Newsgroup Nazi
John Fields
Services, and I'm really pleased with it. I was using another ISP for
outgoing email and news, and yesterday I decided to save a few bucks
by dropping the other ISP and running everything through SWB. No
problem; everything worked fine except the connection to Usenet,
through Prodigy, which was (is) so crappy that I didn't see any new
posts on sed or abse for hours after I hooked up with prodigy's news
server.
So, I thought, maybe something's wrong on my end. In order to check
it out I decided to send some test posts to see if they'd make it
through, and here's what I found in my inbox shortly after that:
<QUOTE>
FYI,
Please be advised that posting tests to discussion
groups is considered poor netiquette. There are test
groups set aside for posting tests. Please retry your
test to sbcglobal.test, or alt.test. For binary test
posts please use alt.test.binaries.
All unmoderated groups work the same way so if a post
works to a test group it should work in any group. On
the rare occasion where a test must be made to a
discussion group, please post a short on-topic message
as your test. Your test post would have been successful
had it not been filtered out.
If you are having problems with or questions regarding
newsgroups please post your concerns to;
news://sbcglobal.help.tech.newsgroups
or email news-s...@sbcglobal.net
Common problems and fixes may be found at;
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Thank You,
--
Tom Ippolito
Newsgroups System Administrator
SBC Services
ippo...@prodigy.net
<END QUOTE>
Notice that Ippolito took it upon _himself_ to stop a legal
transmission which I'm paying good money to supposedly be able to do.
What do y'all think about that?
--
John Fields
Fred Bloggs
If only they could do the same for OT: Blah-blah-blah's we would be set.
John Woodgate
ents.com> wrote (in <12bj315kqurrphd28...@4ax.com>) about
'Newsgroup Nazi', on Thu, 17 Mar 2005:
>What do y'all think about that?
He must be French.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:12bj315kqurrphd28...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> <END QUOTE>
>
> Notice that Ippolito took it upon _himself_ to stop a legal
> transmission which I'm paying good money to supposedly be able to do.
>
> What do y'all think about that?
I had Pac Bell (now SBC) dialup and it was so spitty, spotty and
worthless that I soon dropped it. They would drop the connection after
just a half hour or less, and that was assuming something else wasn't
wrong with their servers. They are so incompetent and they can get away
with it because they're one of the biggest providers, even worse than
AOHell. There's even a website and/or newsgroup just for how bad their
service is.
http://pachell.com/
http://twiki.cageyconsumer.com/PacBellHell
I just spent the last _four_ days trying to get them to fix a DSL line
at work. I brought it up an the monthly service meeting with our SBC
account reps and got sympathy, but that's all.
> --
> John Fields
Jim Thompson
<j...@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
>I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
>ents.com> wrote (in <12bj315kqurrphd28...@4ax.com>) about
>'Newsgroup Nazi', on Thu, 17 Mar 2005:
>
>>What do y'all think about that?
>
>He must be French.
"Ippolito"? Sure sounds "French" to me ;-)
Me, I'd send Ippolito a nastygram, copied to whatever state agency
regulates SBC in Texass.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"
"Jim Thompson" <thegr...@example.com> wrote in message
news:tkhj31hl98qdjg984...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:46:40 +0000, John Woodgate
> <j...@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
>
> >I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields
<jfields@austininstrum
> >ents.com> wrote (in <12bj315kqurrphd28...@4ax.com>)
about
> >'Newsgroup Nazi', on Thu, 17 Mar 2005:
> >
> >>What do y'all think about that?
> >
> >He must be French.
>
> "Ippolito"? Sure sounds "French" to me ;-)
>
> Me, I'd send Ippolito a nastygram, copied to whatever state agency
> regulates SBC in Texass.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
> --
But first check the fine print in your TOS/AUP. There's a good chance
that you signed away the right when you signed up for their service.
But just because they made you waive your rights doesn't mean that what
they're doing is legal. There a good chance it violates some law. One
thing that should be considered. SBC is a regulated entity, so certain
things are different than for a regular ISP. However they may have
their internet services spun off as a separate company to take care of
this.
Larry Brasfield
<NOS...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:113jkc4...@corp.supernews.com...
[regarding ISP's blocking of an off-topic post and complaint about same]
> But first check the fine print in your TOS/AUP. There's a good chance
> that you signed away the right when you signed up for their service.
That's an excellent point. I've not read the terms
of service agreement the OP executed, (and neither
has he, I suspect), but I have read (and executed)
several, and most or all of them explicitly provided
for the action that the OP's ISP took.
