SUPPORT The E-Bill of Rights SUPPORT (Re: DHP gets UDP threat...)
Bob Allisat
Me, Bob Allisat wrote:
> Documents like the Electronic Bill
> of Rights would protect law abiding
> citizens from such arbitrary actions
> of ISP's and their employees. And
> also from similar activities from
> other, regular citizens. Laws should
> be constructed to protect us all from
> not expose us all to arbitrary and
> unfair discrimintation.
Steve Crisp (cr...@pageplanet.com) replied: ... An ISP is a private
: organization and can dictate who or who may not access the facilities
: at their whim. If you don't like it, I suggest that you get your own
: class-C block, you own T1 connection, and you own peering point
: argeements worked out and have a go at it...
For the poor, those people
who do not have the time or
the knowledge or the skills
to create their own ISPs the
Electronic Bill of Rights
will protect their access to
information, E-Mail, articles
and dignity from commercial
electronic totalitarians and
their virtual dictatorships.
- BA
......................................................................
Electronic Bill of Rights
Free Women And Men
All As Equals
Have:
The right to privacy of electronic communications
without interference or surveillance.
The right to navigate in an unrestricted manner
through generally accessable public, electronic
networks.
The right to access on public electronic networks
regardless of income, ethnicity, gender, physical
location or disability.
The right to access any public article, newsgroup,
message or other electronic communications from
whichever person or area we so desire.
The right to uncensored, free, and uncontrolled
communications to and from unmoderated, public areas.
The right to create newsgroups, to form online
communities and other electronic resources and to
discuss matters of interest to multiple participants,
without interference, retribution or undue restrictions
The right to control and restrict access to private
mail boxes and other personal, non-public file areas
and to deny access if we so desire.
The right to security and protection from forged
messages, cancellations and articles.
The right to protection, should we so choose, from
mail bombing, automatic mailers, large, unrequested
file or data transfers and similar harassments.
The right to due judicial process and proper legal
representation in any conflicts with a services
provider.
The right to uninterrupted services and reasonable
access to contracted electronic services and
resources without hindrance or prejudice.
The right to notification, positive verification
and approval when and if personal access codes or
any other personal and private data are transmitted
to anyone by the services provider.
The right to confidential deletion of all private
and personal electronic information from the data-
bases of a services provider once we choose to
leave.
--
ps
Bob Allisat wrote:
>
Bob Allisat wrote:
> For the poor, those people
> who do not have the time or
> the knowledge or the skills
> to create their own ISPs the
> Electronic Bill of Rights
> will protect their access to
> information, E-Mail, articles
> and dignity from commercial
> electronic totalitarians and
> their virtual dictatorships.
> - BA
[snip]
> The right to uninterrupted services and reasonable
> access to contracted electronic services and
> resources without hindrance or prejudice.
sounds nutty to me, it is not a country, not a government, why do you
think you have godgiven rights to anything on the net? you pays or you
dont plays, and your isp *is* a dictator. as has been said, if you dont
like it start your own. but noone has the "right" to get online.
weird.
Levien de Braal
In article <E69oMJ.Lu...@torfree.net>,
Bob Allisat <ab...@torfree.net> wrote:
>For the poor, those people who do not have the time or
>the knowledge or the skills to create their own ISPs the
>Electronic Bill of Rights will protect their access to
>information, E-Mail, articles and dignity from commercial
>electronic totalitarians and their virtual dictatorships.
That all depends how one interprets that "Bill of Rights". Are these rights
to be seen as "nobody may interfere with my right", or "when I demand so, I
should get X, Y, and Z, because I have the right to have it."
The same problems occur with many documents governing rights like that.
For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights speaks of a
"right to labor". The former USSR wished to have that interpreted that as a
demandable right, and have all states in the world provide a job to those that
didn't have one (as they did). Ofcourse, the USA was on the other side of the
interpretation. Still, the USSR complained that the USA wasn't respecting the
human rights in their country.
Also, you could interpret rights to be revokable or absolute (as in: should a
spammer always be allowed back on the net, regardless of previous misbehaviour,
or are ISP's allowed to refuse to do business with them?). To go back to that
same Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the "right to live" was interpreted
by some countries as absolute, hence saying it disallows the Death Penalty
(Amnesty International takes this stand too) while other countries (like the
USA) interprets it as a revokable right, meaning that it's OK to punish people
for their actions by taking away a fundamental right.
Your precious "Electronic Bill of Rights" is totally unclear about how it
should be interpreted, and it is therefore inherently flawed. It just mentions
a few things as "rights" yet provides no clarity on what "a right" means in
the context of that document.
Levien
--
Grabel's Law: 2 is not equal to 3---not even for very large values of 2.
Levien de Braal
In article <E69oMJ.Lu...@torfree.net>,
Bob Allisat <ab...@torfree.net> wrote:
>For the poor, those people who do not have the time or
>the knowledge or the skills to create their own ISPs the
>Electronic Bill of Rights will protect their access to
>information, E-Mail, articles and dignity from commercial
>electronic totalitarians and their virtual dictatorships.
A few more things:
1) Who's going to enforce this law?
2) How will this law be enforced?
3) What are the punishments for those that break this law?
4) Who's going to interpret these laws in case of disagreements? ("judge")
5) What is the procedure for 'electing' these laws?
6) Who is counting the votes?
7) What constitutes a legal vote?
8) What is the procedure for ammendments?
9) How are you planning to solve the issue of local government laws being in
disagreement with this one?
Sofar, you've got a nice, meaningless document, that you keep posting over and
over... Repetition doesn't make you right, you know?
Clue: The Internet isn't a democracy. It's an anarchic collection of a lot of
dictatorships. It outgrew the status of just one dictatorship the very moment
more than one organization owned its own connected router (LONG time ago).
Usenet isn't a Democracy. The existence of the UVV doesn't change that one bit.
Live with it, or hit that "disconnect" button.
Bob Fredricks
Levien de Braal wrote:
>
> In article <E69oMJ.Lu...@torfree.net>,
> Bob Allisat <ab...@torfree.net> wrote:
> >For the poor, those people who do not have the time or
> >the knowledge or the skills to create their own ISPs the
> >Electronic Bill of Rights will protect their access to
> >information, E-Mail, articles and dignity from commercial
> >electronic totalitarians and their virtual dictatorships.
>
> to be seen as "nobody may interfere with my right", or "when I demand so, I
> should get X, Y, and Z, because I have the right to have it."
>
> The same problems occur with many documents governing rights like that.
> For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights speaks of a
> "right to labor". The former USSR wished to have that interpreted that as a
> demandable right, and have all states in the world provide a job to those that
> didn't have one (as they did). Ofcourse, the USA was on the other side of the
> interpretation. Still, the USSR complained that the USA wasn't respecting the
> human rights in their country.
