Chicago Censor Gerry Swetsky Vrs Toronto Cool Bob Allisat
Bob Allisat
Censorous Chicago system administrator
Gerry Swetsky's attempt to shut down Cool
Toronto Citizen Bob Allisat's right to
express himself turns into amusing exchange
of ever more rabid, ever fouler E-Mail.
Gerry's Communications Decency Act type
blood pressure climbs to record hieght
in final message in series! Read it and
weep cardiologists....
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 97 11:07:03 CST
>From: Gerry Swetsky <lis...@vpnet.chi.il.us>
>To: Bob Allisat <ab...@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
>Subject: Re: Fuck off Gerry. Double fuck off Gerry. Triple Fuck off...
>
>Bob,
>
>Well your little theory is about to be tested. It is my objective to
>have you stopped once and for all. As your right to flail your fists
>ends at my nose, so your right to flail your words end at my sensi-
>tivity to them.
>
>I will stop you even if I have to disassemble your litte Freenet in the
>process. By the way, don't bother to reply any longer. Your mail is
>being filtered here.
>
>Gerry Swetsky
>System Administrator
> vpnet.chi.il.us
> espada.chi.il.us
>Member CHI NEWS SIG Committee (ne...@clout.chi.il.us)
>
>--
>===========================================================================
>| Help stamp out stupid .signature files! Gerry Swetsky WB9EBO |
>| lis...@vpnet.chi.il.us |
>===========================================================================
--
AUSTINJ
In article <E5nsu2.6A...@torfree.net>,
Bob Allisat <ab...@torfree.net> wrote:
>
> Censorous Chicago system administrator
> Gerry Swetsky's attempt to shut down Cool
> Toronto Citizen Bob Allisat's right to
> express himself turns into amusing exchange
> of ever more rabid, ever fouler E-Mail.
SNIP
Damn it, Bob. Why does Swetsky get all the credit? Every time
you post your off-topic drivel in a newsgroup I read, I inform
your postmaster of what a worthless litle git you are, and why
you should be kicked off the net. When will I ever get the
recognition I deserve?
Followups set appropriately.
<>
On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 19:30:01 GMT, ab...@torfree.net (Bob Allisat)
wrote:
>
> Censorous Chicago system administrator
> Gerry Swetsky's attempt to shut down Cool
> Toronto Citizen Bob Allisat's right to
> express himself
You spelled "Fool" wrong Boob....
sarlo
Bob Allisat (ab...@torfree.net) wrote:
: Censorous Chicago system administrator
: Gerry Swetsky's attempt to shut down Cool
: Toronto Citizen Bob Allisat's right to
: of ever more rabid, ever fouler E-Mail.
: blood pressure climbs to record hieght
: in final message in series! Read it and
: weep cardiologists....
*sigh*
Some people these days.
Bad Bob. Bad.
I suppose it's time to teach someone what *real* censorship is.
--
sa...@tezcat.com - Sarlykins. | I was lying in bed, looking up at the
EXXON - Put a tiger in your | stars when I suddenly thought to myself,
tank! And while you're at it, | "Where the fuck did my roof go?"
toss in a few dead otters too. |
-EXXON Ad, 1989 | Alternatives: sa...@chinet.com
http://www.tezcat.com/~sarlo sa...@pyrotechnics.com
\||// sa...@2600.com
Don'tcha love bongo-.sigs? oO sa...@blight.com
()^() Pttht. sa...@ripco.com
U /~~~~~~ ro...@mcs.net
Bob Allisat
sarlo (sa...@tezcat.com) wrote:
: I suppose it's time to teach someone what *real* censorship is.
I suppose you are going
to do it? What a load.
I suppose it's time to
add *another* name to
the long list of net
stalkers. Sad really...
Bob Allisat
PO Box 191 Station E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 (416) 588-0670
--
sarlo
Bob Allisat (ab...@torfree.net) wrote:
: sarlo (sa...@tezcat.com) wrote:
: : I suppose it's time to teach someone what *real* censorship is.
: I suppose you are going
: to do it? What a load.