> But just because they made you waive your rights doesn't mean that what
> they're doing is legal. There a good chance it violates some law.
I doubt that very much. What law do you
think that is? Something the U.S. Congress
passed? Case law?
[snip]
--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_la...@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.
Rob Gaddi
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:46:40 +0000, John Woodgate
> <j...@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
>
>
>>I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
>>ents.com> wrote (in <12bj315kqurrphd28...@4ax.com>) about
>>'Newsgroup Nazi', on Thu, 17 Mar 2005:
>>
>>
>>>What do y'all think about that?
>>
>>He must be French.
>
>
> "Ippolito"? Sure sounds "French" to me ;-)
>
> Me, I'd send Ippolito a nastygram, copied to whatever state agency
> regulates SBC in Texass.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
business here in Texas.
Jim Thompson
ROTFLMAO!
Rich Grise
> I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
> ents.com> wrote (in <12bj315kqurrphd28...@4ax.com>) about
> 'Newsgroup Nazi', on Thu, 17 Mar 2005:
>
>>What do y'all think about that?
>
> He must be French.
Nah. He's a Patriot! His suppression of test messages is perfectly
legal under the Patriot Act!
What are you, some kind of subversive?
;-P
Rich
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"
"Larry Brasfield" <donotspam_la...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Dvk_d.29$zO....@news.uswest.net...
> "Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover""
> <NOS...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> news:113jkc4...@corp.supernews.com...
> [regarding ISP's blocking of an off-topic post and complaint about
same]
> > But first check the fine print in your TOS/AUP. There's a good
chance
> > that you signed away the right when you signed up for their service.
>
> That's an excellent point. I've not read the terms
> of service agreement the OP executed, (and neither
> has he, I suspect), but I have read (and executed)
> several, and most or all of them explicitly provided
> for the action that the OP's ISP took.
>
> > But just because they made you waive your rights doesn't mean that
what
> > they're doing is legal. There a good chance it violates some law.
>
> I doubt that very much. What law do you
> think that is? Something the U.S. Congress
> passed? Case law?
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word good there. The violation would
most likely involve privacy and monitoring, and/or censorship and free
speech.
Franc Zabkar
<jfi...@austininstruments.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Notice that Ippolito took it upon _himself_ to stop a legal
>transmission which I'm paying good money to supposedly be able to do.
>
>What do y'all think about that?
I have no problem with that, it just sounds like a bit of friendly
advice to me. He's merely restating accepted Usenet practice. BTW,
it's also considered bad netiquette to crosspost excessively (I had to
resend this message because of "non-existent newsgroups").
If I were testing my Usenet access, I'd just send a regular message,
or reply to an existing thread. If the message doesn't appear in my
normal newsfeed, then I'd look for it at Google Groups. BTW, I don't
necessarily agree with all the netiquette guidelines, but I observe
them anyway. I reckon if I can annoy the least number of people my
life will be a lot easier.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
Larry Brasfield
> "Larry Brasfield" <donotspam_la...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:Dvk_d.29$zO....@news.uswest.net...
>> "Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover""
>> > But just because they made you waive your rights
One can interpret "coercion" broadly, of course,
but no court in the land counts the inducement
of a service offered for money as coercion.
>> > doesn't mean that what
>> > they're doing is legal. There a good chance it violates some law.
>>
>> I doubt that very much. What law do you
>> think that is? Something the U.S. Congress
>> passed? Case law?
>
> Maybe I shouldn't have used the word good there.
Probabilities are often hard to quantify or get right.
> The violation would
> most likely involve privacy and monitoring, and/or censorship and free
> speech.
Blocking something that was destined for a public
forum is hardly likely to fall under privacy law.
Censorship is something the government can do,
not private individuals, unless there is some real
coercion involved, a crime all by itself.
"Free speech" is a much misunderstood notion.
I continue to be amazed at the derivations that
flow from "Congress shall make no law ...".
[snip snip]
JeffM
>is perfectly legal under the Patriot Act!
>What are you, some kind of subversive? ;-P
Careful, dude. You're not a Republicrat or a Demopublican.
You could be next on the list.
John Fields
<fza...@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:12:12 -0600, John Fields
><jfi...@austininstruments.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>Notice that Ippolito took it upon _himself_ to stop a legal
>>transmission which I'm paying good money to supposedly be able to do.
>>
>>What do y'all think about that?
>
>I have no problem with that, it just sounds like a bit of friendly
>advice to me.