>
> Also, you could interpret rights to be revokable or absolute (as in: should a
> spammer always be allowed back on the net, regardless of previous misbehaviour,
> or are ISP's allowed to refuse to do business with them?). To go back to that
> same Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the "right to live" was interpreted
> by some countries as absolute, hence saying it disallows the Death Penalty
> (Amnesty International takes this stand too) while other countries (like the
> USA) interprets it as a revokable right, meaning that it's OK to punish people
> for their actions by taking away a fundamental right.
>
> Your precious "Electronic Bill of Rights" is totally unclear about how it
> should be interpreted, and it is therefore inherently flawed. It just mentions
> a few things as "rights" yet provides no clarity on what "a right" means in
> the context of that document.
>
> --
> Grabel's Law: 2 is not equal to 3---not even for very large values of 2.
Actually, spammers should not be excluded from the net, but they should
be exposed by others on the net and ignored by everybody.
Bob
Bob Fredricks
Bob Allisat wrote:
>
> Me, Bob Allisat wrote:
> > Documents like the Electronic Bill
> > of Rights would protect law abiding
> > citizens from such arbitrary actions
> > of ISP's and their employees. And
> > also from similar activities from
> > other, regular citizens. Laws should
> > be constructed to protect us all from
> > not expose us all to arbitrary and
> > unfair discrimintation.
>
> Steve Crisp (cr...@pageplanet.com) replied: ... An ISP is a private
> : organization and can dictate who or who may not access the facilities
> : at their whim. If you don't like it, I suggest that you get your own
> : class-C block, you own T1 connection, and you own peering point
> : argeements worked out and have a go at it...
>
> who do not have the time or
> the knowledge or the skills
> to create their own ISPs the
> Electronic Bill of Rights
> will protect their access to
> information, E-Mail, articles
> and dignity from commercial
> electronic totalitarians and
> their virtual dictatorships.
> access to contracted electronic services and
> resources without hindrance or prejudice.
>
> and approval when and if personal access codes or
> any other personal and private data are transmitted
> to anyone by the services provider.
>
> The right to confidential deletion of all private
> and personal electronic information from the data-
> bases of a services provider once we choose to
> leave.
>
>
>
> --
Bob
Bob Fredricks
Levien de Braal wrote:
>
> In article <E69oMJ.Lu...@torfree.net>,
> Bob Allisat <ab...@torfree.net> wrote:
> >the knowledge or the skills to create their own ISPs the
> >Electronic Bill of Rights will protect their access to
> >information, E-Mail, articles and dignity from commercial
> >electronic totalitarians and their virtual dictatorships.
>
> 1) Who's going to enforce this law?
> 2) How will this law be enforced?
> 3) What are the punishments for those that break this law?
> 4) Who's going to interpret these laws in case of disagreements? ("judge")
> 5) What is the procedure for 'electing' these laws?
> 6) Who is counting the votes?
> 7) What constitutes a legal vote?
> 8) What is the procedure for ammendments?
> 9) How are you planning to solve the issue of local government laws being in
> disagreement with this one?
>
> Sofar, you've got a nice, meaningless document, that you keep posting over and
> over... Repetition doesn't make you right, you know?
>
> Clue: The Internet isn't a democracy. It's an anarchic collection of a lot of
> dictatorships. It outgrew the status of just one dictatorship the very moment
> more than one organization owned its own connected router (LONG time ago).
> Usenet isn't a Democracy. The existence of the UVV doesn't change that one bit.
> Live with it, or hit that "disconnect" button.
>
> --
> Grabel's Law: 2 is not equal to 3---not even for very large values of 2.
The only way your questions can be answered is by excluding everyone
from the net and controlling the ISP's. The virtual tryant (Congress in
the US) will probably try to do that, and if successful, the world will
slip back into the darkness of perpetual ignorance.
Bob
Bob Fredricks
Bob Allisat wrote:
>
> Me, Bob Allisat wrote:
> > Documents like the Electronic Bill
> > of Rights would protect law abiding
> > citizens from such arbitrary actions
> > of ISP's and their employees. And
> > also from similar activities from
> > other, regular citizens. Laws should
> > be constructed to protect us all from
> > not expose us all to arbitrary and
> > unfair discrimintation.
>
> Steve Crisp (cr...@pageplanet.com) replied: ... An ISP is a private
> : organization and can dictate who or who may not access the facilities
> : at their whim. If you don't like it, I suggest that you get your own
> : class-C block, you own T1 connection, and you own peering point
> : argeements worked out and have a go at it...
>
> who do not have the time or
> the knowledge or the skills
> to create their own ISPs the
> Electronic Bill of Rights
> will protect their access to
> information, E-Mail, articles
> and dignity from commercial
> electronic totalitarians and
> their virtual dictatorships.
Please include sexual orientation in paragraph #3.
Bob
impLAnt
In article <331652...@ioc.net> ["Re: SUPPORT The E-Bill of Rights (Re:
DHP gets UDP threat from Craig Sherwood)], Bob Fredricks <rob...@ioc.net>
wrote:
>Actually, spammers should not be excluded from the net, but they should
>be exposed by others on the net and ignored by everybody.
>
>Bob
Thank you, Sir. Indeed; the ability to ignore is hardly an aquired skill.
Yet many who frequent the news.admin cesspool <and many netizens in
general> deny themselves this simple means to a peaceable end.
There is a sadistic mindset here who exempt themselves from your sane
recommendation, as an excuse to lord unaccountable and improper power over
others. Still others, of a more masochistic bent, allow themselves to
become possessed of a self-destructive rage of hatred and unhappiness.
Both sorts take different paths to reach the same point of illogic and
intolerance. But they both call it "spam".
I find it difficult to reach a position regarding "spam", as I do not
engage in it and it does not seem to bother me. I have witnessed zero
efficacy of USENET-based advertising (and have real "problems" with
advertising in general, a la "Adbusters") and must regard it as..well,
superfluous. While I can neither condone nor disavow it, I do have a bit
of trouble rationalizing my disinterest in spam (nee 'advertising') simply
because it appears to trouble so many.
But this affects me far less than the fact that the vilification and mass
rogue cancellation of spam is merely fueling and heightening the frequency
and maliciousness of it. I have a serious problem with that, as I do with
the small bands of destructive, criminal cancel forgers and 'moderators'
who maintain concentrated and peculiar efforts to, in effect, save people
from themselves. Historically, such pious efforts of societal control and
behavior modification have been called "fascism" and "censorship", and I
see no need to relabel such action here.