: I suppose it's time to
: add *another* name to
: the long list of net
: stalkers. Sad really...
Btw: are you using a commodore? whts with the 40 column bullshit?
dm...@mcs.com
ab...@torfree.net (Bob Allisat) wrote:
>sarlo (sa...@tezcat.com) wrote:
>: I suppose it's time to teach someone what *real* censorship is.
> I suppose you are going
> to do it? What a load.
> I suppose it's time to
> add *another* name to
> the long list of net
> stalkers. Sad really...
> Bob Allisat
Sarlo a net stalker? Get real! You must have a strange definition of
the term.
Dennis Metcalfe
Jerome Jahnke
In article <E5nsu2.6A...@torfree.net>, ab...@torfree.net (Bob
Allisat) wrote:
> Censorous Chicago system administrator
> Gerry Swetsky's attempt to shut down Cool
> Toronto Citizen Bob Allisat's right to
> express himself turns into amusing exchange
> of ever more rabid, ever fouler E-Mail.
> Gerry's Communications Decency Act type
> blood pressure climbs to record hieght
> in final message in series! Read it and
> weep cardiologists....
Awwwww geeze Bob, what is it with you?? Do you like getting kicked around.
BTW it looks like you started the swearing, Gerry call you a few words you
could not find in your dictionary?
I thought you were against censorship, so how come a little foul language
makes you all mushy all of a sudden?? I should have realized your Fido and
OneNet rants were all a buildup to the big time, so bother some other city
would ya? Us rich white intellectual elite want to have fun with our little
corner of the internet.
Jer,
--
Jerome Jahnke
Biological Sciences Division/ Office of Academic Computing
University of Chicago
Bob Allisat
Me, Bob, wrote:
: I am beyond disciplinary
: action from arbitrary little
: power tripping pukes like
: yourself Gerry. And all other
: revolting little puking system
: administer types. You write me
: some offensive mail and I
: respond in kind. Fuck you.
sarlo (sa...@tezcat.com) wrote:
: Don't be too sure about that, princess.
And recall that if you ever try
and get me you will be attacking
every other person on the Internet.
For where I go so to may go the
rest. I am protected by being
one of the many. Try. Go ahead.
Others have tried. And failed.
Remove me from the Internet. If
it happens then no-one is safe
here. Not even you my sweet for
in some odd way my fate is yours.
Go ahead. Try...
sarlo
Bob Allisat (ab...@torfree.net) wrote:
: Me, Bob, wrote:
: : I am beyond disciplinary
: : action from arbitrary little
: : power tripping pukes like
: : yourself Gerry. And all other
: : revolting little puking system
: : administer types. You write me
: : some offensive mail and I
: : respond in kind. Fuck you.
: sarlo (sa...@tezcat.com) wrote:
: : Don't be too sure about that, princess.
:
: And recall that if you ever try
: and get me you will be attacking
: every other person on the Internet.
special 'caus you type like a mental retard.
: For where I go so to may go the
: rest. I am protected by being
: one of the many. Try. Go ahead.
: Others have tried. And failed.
Thats because the others tried doing it by complaining to your
administrator. I tend to just cut the middle man.
: Remove me from the Internet. If
: it happens then no-one is safe
: here. Not even you my sweet for
: in some odd way my fate is yours.
Are you done?
What are you smoking? Of course nobody is safe. I'm an impatient,
impulsive bastard. When u see ur d0x up here in lights, Don't come pissing
and moaning about how you're oppressed. You had plenty of warning.
: Go ahead. Try...
Don't say you weren't warned..
sarlo
Jerome Jahnke (j-ja...@uchicago.edu) wrote:
: I thought you were against censorship, so how come a little foul language
: makes you all mushy all of a sudden?? I should have realized your Fido and
: OneNet rants were all a buildup to the big time, so bother some other city
: would ya? Us rich white intellectual elite want to have fun with our little
: corner of the internet.
Don't fuck with whitey - He owns TV.