---
Friendly advice is one thing, blocking a legitimate post is quite
another.
---
>He's merely restating accepted Usenet practice.
---
No, accepted Usenet practice is _not_ cancelling a post because of a
breach of netiquette.
---
>BTW, it's also considered bad netiquette to crosspost excessively (I had to
>resend this message because of "non-existent newsgroups").
---
Just because your ISP doesn't carry sbcglobal.help.tech.newsgroups
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
---
>If I were testing my Usenet access, I'd just send a regular message,
>or reply to an existing thread. If the message doesn't appear in my
>normal newsfeed, then I'd look for it at Google Groups. BTW, I don't
>necessarily agree with all the netiquette guidelines, but I observe
>them anyway. I reckon if I can annoy the least number of people my
>life will be a lot easier.
---
Yeah, goos idea. That makes it _really_ convenient for whoever's
pushing you into the oven.
--
John Fields
BFoelsch
message.
Then, I'd take another sip of my martini.
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:12bj315kqurrphd28...@4ax.com...
JeffM
>just for how bad their service is.
>http://pachell.com/
>http://twiki.cageyconsumer.com/PacBellHell
It appears they were sharp enough to have bought up and/or quashed
pacbellsucks.com and pacbellsucks.net:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=pacbellsucks+DSL+-pacbellsucks-org
...but then came the .info TLD:
(Odd how the more inclusive
http://www.google.com/search?&q=pacbellsucks+dial-up+OR+dialup+OR+DSL+-pacbellsucks-org
gives fewer hits.)
Google results just suck these days.
I really love the way they're ignoring my wildcards in the middle of
phrases.
Reminds me of Clippy.
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"
Is that 'goos idea' a Freudian slip??
> --
> John Fields
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
[snip]
> Notice that Ippolito took it upon _himself_ to stop a legal
> transmission which I'm paying good money to supposedly be able to do.
>
> What do y'all think about that?
I think it's unconscionable. Tearing people a new a*hole for posting
test messages in this group is OUR job, not his.
;-)
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
It's easier said than done.
... and if you don't believe it, try proving that it's easier done than
said, and you'll see that it's easier said that `it's easier done than
said' than it is done, which really proves that it's easier said than
done.
Tony Williams
John Fields <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
> Notice that Ippolito took it upon _himself_ to stop a legal
> transmission which I'm paying good money to supposedly be able to
> do.
Since many of us saw it he didn't stop the
original propagation, probably issued a later
cancel. Third party cancels are themselves
often regarded as poor netiquette.
You missed something though John. Your post was
entitled 'Short message'. In order for your ISP
to know that it was a test post they must have
examined the *content* of the post.
This is a dangerous thing for an ISP to do, because
all posts they propagate may reasonably be assumed
to have been seen by them and they are satisfied
that no posts have an illegal content. Therefore
they lay themselves open to prosecution if a post
is subsequently the cause of legal action.
My ISP makes a big fuss about never looking at the
content of a post. In this way they maintain their
status as a common carrier (like the post office).
--
Tony Williams.
Frithiof Andreas Jensen
> What do y'all think about that?
He's saying "Do you feel lucky, Punk"
Well, you can leave it well be or you can duke it out with BOFH (provided
you do not really need your internet connection, do not have anything in the
way of services/data storage at the ISP and your ethernet connection is well
isolated, you stand on a rubber mat while using the computer and your
computers earth connection is sound ;-)
BOFH - Bastard Operator From Hell; Alias: Abaddon, lives in alt.sysadmin.*,
lurks on root accounts:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=BOFH
John Woodgate
ents.com> wrote (in <12bj315kqurrphd28...@4ax.com>) about
'Newsgroup Nazi', on Thu, 17 Mar 2005:
>transmission which I'm paying good money to supposedly be able to do.
>
>What do y'all think about that?
Did you check the header to see if there is any evidence that it's a
wind-up?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
John Fields
<to...@ledelec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <12bj315kqurrphd28...@4ax.com>,
> John Fields <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>
>> Notice that Ippolito took it upon _himself_ to stop a legal
>> transmission which I'm paying good money to supposedly be able to
>> do.
>
> Since many of us saw it he didn't stop the
> original propagation, probably issued a later
> cancel. Third party cancels are themselves
> often regarded as poor netiquette.
>
> You missed something though John. Your post was
> entitled 'Short message'. In order for your ISP
> to know that it was a test post they must have
> examined the *content* of the post.
---
Actually, that was a second post which I sent which I knew wouldn't be
cancelled, because the subject wasn't "test". The first post, which
_did_ have "test" as the subject was the one that was cancelled.