Over the years, a few folk have attacked me with procmail redirection,
forged MMF posts, and massive parcelbomb attacks on my mailbox for holding
such perspectives. "You must love spam, so here's some spam". True, I do
confess to a Gumpish, childlike nature regarding advertising on USENET: I
laugh at it. I even have a pretty uncanny ability to ignore it and move on
before the invisible mindwaves that would compel me to open it and read it
can reach my brain.
But to *hate* it? And allow it to consume me with the same displeasure and
hatred that others suffer under? No. My USENET experience is as pleasant
and enjoyable as ever, and I am determined that it will remain so.
There are many ways to discount and alleviate the stress, existence, and
the already non-existant efficacy of spam. None of them involve
censorship, or the heinous spectre of "less speech" and "more moderation".
One influential doctrine that supports my own belief system is an essay
from the late Sixties by author Umberto Eco: "Towards a Semiological
Guerilla Warfare" [collected in _Travels In Hyper-Reality_ (Picador
1986)]. The March issue of WIRED has a nice interview with Eco that neatly
summarizes the moral of his missive: Namely, that if you gift people with
an equalized ability to criticize the messages they receive, these
messages can be stripped of any sociopolitical leverage.
While the censor, of course, can only glorify that which he attempts to censor.
That Eco essay is a fine read, as is the aforementioned Canadian magazine
"Adbusters". Anyone sick of "spam", who cares to arm themselves with the
virtous, non-destructive and uncensorous ability to expose and disarm
cultural memes, should brush up on their own mental capacities and
monkeywrenching tactics...not USENET forgery and Cancelbot programming
techniques. The riffraff engaged in such reprehensible and criminal
censorship know quite well they are trading long-term USENET damage and
corruption for short-term, imaginary hero worship. But addicted to the
latter, they will not stop until enough people like Mr Allistat are brave
enough to acknowledge that removing "spam" is not worth removing
"freedom".
For these reasons and many more, I am a self-proclaimed Freedom Knight of
USENET, and support Mr Allistat with his goal of scripting a unified
E-Bill of Rights.
-iMp
news.admin.censorship
Ref: Adbusters <http://www.adbusters.org>
: on Umberto Eco: <http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~foucault/ecoindex.html>
: on Bob Allisat <http://starbase.neosoft.com/~peter/allisat/allisat.html>
[The above is an interesting case of mister X-No-archive Peter
"da Gold and" da Silva maintaining a dossier on someone else]
: Bob Allisat's E-Bill of Rights <http://www.wire-in.com/ebill>
: Freedom Knights of USENET <http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every man alone is sincere. At the entrance of a second person,
hypocrisy begins." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| any replies go here | no e-mail replies to usenet posts |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
W T Shaw
In article <3315BF...@steal.me>, ps <do...@steal.me> wrote:
> Bob Allisat wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > The right to uninterrupted services and reasonable
> > access to contracted electronic services and
> > resources without hindrance or prejudice.
>
> sounds nutty to me, it is not a country, not a government, why do you
> think you have godgiven rights to anything on the net? you pays or you
> dont plays, and your isp *is* a dictator. as has been said, if you dont
> like it start your own. but noone has the "right" to get online.
>
Boy, am I glad I live in Texas where it is headline news that "Lawmakers
Call for Internet Access for All Texans."
We already have a Telecommunications Fund from assements on
telecommunications providers that will largely pay for this, Texas HB
2128, 1995. The means is to tie in all public libraries and have that
done withing two years. Every library patron should have access. The
mechanism is to incure greater access and more information to all.
My comments specifically: Although the provided facilities will be limited
at the terminal end, the establishment of the network will allow rapid
expansion of it at that same point. We are looking toward, perhaps,
freenets in many cases, ported through the local library where the public
ISP might be located.
--
WTShaw, Macintosh Crypto Programmer
wts...@htcomp.net wts...@itexas.net
The ACLU, as a Conservative Organization,
wants to preserve the first 10 amendments.
impLAnt
[snip]
>> The right to access on public electronic networks
>> regardless of income, ethnicity, gender, physical
>> location or disability.
[snip]
>Please include sexual orientation in paragraph #3.
>
>Bob
Really? I wonder if any "meat world" reference is valid at all.
I care not one whit to be informed as to the specific nature of the
bedroom habits of anyone, procreative or not, and find it particularly
curious when it seems to matter on the net.
I would rather see item 3 as
>> The right of all persons to access any public electronic network.
-iMp
news.admin.censorship
g
In article <imp-280297...@dial32.phoenix.net>, impLAnt wrote:
>
>I would rather see item 3 as
>
>>> The right of all persons to access any public electronic network.
Still not good enough. You'll need to define "public." If you just mean
the PSTN, we already have that access in the US, thanks to the common
carrier regulations.
Now, do you want to obtain a legal right to use private equipment attached
to public networks? If so, you'll also be opening up the right for anyone
to call you collect, and you won't have the choice of accepting or declining
the charges.
The voice and data networks have tons of overlap. You do need to take both
into consideration.
Bob Allisat
ps at Virginia Tech wrote:
>sounds nutty to me, it is not a country, not a government, why do
>you think you have godgiven rights to anything on the net? you pays
> or you dont plays, and your isp *is* a dictator. as has been said,
> if you dont like it start your own. but noone has the "right" to
> get online.
Everyone has the same rights
once on-line. And these rights
are diliniated in the Electronic
Bill of Rights. And as for the
ISP's being dictators this is
no more true than the Postal
Service being our dictator.
Both entities serve similar
functions... only one is fairly
regulated and the other is not.
Time to change that, eh?
Bob Allisat
PO Box 191 Station E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 (416) 588-0670
Toronto Green Party <http://www.fcn.net/tgp> Revolution
--
Levien de Braal
In article <E6BptF.Bo...@torfree.net>,
Wrong. The rights my sysadmin has are quite differently than mine. And there's
nothing I (or you) can do to change that. People at some on-line services have
different rights than I do. I see things less censored than they do.
>And these rights are diliniated in the Electronic Bill of Rights.
By what authority? You? Bwahahahaha!
>And as for the ISP's being dictators this is no more true than the Postal
>Service being our dictator. Both entities serve similar
>functions... only one is fairly regulated and the other is not.
>Time to change that, eh?
You can't choose between two different Postal services to get your regular
mail. Or a few hundred. So, it's obvious that in that case there's a need for
regulation to avoid abuse of the monopoly. An ISP has no monopoly though. And
they *DO* dictate what service they provide. And that's all ok. And we don't
need any government regulation for that. It's ok as is.
Keith A. Glass
Bob Allisat wrote:
> Everyone has the same rights
> once on-line.