Jerome Jahnke
> Jerome Jahnke (j-ja...@uchicago.edu) wrote:
> : I thought you were against censorship, so how come a little foul language
> : makes you all mushy all of a sudden?? I should have realized your Fido and
> : OneNet rants were all a buildup to the big time, so bother some other city
> : would ya? Us rich white intellectual elite want to have fun with our little
> : corner of the internet.
>
> Don't fuck with whitey - He owns TV.
Hey he can have it. I only watch the boring bits anyway.
Jer,
--
Jerome Jahnke
BSD Academic Computing
University of Chicago
j-ja...@uchicago.edu
Bob Allisat
Jerome Jahnke (j-ja...@uchicago.edu) wrote:
: I thought you were against censorship, so how come a little foul language
: makes you all mushy all of a sudden?? I should have realized your Fido and
: OneNet rants were all a buildup to the big time, so bother some other city
: would ya? Us rich white intellectual elite want to have fun with our little
: corner of the internet.
Usenet belongs to everyone.
Unlike your foul little Onenet
and the even fouler Fidonet.
My freedom is your freedom here.
Restrict me and you restrict
yourself. Freedom is freedom.
sarlo
Bob Allisat (ab...@torfree.net) wrote:
: Jerome Jahnke (j-ja...@uchicago.edu) wrote:
: : I thought you were against censorship, so how come a little foul language
: : makes you all mushy all of a sudden?? I should have realized your Fido and
: : OneNet rants were all a buildup to the big time, so bother some other city
: : would ya? Us rich white intellectual elite want to have fun with our little
: : corner of the internet.
: Usenet belongs to everyone.
No it doesn't.
It belongs to me.
: Unlike your foul little Onenet
: and the even fouler Fidonet.
Fidonet is owned by me too. I didn't know about onenet before, but now
that I do, it's mine. I own it.
: My freedom is your freedom here.
You smoke too much crack.
: Restrict me and you restrict
: yourself. Freedom is freedom.
..you live in canada, dude. I don't remember seeing a bill of rights for
canada. But as KITH pointed out, canada is like america, but without as
many guns.
Anyways, you have no freedom. I'm the supreme dictator of the net, etc.
etc (you've heard it all before).
Obey.
Rusty
In article <E5vo86.B4...@torfree.net>,
Bob Allisat <ab...@torfree.net> wrote:
>
> Usenet belongs to everyone.
This statement alone proves you have absolutely NO clue...
Usenet belongs to the entities which propogate it. If a site
chooses to not carry something or stop carrying Usenet entirely
you, Joe User, have no recourse over that decision other than
to accept it and go somewhere else hoping to find the Usenet
groups you wish to read and possibly post to. If everyone had
ownership and/or control of Usenet then they would have (to use
the KD's favorite word of late) redress available when something
that bothered them about it took place. They do not.
Hate to burst your bubble Bob, but the only thing that belongs
to anyone on Usenet is the copyright on their own words.
-Rusty
--
MooseHead SLED, adventures in killing things and more!
sled.moosehead.com 4000 http://sled.moosehead.com/
Wixer gegen AIDS, mach mit ganz allein!
Jerome Jahnke
> Hate to burst your bubble Bob, but the only thing that belongs
> to anyone on Usenet is the copyright on their own words.
Bob has been on this rip for years and years and years, back in the middle
80's he was pissing and moaning about Fido, then he got a Mac and pissed
and moaned about OneNet (the network supported by SoftArc for their First
Class BBS system.) And now Bobbie boy is here pissing and moaning about
UseNet, his problem is that he is too stupid to know he is a moron, and
thinks that UseNet, nay the Internet is a god given right.
Peter Zelchenko
In article <5eeher$s...@tepe.tezcat.com>, sarlo <sa...@tezcat.com> wrote:
>Jerome Jahnke (j-ja...@uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: corner of the internet.
>
>Don't fuck with whitey - He owns TV.
He also happens to own all four corners of the Internet, not just one.
--
Peter Zelchenko (pe...@chinet.com)
1757 W. Augusta Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60622-3217
(312) RED-BIRD
Erik
sarlo wrote:
>
> Are you done?