---
> This is a dangerous thing for an ISP to do, because
> all posts they propagate may reasonably be assumed
> to have been seen by them and they are satisfied
> that no posts have an illegal content. Therefore
> they lay themselves open to prosecution if a post
> is subsequently the cause of legal action.
---
Yes, I agree. In this case however, since I've paid to use their
Usenet server(s) and have committed no illegal acts with respect to
that usage, theft of service would seem to me to be the cause for
legal action.
---
> My ISP makes a big fuss about never looking at the
> content of a post. In this way they maintain their
> status as a common carrier (like the post office).
---
A good policy, IMO, and it frees them from the daunting task of having
to read (or machine filter for content followed by a human read) every
post that goes through them.
--
John Fields
John Fields
<j...@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
>I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
>ents.com> wrote (in <12bj315kqurrphd28...@4ax.com>) about
>'Newsgroup Nazi', on Thu, 17 Mar 2005:
>>Notice that Ippolito took it upon _himself_ to stop a legal
>>transmission which I'm paying good money to supposedly be able to do.
>>
>>What do y'all think about that?
>
>Did you check the header to see if there is any evidence that it's a
>wind-up?
---
Yes, and I also sent a copy of the message and the headers to "abuse
at prodigy.com", where Ippolito's post originated. (prodigy.com, that
is) No response so far...
--
John Fields
John Fields
Dark Remover\"" <NOS...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>news:p18k31l32kn6ueeeu...@4ax.com...
>> ---
>> Yeah, goos idea. That makes it _really_ convenient for whoever's
>> pushing you into the oven.
>
>Is that 'goos idea' a Freudian slip??
---
Just a trypo, AFAIK...
What would it refer to if it was Freudian?
--
John Fields
John Woodgate
'Newsgroup Nazi', on Fri, 18 Mar 2005:
Well, you might well push a goose into the oven. Alternatively, someone
might goose YOU, so that you projected yourself into the oven.
Rich Grise
I got "goose step"...
John Fields
<Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>John Fields wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>
>> Notice that Ippolito took it upon _himself_ to stop a legal
>> transmission which I'm paying good money to supposedly be able to do.
>>
>> What do y'all think about that?
>
>I think it's unconscionable. Tearing people a new a*hole for posting
>test messages in this group is OUR job, not his.
>
>;-)
---
Precisely!-)
--
John Fields
John Fields
<j...@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
>I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
>ents.com> wrote (in <tevl31d7hifd06bba...@4ax.com>) about
>'Newsgroup Nazi', on Fri, 18 Mar 2005:
>>On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:18:21 -0800, "Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the
>>Dark Remover\"" <NOS...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>>>news:p18k31l32kn6ueeeu...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Yeah, goos idea. That makes it _really_ convenient for whoever's
>>>> pushing you into the oven.
>>>
>>>Is that 'goos idea' a Freudian slip??
>>
>>---
>>Just a trypo, AFAIK...
>>
>>What would it refer to if it was Freudian?
>
>Well, you might well push a goose into the oven. Alternatively, someone
>might goose YOU, so that you projected yourself into the oven.
---
Ah, yesss... That would make _me_ the butt of the joke!^)
--
John Fields
John Fields
wrote:
---
That would be closer to Hitler than to Freud, no?
--
John Fields
Franc Zabkar
> In order for your ISP
> to know that it was a test post they must have
> examined the *content* of the post.
>
> This is a dangerous thing for an ISP to do, because
> all posts they propagate may reasonably be assumed
> to have been seen by them and they are satisfied
> that no posts have an illegal content. Therefore
> they lay themselves open to prosecution if a post
> is subsequently the cause of legal action.
>
> My ISP makes a big fuss about never looking at the
> content of a post. In this way they maintain their
> status as a common carrier (like the post office).
I would like to see *all* ISPs filter content that contains spam,
racial vilification, malware, binary attachments (in non-binary NGs),
and other inappropriate content. If the law needs to be rewritten for
modern times, then so be it.
BTW, John, it appears that your newsgroup access is working. It's a
shame we aren't discussing something more pertinent. ;-)
Franc Zabkar
<jfi...@austininstruments.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:26:16 +1100, Franc Zabkar
><fza...@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:12:12 -0600, John Fields
>><jfi...@austininstruments.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>
>>>Notice that Ippolito took it upon _himself_ to stop a legal
>>>transmission which I'm paying good money to supposedly be able to do.