Sorry, bOb. Wrong again. I have exactly the rights and priviledges
I contracted with my provider for. Terms of service vary from
provider to provider. AOL is the prime example: all SORTS of stuff
gets killed by AOL's people and 'monitors', but it's all allowed by
agreeing to the AOL Terms of Service. No agreement, no account. . .
> And these rights
> are diliniated in the Electronic
> Bill of Rights.
That's DELINIATED, bOb. Language is the tool of thought. Your
continued use of sloppy spelling and grammar is a hint that your
thought processes are equally sloppy. Like continually posting
your E-bill of rights. . .
> And as for the
> ISP's being dictators this is
> no more true than the Postal
> Service being our dictator.
Try snail-mailing, say, kiddie porn (after all, you've done it on
the Net. . . ) and SEE how hard the Postal Gestapo comes down on
you. . . .
> Both entities serve similar
> functions... only one is fairly
> regulated and the other is not.
> Time to change that, eh?
Both serve very DIFFERENT functions. They are only similar in the
top-level analysis. . . try getting a physical item through e-mail,
or sending a data squirt via your corner post-box. . .
--
* Keith A. Glass, Annandale, Virginia, USA, Filker/punster at large *
* Coordinator, Electronic Freedom March *
* Spring 1997, Washington DC URL: http://www.efm.org *
* Note:to reply,remove the "spamblocker." from before huskynet.com *
Bob Allisat
Bob wrote
:Please include sexual orientation in paragraph #3.
The only problem brought up
about sexual orientation were
problems like pedophillia and
other predatory behaviours. I
*completely* support the rights
of conesnting adults to engage
in any sexuality they choose.
However the authors of the EBoR
did not want to condone or
potentially protect extremely
questionable behaviour - rape,
and sexual assault of all kinds.
Bob Allisat
W T Shaw (wts...@itexas.net) wrote:
> My comments specifically: Although the provided facilities will be
> limited at the terminal end, the establishment of the network will
> allow rapid expansion of it at that same point. We are looking
> toward, perhaps, freenets in many cases, ported through the local
> library where the public ISP might be located.
We all must work hard to
make the Internet a medium
all citizens can access.
The Electronic Bill of
Rights will preserve all
of our interests as law
abiding community members.
Bob Allisat
Keith A. Glass (sal...@huskynet.com) wrote:
: ... I have exactly the rights and priviledges I contracted with
: my provider for. Terms of service vary from provider to provider.
: AOL is the prime example: all SORTS of stuff gets killed by AOL's
: people and 'monitors', but it's all allowed by agreeing to the AOL
: Terms of Service. No agreement, no account. . .
. . . no Electronic Bill of
Rights no right for AOL, MSN,
Compuserve, UUNET or any of
the other ISPs to handle our
news and mail. Law abiding
citizens do not suddenly lose
all their inalienable rights
when they utilize the new,
electronic media. In fact we
gain more rights due to the
nature of E-media. And those
who choose to handle our personal
correspondences and shared
knowledge *lose* many rights.
ISP's have the great privilige
of serving us using the public
resource of the Internet. In
exchange they may make a living
for themsleves and their families.
ISP's are public services - no
more no and no less. Regulation
of these public services by the
Electonic Bill of Rights and
through common laws and bylaws
is essential if we the people are
to preserve our privacy, freedom
and dignity.
ISP_Ratings
Bob Fredricks wrote:
>
> Bob Allisat wrote:
>>
>> Me, Bob Allisat wrote:
>> > Documents like the Electronic Bill
>> > of Rights would protect law abiding
>> > citizens from such arbitrary actions
>> > of ISP's and their employees. And
>> > also from similar activities from
>> > other, regular citizens. Laws should
>> > be constructed to protect us all from
>> > not expose us all to arbitrary and
>> > unfair discrimintation.
>>
>> Steve Crisp (cr...@pageplanet.com) replied: ... An ISP is a private
>> : organization and can dictate who or who may not access the facilities
>> : at their whim. If you don't like it, I suggest that you get your own
>> : class-C block, you own T1 connection, and you own peering point
>> : argeements worked out and have a go at it...
>>
>> For the poor, those people
>> who do not have the time or
>> the knowledge or the skills
>> to create their own ISPs the
>> will protect their access to
>> information, E-Mail, articles
>> and dignity from commercial
>> electronic totalitarians and
>> their virtual dictatorships.
>> - BA
>> ......................................................................
> >
> > Electronic Bill of Rights
> >
> > Free Women And Men
> > All As Equals
> > Have:
> >
> > The right to privacy of electronic communications
> > without interference or surveillance.
> >
> > The right to navigate in an unrestricted manner
> > through generally accessable public, electronic
> > networks.
> >
> > regardless of income, ethnicity, gender, physical
> > location or disability.
> >
> > message or other electronic communications from
> > whichever person or area we so desire.
> >
> > The right to uncensored, free, and uncontrolled
> > communications to and from unmoderated, public areas.
> >
> > The right to create newsgroups, to form online
> > communities and other electronic resources and to
> > discuss matters of interest to multiple participants,
> > without interference, retribution or undue restrictions
> >
> > The right to control and restrict access to private
> > mail boxes and other personal, non-public file areas
> > and to deny access if we so desire.
> >
> > The right to security and protection from forged
> > messages, cancellations and articles.
> >
> > The right to protection, should we so choose, from
> > mail bombing, automatic mailers, large, unrequested
> > file or data transfers and similar harassments.
> >
> > The right to due judicial process and proper legal
> > representation in any conflicts with a services
> > provider.
> >
> > access to contracted electronic services and
> > resources without hindrance or prejudice.
> >
> > and approval when and if personal access codes or
> > any other personal and private data are transmitted
> > to anyone by the services provider.
> >
> > The right to confidential deletion of all private
> > and personal electronic information from the data-
> > bases of a services provider once we choose to
> > leave.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
And mine--what a user writes is no ones business but their
own. I'm appalled at the total lack of standard business ethics
by some providers and amused when they term posting as a
'priv' when their users have prepaid for that service. Such
bullshit!
Steve
news.admin.censorship
>
> Bob
ps
Bob Allisat wrote:
> ISP's are public services - no
> more no and no less.
bull hockey, isp's are private businesses and can do whatever they damn
well please. you don't have the right to send pipebombs via federal
express do you?
Bruce Ediger
The "iMpLaNt" entity wrote:
>Really? I wonder if any "meat world" reference is valid at all.
I should think you'd be in favor of such references so you
could determine if your tax money is being spent efficiently.
W T Shaw
Not all isp's are private businesses, get your facts straight. The ones
that aren't can't do anything they want, but may be expressly prohibited
from doing certain things, like censoring ad nausium.
And, some isp's are coops. They ONLY do what their members decide for
them to do.