> What are you smoking? Of course nobody is safe. I'm an impatient,
> and moaning about how you're oppressed. You had plenty of warning.
>
Wow; an old pothead/acidfreak vs. an DUDE with a bagfulla airplane glue
on his head. Now this is getting really inneresting. Is Bawb right -
will you cancel each other out?
Like, Cheeeers!
Oh yeah . . . sorry if i dint edit your posts right, but I'm too
hammered to care!
E.
--
e-mail: sch...@bc.sympatico.ca
___________________________________________________________
*** The ocean is the ultimate solution ***
- F. Zappa
Bob Allisat
Jerome Jahnke (j-ja...@uchicago.edu) wrote the following about myself
: ... his problem is that he is too stupid to know he is a moron, and
: thinks that UseNet, nay the Internet is a god given right.
A network founded by
massive investment of
public funds worldwide
*is* a god given right
for all citizens to freely
utilize. Mr Jahnke here
still can't free himself
from imagining the Internet
in general or Usenet in
specific is some big BBS
he and his buddies somehow
own. It ain't, they don't
and everyone belongs here
as equals. Fuck you Jerome.
Jerome Jahnke
In article <E5yEBx.7w...@torfree.net>, ab...@torfree.net (Bob
Allisat) wrote:
> Jerome Jahnke (j-ja...@uchicago.edu) wrote the following about myself
> : ... his problem is that he is too stupid to know he is a moron, and
> : thinks that UseNet, nay the Internet is a god given right.
>
> A network founded by
> massive investment of
> public funds worldwide
> *is* a god given right
> for all citizens to freely
> utilize. Mr Jahnke here
> still can't free himself
> from imagining the Internet
> in general or Usenet in
> specific is some big BBS
> he and his buddies somehow
> own. It ain't, they don't
> and everyone belongs here
> as equals. Fuck you Jerome.
Bob, we danced this dance at least once already, but when the goverment
stopped paying the freight any influence individuals had was lost. Since
you were not a taxpayer in this, to begin with, what give you any rights
on it before businesses started to support it? As I remember this came out
of DARPANet which was a defense network, which of course means American
defense, no where did I see Canada in there. So where are your rights? It
is through business that you have access not the largess of either the
American or Canadian goverments.
Keith A. Glass
Bob Allisat wrote:
> Jerome Jahnke (j-ja...@uchicago.edu) wrote the following about myself
> : ... his problem is that he is too stupid to know he is a moron, and
> : thinks that UseNet, nay the Internet is a god given right.
> A network founded by
> massive investment of
> public funds worldwide
A network founded by a minor investment of the United States
Department of Defense. Get the facts straight. . .
> *is* a god given right
> for all citizens to freely
> utilize.
Net access is a service, which costs money. Free telephone service
is not a right. Free subscription to magaizines and newspapers is
not a right. Reality. Learn to deal with it. . .
> Mr Jahnke here
> still can't free himself
> from imagining the Internet
> in general or Usenet in
> specific is some big BBS
> he and his buddies somehow
> own.
You, on the other hand, are long notorious for ignoring any and all
long-established rules of the net, both of operations and etiquette...
You respect NOBODY but your own capricious judgement. And THAT is
why you are universally laughed at and derided as one of the Net's
premier kooks and idiots. And to make it worse, you're not even funny
or even amusing.
> It ain't, they don't
> and everyone belongs here
> as equals. Fuck you Jerome.
And it's also not YOUR personal playground either.
Finally, QUITE the cogent argument, "Fuck you Jerome."
Not only are you a total waste of breathing air, but once again
you show that you have perhaps as many as 4 or 5 functioning
neurons. Too bad that's insufficient for thought, much less
sentience . . .
--
* 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
Jerome Jahnke (j-ja...@uchicago.edu) said the following about myself
>... his problem is that he is too stupid to know he is a moron, and
>thinks that UseNet, nay the Internet is a god given right.