>>>
>>>What do y'all think about that?
>>
>>I have no problem with that, it just sounds like a bit of friendly
>>advice to me.
>
>---
>Friendly advice is one thing, blocking a legitimate post is quite
>another.
>---
>
>>He's merely restating accepted Usenet practice.
>
>---
>No, accepted Usenet practice is _not_ cancelling a post because of a
>breach of netiquette.
>---
>
>>BTW, it's also considered bad netiquette to crosspost excessively (I had to
>>resend this message because of "non-existent newsgroups").
>
>---
>Just because your ISP doesn't carry sbcglobal.help.tech.newsgroups
>doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That's not the point. If you had crossposted to 100 newsgroups, then
nearly everybody who responded to your message (who was an Agent user)
would have had their reply bounce.
>>If I were testing my Usenet access, I'd just send a regular message,
>>or reply to an existing thread. If the message doesn't appear in my
>>normal newsfeed, then I'd look for it at Google Groups. BTW, I don't
>>necessarily agree with all the netiquette guidelines, but I observe
>>them anyway. I reckon if I can annoy the least number of people my
>>life will be a lot easier.
>
>---
>Yeah, goos idea. That makes it _really_ convenient for whoever's
>pushing you into the oven.
Standards exist for a good reason. For example, I like to drive on the
left side of the road, but when I visit the USA I defer to local
custom. Sometimes there really is no room for individual expression
...
BTW, you are not alone with your NG problems. Many years ago I was
with an ISP called OneNet. NoneNet had not allocated enough disc
capacity to their Usenet service, which meant that more often than not
I was unable to post messages. When my posts did go through, they were
not being relayed to the wider Internet, which meant that only other
NoneNet users were seeing them. A visit to the Usenet archives at
DejaNews confirmed my suspicions.
Jim Thompson
We have true freedom of speech in this country, so any blocking or
censoring anything other than advertising is guaranteed to get you
sued.
Your "inappropriate content" may be my tasty morsel. We've had
several court rulings here which say you have no legal protection
against being offended.
About the only "content" laws that hold up against challenge are those
that limit what minors may be exposed to.
John Fields
<fza...@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:29:20 -0600, John Fields
><jfi...@austininstruments.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>---
>>Just because your ISP doesn't carry sbcglobal.help.tech.newsgroups
>>doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
>That's not the point. If you had crossposted to 100 newsgroups, then
>nearly everybody who responded to your message (who was an Agent user)
>would have had their reply bounce.
---
I can't imagine why. I use Agent and I've often replied to messages
crossposted by other Agent users with no problems. Or even to other
Agent users _with_ problems. ;)
---
>>>If I were testing my Usenet access, I'd just send a regular message,
>>>or reply to an existing thread. If the message doesn't appear in my
>>>normal newsfeed, then I'd look for it at Google Groups. BTW, I don't
>>>necessarily agree with all the netiquette guidelines, but I observe
>>>them anyway. I reckon if I can annoy the least number of people my
>>>life will be a lot easier.
>>
>>---
>>Yeah, goos idea. That makes it _really_ convenient for whoever's
>>pushing you into the oven.
>
>Standards exist for a good reason. For example, I like to drive on the
>left side of the road, but when I visit the USA I defer to local
>custom. Sometimes there really is no room for individual expression
>...
---
Driving on the right side (as opposed to the wrong side;)) of the road
over here isn't just a good idea and a local custom, it's the law.
Posting a test message to non-test newsgroups isn't against any law,
and whether it's identified as a test or disguised as something else,
the fact remains it's a test message.
---
>BTW, you are not alone with your NG problems. Many years ago I was
>with an ISP called OneNet. NoneNet had not allocated enough disc
>capacity to their Usenet service, which meant that more often than not
>I was unable to post messages. When my posts did go through, they were
>not being relayed to the wider Internet, which meant that only other
>NoneNet users were seeing them. A visit to the Usenet archives at
>DejaNews confirmed my suspicions.
---
Ok, but that's wildly different from singling out one post and
refusing to broadcast it because of one individual's objection to the
contents of the subject line.
--
John Fields
John Fields
<fza...@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:39:13 +0000 (GMT), Tony Williams
><to...@ledelec.demon.co.uk> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>> In order for your ISP
>> to know that it was a test post they must have
>> examined the *content* of the post.
>>
>> This is a dangerous thing for an ISP to do, because
>> all posts they propagate may reasonably be assumed
>> to have been seen by them and they are satisfied
>> that no posts have an illegal content. Therefore
>> they lay themselves open to prosecution if a post
>> is subsequently the cause of legal action.