About doing dumb things, they are to be avoided. Somebody might get
ticked. Its why certain actions are classed as dumb things; the
consequences might not be desirable.
impLAnt
In article <5fao6v$s...@teal.csn.net>, some meat puppet that enjoys
referring to the sentient portion of its nervous system as "Bruce Ediger"
scripted:
oh my. quite. right-right, old chap. mea culpa you know.
FROM THIS DAY FORTH YOUR NAME THE NAMES OF YOUR FORBEARS AND THE NATURE OF
YOUR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY SHALL BE BRANDED ON EACH OF YOUR POSTS. For I
have seen the <Message-ID> of the Beast(tm), and its Number is..
um..
by jove, look at that. someone NoCemmed it. jolly wot.
JESUS CHRIST KILLFILES ON SPOOL. you just remember that, little mister.
-iMp
news.admin.censorship
impLAnt
In article <5fao6v$s...@teal.csn.net>, some meat puppet that enjoys
referring to the sentient portion of its nervous system as "Bruce Ediger"
scripted:
>The "iMpLaNt" entity wrote:
>>Really? I wonder if any "meat world" reference is valid at all.
>
>I should think you'd be in favor of such references so you
>could determine if your tax money is being spent efficiently.
oh my. quite. right-right, old chap. mea culpa you know.
FROM THIS DAY FORTH YOUR NAME THE NAMES OF YOUR FORBEARS AND THE NATURE OF
YOUR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY SHALL BE BRANDED ON EACH OF YOUR POSTS. For I
have seen the NNTP-Posting-Host of the BEAST(tm), and its Number is..
um..
by jove, look at that. someones NoCem'ed the naughty beggar, jolly wot.
JESUS CHRIST PLONKS ON SPOOL. you just remember that, little mister.
-iMp
news.admin.censorship
Bob Allisat
Me, Bob Allisat wrote:
> ISP's are public services - no
> more no and no less.
Some anonymous fellow replied...
: bull hockey, isp's are private businesses and can do whatever
: they damn well please.
Not for long. We, the
people, will impose the
Electronic Bill of Rights
on ISPs. Like it or Not.
Bob Allisat
PO Box 191 Station E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 (416) 588-0670
--
Keith A. Glass
Bob Allisat wrote:
> Me, Bob Allisat wrote:
> > ISP's are public services - no
> > more no and no less.
> Some anonymous fellow replied...
> : bull hockey, isp's are private businesses and can do whatever
> : they damn well please.
> Not for long. We, the
> people, will impose the
> Electronic Bill of Rights
> on ISPs. Like it or Not.
You and whose army ???? bOb, as usual, you have both delusions of
grandeur and delusions of adequacy. And THEN, you have the audacity
to claim you will impose your vision of electronic civilization on the
world. China, Singapore, the Muslim nations, and Germany will ALL
laugh in your face. And that's just the flamingly OBVIOUS examples.
Not to mention that on this side of the Border, your E-Bill of rights
would constitute an unlawful taking of property under the US
Constitution. . . .
No, you're all ideology and zero reality. And THAT is a dangerous
combination. . .
ISP_Ratings
Bob Allisat wrote:
>
> Me, Bob Allisat wrote:
>
>> ISP's are public services - no
>> more no and no less.
Exactly--it amazes me that some of them
act like it's their private kingdom--they
sell their services to engage in a world
wide interactive forum and then try to
tell their users what to say and do (not
all ISPs are like this mind you--just the
scum).
> Some anonymous fellow replied...
Ah yes--another coward.
> : bull hockey,
Well that sounds silly--if you want to
say bullshit go ahead and say bullshit.
Senator Exon is not yet in charge.
> : isp's are private businesses and can do
Oh really--trying telling that to Steve Case and those
other theives at AOL. ISPs work for their customers--period.
> :whatever they damn well please.
>
> Not for long. We, the
> people, will impose the
> Electronic Bill of Rights
> on ISPs. Like it or Not.
> Bob Allisat
Indeed--perhaps the kind folks who sponsored the
poetry festival will have to sponsor yet another.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Stephen Ray Sheiko
ISP_Ratings (bou...@idt.net) wrote:
[miscellaneous stupidity deleted]
: Oh really--trying telling that to Steve Case and those
: other theives at AOL. ISPs work for their customers--period.
Mr. Boursy et al. obviously have no understanding of the provider-client
relationship, or of economics in general. ISPs are private companies who
work for their stakeholders, whether those be the proprietors or
shareholders in the case of a publicly-held company like AOL.
Subscribers engage in a fee-for-service relationship. This relationship
is governed solely by the provider's membership agreement, to which a
subscriber agrees by choosing to subscribe. Use of the service
constitutes acceptance of the terms of the agreement. If the subscriber
doesn't agree, he is free to find a provider whose terms of service are
amenable to him.
If you don't like your provider's policies, you have every right to tell
him. If he doesn't change his policies to your liking, you have every
right to cancel your membership agreement and take your business
elsewhere. You do NOT, however, have the right to impose your will on
your provider -- to tell him what to do with HIS equipment -- simply
because you pay him $19.95 per month.
ISPs are private enterprises, not public utilities. There is no shortage
of competition in the field, thus there is no regulation. ISPs' rates and
policies are not subject to Public Service Commissions or anyone else for
that matter, with the singular exception of stakeholders, period.
Mr. Boursy, you and your ilk have often registered your vociferous
opposition to censorship. But by trying to force your will upon others,
you are engaging in the very behavior you profess to abhor. Patent
hypocrisy.
The Internet is the perfect example of a laissez-faire marketplace (at
least in the United States, as long as the CDA is under injunction).
There's no law prohibiting newsgroups such as sci.med.cannabis or
misc.activism.cannabis, but there is obviously not enough market demand to
warrant their existence either. Likewise, I don't see wholesale
subscriber abandonment of any ISP because it fails to carry said
newsgroups. Again, the market at work. Nothing obstructs you from
starting your own provider which is pledged to enforce no content
restrictions -- unless there is no demand for such service. By the
numbers (or lack thereof), it would appear there is little such demand.
Case closed. Quit trying to tell other people what to do with their money
and their resources, Boursy, Grubor, et al. It's rather tiresome.
--
| Stephen Sheiko + 2100 I St., NW #808 + Washington DC 20037-2319 |
| ssh...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu + http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~ssheiko |
| "I do not seek to understand that I may believe, |
| but I believe in order to understand." St. Anselm |
Scott Brower
On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:27:14 GMT, ab...@torfree.net (Bob Allisat)
wrote:
>ps at Virginia Tech wrote:
>>sounds nutty to me, it is not a country, not a government, why do
>>you think you have godgiven rights to anything on the net? you pays
>> or you dont plays, and your isp *is* a dictator. as has been said,
>> if you dont like it start your own. but noone has the "right" to
>> get online.