Me, Bob Allisat, wrote
: A network founded by
: massive investment of
: public funds worldwide
: *is* a god given right
: for all citizens to freely
: utilize.: > Mr Jahnke here
: still can't free himself
: from imagining the Internet
: in general or Usenet in
: specific is some big BBS
: he and his buddies somehow
: own. It ain't, they don't
: and everyone belongs here
: as equals. Fuck you Jerome.
Keith A. Glass (sal...@huskynet.com) wrote:
- You, on the other hand, are long notorious for ignoring any and all
- long-established rules of the net, both of operations and etiquette...
-
- You respect NOBODY but your own capricious judgement. And THAT is
- why you are universally laughed at and derided as one of the Net's
- premier kooks and idiots. And to make it worse, you're not even
- funny or even amusing.
NOT funny or amusing? I
GUESS both Mr. Glass and
Mr. Jerome regard THEMSELVES
as entertaining in some way?
Like two JACKHAMMERS they
are, drilling us over and
over about some BULLSHIT
"rules of the net" and about
how we are all expected to
live up to them. Fuck that
fucking noise.
We are all free and equal
citizens here. As long as we
abide by the laws of our lands
everything and anything goes
on Usenet, the WWW and the
Internet in general. No bigoted
American suburban pigs are
going to set my personal or
literary standards Not now,
not ever.
So fuck off Glass and fuck off
America. Me, Bob, is setting
the standards here. And you
may choose to read or not to
read my words. Just stop reading.
It's that simple you fucking
dim wit USA Today, entertainment
tonight brain dead morons.
Bob Allisat
Me, Bob Allisat, wrote:
> A network founded by
> massive investment of
> public funds worldwide
> *is* a god given right
> for all citizens to freely
> utilize. Mr Jahnke here
> still can't free himself
> from imagining the Internet
> in general or Usenet in
> specific is some big BBS
> he and his buddies somehow
> own. It ain't, they don't
> and everyone belongs here
> as equals. Fuck you Jerome.
Jerome Jahnke (j-ja...@uchicago.edu) replied:
:Bob, we danced this dance at least once already, but when the goverment
:stopped paying the freight any influence individuals had was lost. Since
:you were not a taxpayer in this, to begin with, what give you any rights
:on it before businesses started to support it? As I remember this came out
:of DARPANet which was a defense network, which of course means American
:defense, no where did I see Canada in there. So where are your rights? It
:is through business that you have access not the largess of either the
:American or Canadian goverments.
It is through FREENET that
I access the Internet. And
that is an independant entry
point for all citizens. I am
lucky. And fuck the so-called
Internet businesses - they
have benifited massively from
the huge previous investments
*ALL* governments have made
into the telecommunications
infrastucture. So they hold
no claim to ownership over free
citizens like me. And we retain
all of our human rights and
civil liberties here as any-
where else.
Business has stolen public
properties with the collusion
of corrupt politicians. This
endemic grab of our collective
assets ("privatization") has led
to untenable levels of interferance
and censorship of private, law
abiding citizens - especially
in the emmerging electronic media.
Read no further if you are one
of the compliant, submissive,
spineless fuckers like Jerome,
Swetsky and the lot. Otherwise
drink the potent words to follow
as one who sips liberty for the
first time... deeply and profoundly...
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.
--
Bob Allisat
Jerome Jahnke (j-ja...@uchicago.edu) wrote: ... when the goverment
>stopped paying the freight any influence individuals had was lost. Since
>you were not a taxpayer in this, to begin with, what give you any rights
>on it before businesses started to support it? As I remember this came
>out of DARPANet which was a defense network, which of course means
>American defense, no where did I see Canada in there. So where are your
>rights? It is through business that you have access not the largess of
>either the American or Canadian goverments.
Me Bob Allosat wrote:
: It is through FREENET that
Levien de Braal
>:Since you were not a taxpayer in this, to begin with, what give you any
>:rights on it before businesses started to support it? As I remember this
>:came out of DARPANet which was a defense network, which of course means
>:American defense, no where did I see Canada in there.
1) Not being American, or an American taxpayer, has no influence on what a
person is or should be allowed to do or say on-line.
2) The internet didn't start off as DARPANet. Think about the word: INTERnet,
a network of networks...