>>
>> My ISP makes a big fuss about never looking at the
>> content of a post. In this way they maintain their
>> status as a common carrier (like the post office).
>
>I would like to see *all* ISPs filter content that contains spam,
>racial vilification, malware, binary attachments (in non-binary NGs),
>and other inappropriate content. If the law needs to be rewritten for
>modern times, then so be it.
---
IMO, if there's any legislation to be enacted, it should penalize the
perpetrators, not the ISP's. After all, they're just providing access
to the network and can't be made responsible for the idiocy of some of
its users. To legislate against them would be to find a company
providing public transportation an accessory to murder because someone
took the bus to a liquor store and then robbed and killed the owner of
the store.
---
>BTW, John, it appears that your newsgroup access is working. It's a
>shame we aren't discussing something more pertinent. ;-)
---
It's working because I blew off Prodigy and their provincial bullshit
and hooked up with Giganews.
--
John Fields
Tony Williams
John Fields <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:39:13 +0000 (GMT), Tony Williams
> <to...@ledelec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > You missed something though John. Your post was
> > entitled 'Short message'. In order for your ISP
> > to know that it was a test post they must have
> > examined the *content* of the post.
> Actually, that was a second post which I sent which I knew
> wouldn't be cancelled, because the subject wasn't "test". The
> first post, which _did_ have "test" as the subject was the one
> that was cancelled.
They were probably ok to remark on it then.
> ......... In this case however, since I've paid to use their
> Usenet server(s) and have committed no illegal acts with respect
> to that usage, theft of service would seem to me to be the cause
> for legal action.
Third party cancellation is a very sensitive subject on
usenet, as you can see from your own reaction to it.
They should never be issued lightly, even by an ISP.
Whether they were right to cancel the post depends on the
AUP you agreed to, and/or the Charters of all the groups
you crossposted to.
You'll get nowhere legally. Just vote with your feet.
--
Tony Williams.
Ban
>>>>> Yeah, goos idea. That makes it _really_ convenient for whoever's
>>>>> pushing you into the oven.
>>>>
>>>> Is that 'goos idea' a Freudian slip??
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Just a trypo, AFAIK...
>>>
>>> What would it refer to if it was Freudian?
>>
>> I got "goose step"...
>
> ---
> That would be closer to Hitler than to Freud, no?
Strange, but both were Austrian. As is Schwarzenegger.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"
"Ban" <ban...@web.de> wrote in message
news:CTW_d.674742$b5.30...@news3.tin.it...
Hey, Ban, I thought about you the other day. I had to go in an office
and pick up a Dell PC to repair - had lines across the screen. I didn't
notice anything when I picked it up, and I got it back to the shop and
swapped the MoBo. I got it running, but it locked up halfway thru the
boot-up several times. I finally found that the CPU was overheating, so
I reinstalled the heatsink. The rubber pad wasn't fully seated onto the
CPU and it overheated. I got that fixed, let it run over the weekend
and Monday morning it was still behaving itself. I took it back over to
the office and reinstalled it, and got thru and looked up, and lo and
behold, I saw on the wall this copy of a famous painting, with
"Bordighera - Claude Monet" underneath it. Click on the picture for a
larger view.
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/tamsquare-oil-painting/oilpainborcl.html
Kind of weird, like.. Of course that may have been painted a hundred
years ago.
Franc Zabkar
<jfi...@austininstruments.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
I agree with you in principle, although I don't think ISPs should be
absolved completely. For example, they should not be allowed to turn a
blind eye to illegal activity, eg anonymous spam remailing. My own ISP
offers a spam filtering service which I find extremely beneficial as
it traps a lot of malware. Optusnet also combats bulk emailers by
limiting the number of emails a user can transmit at any one time. My
email client has a "mood watch" feature which flags incoming and
outgoing messages that may have objectionable content. Some ISPs also
have this feature. On one occasion I emailed a particular ISP to
complain about a user who was using their facilities to vilify others,
but my email was rejected because the ISP's email server decided that
the quoted abuse was too objectionable for their own employees to
read. I had to misspell the offending words to bypass this filter.
>>BTW, John, it appears that your newsgroup access is working. It's a
>>shame we aren't discussing something more pertinent. ;-)
>
>---
>It's working because I blew off Prodigy and their provincial bullshit
>and hooked up with Giganews.