We were unaware of this Electronic Bill of Rights when we began a
similar campaign at Electronic Frotiers Florida, and there are some
similarities and some differences in our two drafts. To address the
question mentioned above, after long consideration on the "Universal
Service" question we decided that it would be better to work toward
requiring public schools, Universities and Libraries to provide access
to the People. This way, people who can not afford a computer would
still have access, and there would be no severe 'welafre' role on the
part of the government of any private corporation to provide this
service to every household. We did go a different route than the one
you are discussing in many aspects and welcome comment.
Ours is not meant to be a package of amendments, rather it is a series
of issues we are addressing in a variety of fashions. Our draft can
be found at:
http://www.efflorida.org/florida/EBR.htm
We have received inquiries from the Prime Minister of Poland about the
concept of an EBR and Winn Schwartau has spoken with various officials
of the Polish government about it as well...I am waiting to hear from
Winn exactly what they had to say.
Scott Brower <sc...@efflorida.org>
Electronic Frontiers Florida
http://www.efflorida.org
Bob Allisat
Scott Brower (sc...@eeflorida.org) wrote:
: We were unaware of this Electronic Bill of Rights when we
: began a similar campaign at Electronic Frotiers Florida...
There is one International Electronic Bill of Rights.
It was completed in December of 1995. I'm happy that
regional interest is begining in the US. Having reviewed
the Florida state draft I can only hope it more closely
follows the wisdom and strengths of the Global document
available at <www.fcn.net>. A copy is included below.
Bob Allisat
PO Box 191 Station E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 (416) 588-0670
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Electronic Bill of Rights
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--
Levien de Braal
In article <E6sBD8.F1...@torfree.net>,
Bob Allisat <ab...@torfree.net> wrote:
>Scott Brower (sc...@eeflorida.org) wrote:
>: We were unaware of this Electronic Bill of Rights when we
>: began a similar campaign at Electronic Frotiers Florida...
>There is one International Electronic Bill of Rights.
>It was completed in December of 1995. I'm happy that
>regional interest is begining in the US. Having reviewed
>the Florida state draft I can only hope it more closely
>follows the wisdom and strengths of the Global document
>available at <www.fcn.net>. A copy is included below.
I've gotten the impression that the [snipped] "Global document" was entirely
written by one sole loner: Bob Allisat. The document has a great number of
inherent weaknesses, misses properd definitions, is vague, avoids any setting
of priorities, is overly limited in focus, and at certain points entirely
wrong. IMHO, it has the status of "bullshit".
Scott, your draft was a heck of a lot better than Bob's piece. However, did
you check out the work done by EF Australia? They've come up with a very good
document too, that could form the basis for further work as well as your draft.
impLAnt
In article <5fv3fh$k...@lennon.cc.gatech.edu>, lev...@cc.gatech.edu (Levien
de Braal) wrote:
URLs, Sirs, for the above referenced International E-Bill and the EF
Australia one? Can't seem to find them..
-iMp
news.admin.censorship
Levien de Braal
In article <imp-100397...@dial6.phoenix.net>,
impLAnt <Rejected : No E-Mail replies to USENET posts> wrote:
>>Scott, your draft was a heck of a lot better than Bob's piece. However, did
>>you check out the work done by EF Australia? They've come up with a very good
>>document too, that could form the basis for further work as well as your
>>draft.
>URLs, Sirs, for the above referenced International E-Bill and the EF
>Australia one? Can't seem to find them..
Well, I don't know where Bob's pet document is on the WWW, if it even is.
Visiting www.fcn.net (the only reference he made) isn't really informative.
Then again, he has posted it on here often enough to have a BI>20, so you
should know by now what it looks like ;-)
The Australia stuff I mentioned: http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/ere.html
Scotts draft (you need to select a user ID and log in, it's not that 'open'):
http://www.infowar.com/cgi-shl/login.exe
impLAnt
In article <5g2gh4$3...@homepark.cc.gatech.edu>, lev...@cc.gatech.edu
(Levien de Braal) wrote:
>In article <imp-100397...@dial6.phoenix.net>,
>impLAnt <Rejected : No E-Mail replies to USENET posts> wrote:
>>>Scott, your draft was a heck of a lot better than Bob's piece. However, did
>>>you check out the work done by EF Australia? They've come up with a very good
>>>document too, that could form the basis for further work as well as your
>>>draft.
>>URLs, Sirs, for the above referenced International E-Bill and the EF
>>Australia one? Can't seem to find them..
>
>Well, I don't know where Bob's pet document is on the WWW, if it even is.
>Visiting www.fcn.net (the only reference he made) isn't really informative.
>Then again, he has posted it on here often enough to have a BI>20, so you
>should know by now what it looks like ;-)
Quite well. You will also find it at http://www.wire-in.com/ebill
>The Australia stuff I mentioned: http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/ere.html
>Scotts draft (you need to select a user ID and log in, it's not that 'open'):
> http://www.infowar.com/cgi-shl/login.exe
Got it. Thanks.
-iMp
news.admin.censorship
Bob Allisat
Electronic Bill of Rights
--
Bob Allisat
Me, Bob Allisat, wrote:
>There is one International Electronic Bill of Rights.
>It was completed in December of 1995. I'm happy that
>regional interest is begining in the US. Having reviewed
>the Florida state draft I can only hope it more closely
>follows the wisdom and strengths of the Global document
>available at <www.fcn.net>. A copy is included below.
Levien de Braal (lev...@cc.gatech.edu) wrote:
: I've gotten the impression that the [snipped] "Global document" was entirely
: written by one sole loner: Bob Allisat. The document has a great number of
: inherent weaknesses, misses properd definitions, is vague, avoids any setting
: of priorities, is overly limited in focus, and at certain points entirely
: wrong. IMHO, it has the status of "bullshit".
Americans have little
grace when it comes to
accepting internationally
derived processes. Many
authors contributed to
the Electronic Bill of
Rights. It is, once again,
nice to at last see American
regionals take an interest
in the subject. better
late than never.
Bob Allisat
PO Box 191 Station E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 (416) 588-0670
Free Community Network <http://www.fcn.net> Domain Name Registry
--
Levien de Braal
In article <E6vzxD.33...@torfree.net>,>:The document has a great number of
>:inherent weaknesses, misses properd definitions, is vague, avoids any setting
>:of priorities, is overly limited in focus, and at certain points entirely
>:wrong. IMHO, it has the status of "bullshit".
>Americans have little grace when it comes to
>accepting internationally derived processes. Many
>authors contributed to the Electronic Bill of
>Rights. It is, once again, nice to at last see American
>regionals take an interest in the subject. better late than never.
