement. I kind of thought i was defending you. That i
> called your action "censorship" was just an attempt at resolving
> a stupid semantic quibble.
>
> You accused me of whining indignantly. I disagree strongly, and feel
> somewhat indignant _now_ -- but i am willing to "censor" myself. I'm
> sure it was just a minor misunderstanding. I hope...
Yes--the bastard might pull your plug as well. He pulled TGs plug
without a word of warning---not a place to set up to receive reliable
email, etc.
>> I hear all this guessing about why I kicked the goober off of TIAC and
>> it comes down to that nobody should be forced to business with
>> dangerous freak such as Duggan who could snap at any moment and make
>> real his violent fantasies of conquereing his enemies.
>
> And i made no such guesses. If you read the whole post, you can see
> that i offerred alternative hypotheses. Which is correct, only you
> know.
Watch the sarcasm. Timmy doesn't approve of that either.
> Try to relax, eh?
It's hard--his CNET ratings are in the gutter, ne.internet.services
is filled with complaints about TIAC service and performance, and
he's trying to defend content censorship and appear to be rational
at the same time.
Steve
>
> --
> smi...@tiac.net
Misty
On Mon, 02 Dec 1996 20:51:14 -0500, Stephen Boursy
<bou...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
> It's hard--his CNET ratings are in the gutter, ne.internet.services
>is filled with complaints about TIAC service and performance, and
>he's trying to defend content censorship and appear to be rational
>at the same time.
Funny Steve, but 90% of the "complaints" are from you, who is
not even a TIAC customer. If any valid customer brought up concerns
regarding thier account of the service we provide, we would *gladly*
do whatever we could to help them out. So, I guess your statement is
correct, but you might want to add some words so it reads more like:
"... is filled with complaints that I make up/heard about TIAC
service..."
-Misty
Rich Sena
yeah the stink of his breath enough is enough to send anyone screaming -
go away steve - i have a new one for you buy a book - you know one of
those flat wood products (paper) like the way you used to get your porn -
and then you can sit alone and entertain yourself, grubor and aga all at
at once without even moving your lips
peacelovejoyrich
* * * . * * * . * * * . * * * . * * * . * | Richard A. Sena, Jr.
* . . * . . . * . . * . * . * . . . * | macintosh tech sr
* * . . * . . . * . . * * * . * . . . * * | r...@tiac.net
* . . * . . . * . . * . * . * . . . * | m...@tiac.net
* . . * . . * * * . * . * . * * * . * * * | http://richsena.tiac.net
Timothy B Duggan
Stephen Boursy <bou...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> So in other words potential TIAC customers should keep in mind
>that if Tim Jackson does not like them he'll pull their plug
>without any notice.
The bottom line is:
If you are a TIAC customer, be careful of what you post.
Big (and I do mean BIG) Brother is watching.
tim
Timothy B Duggan
flna...@tiacl.net (Misty) wrote:
<snip>
> If any valid customer brought up concerns
>regarding thier account of the service we provide, we would *gladly*
>do whatever we could to help them out.
Two Words: James Garner
tim
Rich Sena
excuse me tim - but mr gardner - has gotten quite a bit of attention - and
direction from more than one source - james gardner is more of an example
of support - an effort to help a customer solve a problem - i dial into
laraby and i even tried dialing into NYC and loggin into laraby - the
problem is not the machine - there appears to be another problem with his
ability to reconcile a steady connection - eliminating the server - we
openend a ticket with usr to see if the netservers were having
compatability issues with older sportsters - pete davis will keep the tiac
ng informed of what transpires
mr gardner has absorbed quite a bit of attention from support and it is an
ongoing attention and it's our hope that his problem does get resolved
peacelovejoyrich
* * * . * * * . * * * . * * * . * * * . * | Richard A. Sena, Jr.
* . . * . . . * . . * . * . * . . . * | macintosh tech sr
* * . . * . . . * . . * * * . * . . . * * | r...@tiac.net
* . . * . . . * . . * . * . * . . . * | m...@tiac.net
* . . * . . * * * . * . * . * * * . * * * | http://richsena.tiac.net
Eric Joslin
In article <582fvi$e...@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, tbdu...@shore.net says...
> flna...@tiacl.net (Misty) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > If any valid customer brought up concerns
> >regarding thier account of the service we provide, we would *gladly*
> >do whatever we could to help them out.
>
> Two Words: James Garner
Tim, since you've been following the threads with Mr. Garner, you're
obviously aware that we've given him several options and ideas about what
his problem could be. It's right there in the tiac newsgroup....
Oh, right. Since you aren't a TIAC customer any longer, you can't see
that group. Ah, well. Nevermind.
Eric Joslin
TIAC Customer Service
Misty
>flna...@tiacl.net (Misty) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> If any valid customer brought up concerns
>>regarding thier account of the service we provide, we would *gladly*
>>do whatever we could to help them out.
>
>Two Words: James Garner
Oh, *Thats* right. That's why people are constantly ( to my eyes)
trying to help him on here. Stick to what you know, Tim (althought
that really won't keep you that busy...)
>
>tim
>
John Reder
flna...@tiacl.net (Misty) wrote:
>
>
> > If any valid customer brought up concerns
> >regarding thier account of the service we provide, we would *gladly*
> >do whatever we could to help them out.
> A "VALID" customer is one who pays his bill and in doing so, your
salary. Any use of the word "VALID", should be in regards to the
jsutification for paying that salary!
Timothy B Duggan
Rich Sena <r...@tiac.net> wrote:
>excuse me tim - but mr gardner - has gotten quite a bit of attention - and
>direction from more than one source - james gardner is more of an example
>of support - an effort to help a customer solve a problem - i dial into
>laraby and i even tried dialing into NYC and loggin into laraby - the
>problem is not the machine - there appears to be another problem with his
>ability to reconcile a steady connection - eliminating the server - we
>openend a ticket with usr to see if the netservers were having
>compatability issues with older sportsters - pete davis will keep the tiac
>ng informed of what transpires
>mr gardner has absorbed quite a bit of attention from support and it is an
>ongoing attention and it's our hope that his problem does get resolved
No wonder James Garner is still having problems - you're helping the
wrong guy!
You can't even get the customer's NAME right, let alone do ANYTHING to
solve his problem.
This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
I take that back, it is mildly amusing watching you make a fool of
yourself.
payattentionyouemptyheadedidiot
tim