Franc Zabkar
<thegr...@example.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
I beg to differ. What you have in your country is a litigious society,
as do we, but you do not have true freedom of speech. Otherwise, why
would someone like Michael Moore need to go to the BBC before he could
tell Americans "The Awful Truth"? The fact is, even though your
constitution grants you certain rights, a dissenting voice is rarely
given the opportunity to be heard.
>Your "inappropriate content" may be my tasty morsel. We've had
>several court rulings here which say you have no legal protection
>against being offended.
We have laws against inciting violence and racial hatred, for example.
I would think such legislation should be a basic requirement of any
civilised jurisdiction.
>About the only "content" laws that hold up against challenge are those
>that limit what minors may be exposed to.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
John Fields
<fza...@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:13:46 -0700, Jim Thompson
><thegr...@example.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>We have true freedom of speech in this country, so any blocking or
>>censoring anything other than advertising is guaranteed to get you
>>sued.
>
>I beg to differ. What you have in your country is a litigious society,
>as do we, but you do not have true freedom of speech. Otherwise, why
>would someone like Michael Moore need to go to the BBC before he could
>tell Americans "The Awful Truth"? The fact is, even though your
>constitution grants you certain rights, a dissenting voice is rarely
>given the opportunity to be heard.
---
We have true freedom of speech, but there is no requirement placed on
the media to broadcast speech they choose not to.
---
>
>>Your "inappropriate content" may be my tasty morsel. We've had
>>several court rulings here which say you have no legal protection
>>against being offended.
>
>We have laws against inciting violence and racial hatred, for example.
>I would think such legislation should be a basic requirement of any
>civilised jurisdiction.
---
We have similar legislation, but it's a shame that either of our
"civilized" societies should have the need for that kind of
legislation.
--
John Fields
Ban
> I saw on the wall
> this copy of a famous painting, with "Bordighera - Claude Monet"
> underneath it. Click on the picture for a larger view.
>
> http://shop.store.yahoo.com/tamsquare-oil-painting/oilpainborcl.html
>
> Kind of weird, like.. Of course that may have been painted a hundred
> years ago.
I think it was painted in 1884, when Monet was on a 2-year vacation. He
painted 36 pictures during that time. Bordighera is one of the most famous
sea-baths in Italy, Queen Margherita had her summer residence here. You
still find the view of Monet unaltered, tho the city has been growing into
the lower parts, which in those times were covered with orange and lemon
trees. Now there are around 12000 inhabitants, most of which only come in
the holidays.
The Côte d'Azur has been an inspiring area for many painters: Picasso, Miro
and Chagall lived in Nice, just 30 mls away. And we have the famous film
festival in Cannes and of course the Formula 1 race in Monte Carlo, Monaco.
This country can be seen from here just across the bay.
If anyone wants to visit this area, just drop me a mail, maybe we can
meet for a glass of wine.
John Fields
<donotspam_la...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As people get to know each other, they normally
>become able to anticipate how the other(s) will
>respond or interpret things. My email is a good
>example. When I sent it, I imagined that you
>would appreciate the gesture as the simple one
>apparent from its face. Now I realize that you
>are prone to reading all kinds of sinister ulterior
>motives into the simplest statement or gesture.
>I might have guessed as much earlier, but I try
>to avoid erring in that direction. You may want
>to consider the benefits of that approach. (And
>that suggestion as another example of it.)
---
What I've come to learn about you, Larry, is that when a point is made
with which you disagree, your position on that point is pretty much
set in stone and you'll do whatever's required to keep from having to
abandon that position, including changing the subject and descending
into ever diverging minutiae in an attempt to, it seems to me, change
the direction of the discussion away from the point which you feel
uncomfortable having to accept as at odds with your own and correct.
You also use diversionary tactics such as you've done here, namely
"hijacking" a thread and posting it to another NG for the purpose of
minimizing the participation in the thread, thus lowering your
response overhead. Note that I've crossposted it back to where it
started.
Yet another ploy, which you use in the technical newsgroups where you
allude to great wisdom and understanding and the ability to solve
problems effortlessly, is rarely being specific. Instead, you offer
anecdotal evidence of your prowess and seem to expect that that should
be enough to convince everyone of your god-like personna without
having to actually solve any problems.
There's more, but I'd like to close with what I think annoys everyone
the most, that being your air of smug superiority and, as John Larkin
put it so succinctly, being coy.
--
John Fields
Larry Brasfield
topical but because Mr. Fields seems to want it there.
I decline to also contribute to cross-posting rudeness.]
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:cu7r31t48sg44j6dn...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:46:11 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
> <donotspam_la...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm going to restore just a little context to John's
quote because it then takes on a different meaning.