I'm not an American. I guess that .edu address must've thrown you off ;-)
Also, you don't mention at all who else has worked on that document of yours.
Boursey?
Richard Sexton
Bob's Bill of Rights
Free Women And Men and Bob
All As Equals
Have:
The right to privacy of electronic communications
without interference or surveillance by the NSA,
UFO's or Elvis impersonators.
The right to post spam in an unrestricted manner
through generally accessable public, electronic
networks.
The right to access on public electronic networks
regardless of income, ethnicity, gender, physical
location, disability, manners, IQ, or decorum.
The right to access any public article, newsgroup,
message or other electronic communications from
whichever person or area we so desire regardless
of those silly copyright issues.
The right to uncensored, free, and uncontrolled
communications to and from unmoderated, public areas.
Especially the free part. Send money ?
The right to take over newsgroups, to destroy online
communities and other electronic resources and to
discuss matters of interest to multiple participants,
with interference, retribution and undue restrictions
The right to control and control and control and control
and control and control and restrict access to private
mail boxes and other personal, non-public file areas
and to deny access if we so desire. No matter who
they belong to.
The right to security and protection from forged
messages, cancellations and articles. Unless they're
really artistic, funny, or somebody on our side does it.
The right to protection, should we so choose, from
mail bombing, automatic mailers, large, unrequested
file or data transfers and similar harassments when
people do these things back at us.
The right to due judicial process and proper legal
representation in any conflicts with a services
provider who won't take us as a client.
The right to uninterrupted services and reasonable
access to contracted electronic services and
resources without hindrance, prejudice or accountability.
The right to notification, positive verification
and approval when and if pizza access codes or
any other personal and chinese food data are transmitted
to anyone by the services provider.
The right to confidential deletion of all private
and personal electronic information from the data-
bases of a services provider once we choose to
leave under threat of lawsuit.
--
Richard Sexton | "Where were you when Bambi's mother was shot?"
ric...@vrx.net | Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada / +1 (613) 473-1719
April
Richard Sexton wrote:
>
> Bob's Bill of Rights
>
> Free Women And Men and Bob
> All As Equals
> Have:
>
The right to access on public electronic networks
> regardless of
income,
ethnicity,
gender,
physical location,
disability,
manners,
IQ, or
decorum.
AND...
EATING HABITS
DRINKING HABITS
DRUG HABITS
NUN'S HABITS
ANIMAL HABITS
ANIMAL PREFERENCE
SEXUAL PREFERENCE
ORIFICE PREFERENCE
ORIFICE HYGIENE
ORAL HYGIENE
MENTAL HYGIENE
FOOT HYGIENE
FOOTLOOSE
DIRTY DANCING
DISCO DANCING
TAP DANCING
LAP DANCING
TWO STEP
THREE STEP(!)
STEP AEROBICS
STEP-MOTHERS
EVIL STEP-MOTHERS
EVIL KANEVIL
EVIL CRANKS
TOM HANKS
UNCLE TOM
PEEPING TOM
TOM EDISON
TOM AND JERRY
TOM AND DAVE %:-)
DAVE LETTERMAN
MAILMAN
SALESMAN
BREAST MAN
BREAST FEED
CHICKEN FEED
CHIMP FEED
FEEDING DISORDERS
SLEEPING DISORDERS
SLEEP WALKERS
SLEEP FALLERS
SLEEPLESS NIGHTS
SATURDAY NIGHTS
SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rest snipped to save bandwidth :->
Bob Allisat
Very amusing! Well done Richard...
--
Richard Sexton
In article <E6xJ3p.JJ...@torfree.net>,
It's the least I could do for your role in that idiotic
denial of service attack you pretend was "art" or "poetry".
I shut off news on vrx at that time, as I really couldnt
be bothered trying to unfuck it; who knows what you
and vullis would do next.
My users thank you very much.
Bob Allisat
Richard Sexton <ric...@alternic.net> wrote:
>Actually, we took you to the train station and said "how
>far can we send this lunatic for $200", and you went and
>found a hooker. Unfortunately, you came back.
Another interesting story,
Richard. I guess if you define
everything by your own standards
it all looks like prosititution
after a while, grasshopper. I
have tried to educate you in
wisdom. My last lesson is:
The more you chase the great
fortune the further it flies.
Your bad words do more harm to
you, oh exalted one, than to a
humble, insignificant madman
such as myself. Carry on...
This will be my last
correspondence with
Mr. Sexton. Thank you
good readers for your
infinite tolerance.
Should Richard wish
to continue this mad
display he may do so
alone and unecumbered
by my insanity. Ta ta.
Bob Allisat
PO Box 191 Station E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 (416) 588-0670
--
ISP_Ratings
Bob Allisat wrote:
>
> Richard Sexton <ric...@alternic.net> wrote:
>
>>Actually, we took you to the train station and said "how
>>far can we send this lunatic for $200", and you went and
>>found a hooker. Unfortunately, you came back.
>
<clip>
> This will be my last
> correspondence with
> Mr. Sexton. Thank you
> good readers for your
> infinite tolerance.
> Should Richard wish
> to continue this mad
> display he may do so
> alone and unecumbered
> by my insanity. Ta ta.
Well Richard will have a better
'hair day' soon and feel a bit better.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Richard Sexton
In article <E6y9Lt.D5...@torfree.net>,
Bob "fucked and wandering" Allisat <babb...@clusterfuck.net> wrote:
> The evil cabalistic Richard Sexton <ric...@alter.nic> wrote:
>>Actually, we took you to the train station and said "how
>>far can we send this lunatic for $200", and you went and
>>found a hooker. Unfortunately, you came back.
>
> Richard. I guess if you define
> everything by your own standards
> it all looks like prosititution
> after a while, grasshopper. I
> have tried to educate you in
> wisdom. My last lesson is:
Ok, so I lied. We really thought if you just got laid
you'd stop being such a pest so we have you a train ticket
and an address on 42nd st and a place to stay on the
lower east side. To everyones amazement, you came
back.
> The more you chase the great
> fortune the further it flies.
I want to make a lot of money. Slowly. And serve the Internet
community. Don't like it ? Don't patronize me then.
How anybody like you who I have given resources billable
at hundreds if not thousands of dallars of resources to
for free can accuse me of trying to take over
the Internet when you have publically dclared you
will destroy great parts of it is rather absurd.
> Your bad words do more harm to
> you, oh exalted one, than to a
> humble, insignificant madman
> such as myself. Carry on...
>
> This will be my last
> correspondence with
> Mr. Sexton. Thank you
> good readers for your
> infinite tolerance.
> Should Richard wish
> to continue this mad
> display he may do so
> alone and unecumbered
> by my insanity. Ta ta.
I'm glad you're back on your meds and can see at
least some minor part of reality and know when you're fucked.
>
> Bob Allisat
>
> PO Box 191 Station E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 (416) 588-0670
>--
...and wandering
--
Richard Sexton
ric...@alter.nic We are all the Alter.NIC
ric...@vrx.net http://www.alternic.net
Bob Allisat
Bob Allisat wrote:
> The more you chase the great
> fortune the further it flies.
Richard Sexton <ric...@vrx.net> wrote:
:I want to make a lot of money. Slowly. And serve the Internet
:community. Don't like it ? Don't patronize me then.
The best advise you have
given me and the rest of
us ever. A lot os money.
Slowly. And serve? So I
was right after all, eh?
Bob Allisat
PO Box 191 Station E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 (416) 588-0670
Richard Sexton
In article <3327D3...@earthlink.net>,
ISP_Rantings <bore...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Bob Allisat wrote:
>
> Well Richard will have a better
>'hair day' soon and feel a bit better.
Only when some court somewhere bans you two kooks
from the net.
Bob Richards
In article <5g4icf$7...@gold.interlog.com>, ric...@interlog.com (Richard
Sexton) wrote:
> Bob's Bill of Rights
>
> Free Women And Men and Bob
> All As Equals
> Have:
>
(snip)
> The right to post spam in an unrestricted manner
> through generally accessable public, electronic
> networks.
(snip)
> The right to take over newsgroups, to destroy online
> communities and other electronic resources and to
> discuss matters of interest to multiple participants,
> with interference, retribution and undue restrictions
>
> The right to control and control and control and control
> and control and control and restrict access to private
> mail boxes and other personal, non-public file areas
> and to deny access if we so desire. No matter who
> they belong to.
Hmm.The Sexton / Allisat love-in appears to be on the
rocks.Obviously,Richard kept the server and bobby goes back to freenet.
Too much aggro,huh,Richard? Same shit everyone else had to put up
with.Hope this hasnt put vrx.net into a situation where youve recieved
massive heat from ISPs the world over.Too late,huh?I believe the
expression is"Youre known by the company you keep"
> The right to protection, should we so choose, from
> mail bombing, automatic mailers, large, unrequested
> file or data transfers and similar harassments when
> people do these things back at us.
etc.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"You claim that the editorial was bias,but I see no suck thing.
pre...@lts.com
Richard Sexton
In article <E75yD9.Jo...@torfree.net>,
Bob Allisat <ab...@torfree.net> wrote:
>
> Richard is miffed over the fact
> that I disagreed with his silly
> eDNS ideas in public.
And just think boB, if I'd agreed to mandate your "altRFC"
as part of it, you'd be endorsing it too, by your own admission.
Or if we'd given you office space, you'd be raving about
it now, agian, by your own admission.
And as for miffed, well, I don't think so. Few things
can promote a cause better than having you disagree with it.
See you at the Olympics, boB.
Bob Allisat
Bob Richards <bo...@interlog.com> wrote
Hmm.The Sexton / Allisat love-in appears to be on the
rocks.Obviously,Richard kept the server and bobby goes back to freenet.
Too much aggro,huh,Richard? Same shit everyone else had to put up
with.Hope this hasnt put vrx.net into a situation where youve recieved
massive heat from ISPs the world over.Too late,huh?I believe the
expression is"Youre known by the company you keep"
Richard is miffed over the fact
that I disagreed with his silly
eDNS ideas in public. After RS
and gang do the collective hissy
fit over IAHC trying to take over
the Internet they promptly meet
in Atlanta to take over the Internet.
I guess IRONY is not in Mr. Sexton's
vocabulary.
Bob Allisat
PO Box 191 Station E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 (416) 588-0670
--
Bob Allisat
Me, Bob Allisat, wrote
: Richard is miffed over the fact
: that I disagreed with his silly
: eDNS ideas in public.
Richard Sexton <ric...@vrx.net> replied
> And just think boB, if I'd agreed to mandate your
> "altRFC" as part of it, you'd be endorsing it too,
> by your own admission.
If the eDNS group took up the
altRFC it would cease to exist.
Instead we would have the kernel
of a global consensus and not
just ten guys who say "Okay".
Think of the possibilities
not the potential profit.
Richard Sexton
In article <E778sE.GB...@torfree.net>,
Bob Allisat <ab...@torfree.net> wrote:
>
> If the eDNS group took up the
> altRFC it would cease to exist.
> Instead we would have the kernel
> of a global consensus and not
Let me get this straight. If your "altRFC" is
endorsed that constitutes the "kernel of
global consensus" ? No it doesnt, it
just means we agreement with bob.
> just ten guys who say "Okay".
> Think of the possibilities
> not the potential profit.
People arn't in this for the money, bob,
the free domain names should be evidence of that.
I'll be happy if the damn thing breaks even;
recall that nobody to date, not even NSI has
turned a profit.
We're just sick of .com and ONE registry, thats all.
Richard Sexton
In article <E72GJt.Bv...@torfree.net>,
Bob Allisat <ab...@torfree.net> wrote:
>Bob Allisat wrote:
>> The more you chase the great
>> fortune the further it flies.
>
>Richard Sexton <ric...@vrx.net> wrote:
>:I want to make a lot of money. Slowly. And serve the Internet
>:community. Don't like it ? Don't patronize me then.
>
> The best advise you have
> given me and the rest of
> us ever. A lot os money.
> Slowly. And serve? So I
> was right after all, eh?
> Bob Allisat
>
It's Eugene Kashpurefff's quote, and a damn good one, from 1992.
I think it says it all.
Bob Allisat
Richard Sexton <ric...@vrx.net> wrote:
:> I want to make a lot of money. Slowly. And serve the Internet
:> community. Don't like it ? Don't patronize me then.
: It's Eugene Kashpurefff's quote, and a damn good one, from 1992.
:
: I think it says it all.
Mine is "Everyone makes a small
living unless some try and take
more than their fair share. Then
others starve." How'd ya like it?
Make it yours Grasshopper and the
hundred suns will burn. Or something.
Bob Allisat
Richard Sexton <ric...@vrx.net> wrote:
>Let me get this straight. If your "altRFC" is
>endorsed that constitutes the "kernel of
>global consensus" ? No it doesnt, it
>just means we agreement with bob.
*Sigh*. You must be on
some NSA/CIA co-sponsored
sort of anti-United Nations
sort of disinformation budget.
The altRFC forcefully recruits
international representative to
sit at the table with all other
parties. As it now stands there
is no-one there but Americans.
How convenient. But, I forget.
No-one else in the world is
interested, are they Richard?
Bogosity Defined.