Fields began:
Also, in the future, please don't email me with matters pertaining to
newsgroups. Keep it on Usenet, where it belongs.
Brasfield replied:
My notice of posting was merely a courtesy since I
suspect (for many reasons) that this is not one of
your regular haunts.
However, you may rest assured that it will not happen again.
I have mistaken you.
That is also becoming increasingly unlikely.
Fields asked:
I don't understand. You have mistaken me? For what?
And what is becoming increasingly unlikely? That you will be
mistaking me? Please explain.
Brasfield responded (in part):
>>As people get to know each other, they normally
>>become able to anticipate how the other(s) will
>>respond or interpret things. My email is a good
>>example. When I sent it, I imagined that you
>>would appreciate the gesture as the simple one
>>apparent from its face. Now I realize that you
>>are prone to reading all kinds of sinister ulterior
>>motives into the simplest statement or gesture.
>>I might have guessed as much earlier, but I try
>>to avoid erring in that direction. You may want
>>to consider the benefits of that approach. (And
>>that suggestion as another example of it.)
So it would be a mistake to think it came out of the blue.
> What I've come to learn about you, Larry, is that when a point is made
> with which you disagree, your position on that point is pretty much
> set in stone and you'll do whatever's required to keep from having to
> abandon that position, including changing the subject and descending
> into ever diverging minutiae in an attempt to, it seems to me, change
> the direction of the discussion away from the point which you feel
> uncomfortable having to accept as at odds with your own and correct.
I often change my thinking in response to people's
efforts to correct my statements or provide some
reason to think differently. Your "set in stone" is
your own experience, because you have rarely
made any argument that was persuasive. You
insinuate, you jab, you twist and misinterpret,
you publicly conjecture low motives, and you
play other low games, but you have not made
many (or any) rational arguments that I can recall.
So your experience should not be surprising.
> You also use diversionary tactics such as you've done here, namely
> "hijacking" a thread and posting it to another NG for the purpose of
> minimizing the participation in the thread, thus lowering your
> response overhead. Note that I've crossposted it back to where it
> started.
Here is a good example of your games. Perhaps
you have forgotten the topic at the time that I
took the subthread over where it could possibly
be considered topical. Here, it is not. Why do
you prefer to impugn my motive when a simple
desire to get a political issue to a political NG
would suffice to explain it? My insertion of
'[OT]' at the time could have been your clue.
> Yet another ploy, which you use in the technical newsgroups where you
> allude to great wisdom and understanding and the ability to solve
> problems effortlessly, is rarely being specific. Instead, you offer
> anecdotal evidence of your prowess and seem to expect that that should
> be enough to convince everyone of your god-like personna without
> having to actually solve any problems.
I can do little about your perceptions, driven
as they are by motives I do not understand.
> There's more, but
Thanks for not sharing.
--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_la...@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.
Rich Grise
>
> Ok, but that's wildly different from singling out one post and refusing to
> broadcast it because of one individual's objection to the contents of the
> subject line.
And worse, what if it's a "real" post, but mentions test equipment in
the subject line? Do they dump that one too?
Thanks,
Rich
John Fields
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:33:24 -0600, John Fields wrote:
---
From the email I got, I got the sense that my post had been read by a
human and then blocked but, for sure, I don't know.
An interesting aside to all of this is that there seems to be no
traffic _at all_ on the NG from which I posted the test message,
news://sbcglobal.help.tech.newsgroups
nor even a machine-generated acknowledgement of a complaint I posted
to ab...@prodigy.com
--
John Fields
RdM
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic<d1emb0$l4n$1...@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>:
<and a surfeit of other groups!>
<snip>
: BOFH - Bastard Operator From Hell; Alias: Abaddon, lives in alt.sysadmin.*,
: lurks on root accounts:
: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=BOFH
Although the link given for Simon Travaglia's stories there redirects to
an archive, the most up-to-date (and other archives) are to be found at
http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/
Steven
You're doing a great deal of arguing about the American way with an
Australian. It doesn't make a lot of sense, and neither do any of their
newsgroups lately. After all that savage crap I took in one of those groups
when Afghanistan hit the fan and having seen more than a few current trolls
that make ours look rather weak, arguing socialism vs. whatever we call our
system really invites your exposure to sour grapes. You can't win that
argument, and it involves two alien societies who can't cross very well, or
at least a subsection of it. Spare yourself, or resign to face many of these
threads, to your pain and woe and utter dismay.