3) The idea of remotely connecting computers was initially for the sharing
of resources in academic fields, and to more easily exchange results. At no
point was Usenet (as some people continue to think) thought of as a way to
maintain military command structure during a war.
>And we retain all of our human rights and civil liberties here as anywhere
>else.
For now... governments are looking forward to restricting those...
Just for fun, I'm gonna make a few remarks on the below document:
> Electronic Bill of Rights
>
> The right to privacy of electronic communications
> without interference or surveillance.
Unless the police suspects you of any crime, in which case the Government is
free to listen in to anything you have to say.
> The right to navigate in an unrestricted manner
> through generally accessable public, electronic
> networks.
Unless your domain has been blocked by the provider of a specific public
service you wish to use.
> The right to access on public electronic networks
> regardless of income, ethnicity, gender, physical
> location or disability.
So, if you have $0 to spend, you have the right to go on-line? Paid by whom?
> The right to access any public article, newsgroup,
> message or other electronic communications from
> whichever person or area we so desire.
Unless, again, you have been specifically blocked from doing so by the people
offering the article, newsgroup, whatever. Or perhaps your provider doesn't
provide the specific newsgroup you're interested in.
Also, some communications may be illegal, like spreading child-pornography,
or material that educates and encourages people to commit violent crimes.
> The right to uncensored, free, and uncontrolled
> communications to and from unmoderated, public areas.
See above limitations to both "public" and "uncontrolled communications".
> 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 create newsgroups?!?!? Just because some idiot decides to create
1 million newsgroups doesn't mean everybody should have to carry it!
The forming of online communities becomes illegal if those communities can
be regarded a "criminal organization". Pedophiles are breaking the law when
they form an online community to exchange materials.
> 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.
Unless the police has a search warrant...
> The right to security and protection from forged
> messages, cancellations and articles.
Define "forged messages". Does this include anonymous communications, or
communications under an alias name?
Also, isn't your admin allowed to cancel your messages? (yes, he/she is)
> The right to protection, should we so choose, from
> mail bombing, automatic mailers, large, unrequested
> file or data transfers and similar harassments.
In more general terms: anything that might damage your ability to normally use
the internet. You'll have to lose the term "automatic mailer", since this could
be applied to sendmail as well (hence, ALL e-mail).
Furthermore, I see no harm in bouncing undesired e-mail, even when done by
an automated system.
> The right to due judicial process and proper legal
> representation in any conflicts with a services
> provider.
What does this have to do with on-line rights? This takes place entirely
off-line.
> The right to uninterrupted services and reasonable
> access to contracted electronic services and
> resources without hindrance or prejudice.
Tell AOL ;-)
> 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.
Unless the Government wishes to listen in to what you have to say, in which
case you won't be notified of them doing so...
> 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.
So spammers or people posting illegal materials could
become untraceable after doing harm? I don't think so...
Levien
--
Grabel's Law: 2 is not equal to 3---not even for very large values of 2.
Keith A. Glass
Bob Allisat wrote:
> Keith A. Glass (sal...@huskynet.com) wrote:
> - You, on the other hand, are long notorious for ignoring any and all
> - You respect NOBODY but your own capricious judgement. And THAT is
> - why you are universally laughed at and derided as one of the Net's
> - premier kooks and idiots. And to make it worse, you're not even
> - funny or even amusing.
> NOT funny or amusing? I
> GUESS both Mr. Glass and
> Mr. Jerome regard THEMSELVES
> as entertaining in some way?
Hardly. I merely note that MOST Net.kooks are at least mildly
amusing. You, on the other hand, are so dead serious about
inflicting your worldview on everyone.
> Like two JACKHAMMERS they
> are, drilling us over and
> over about some BULLSHIT
> "rules of the net" and about
> how we are all expected to
> live up to them. Fuck that
> fucking noise.
Gee, I make ONE post, correcting some obvious errors in fact and
making a few comments, NONE of which you reply to other than with
a "Fuck you". Really, bOb, you should be able to do better than
THAT: if free communication is so important to you, then why not
defend your stand by cogent argument ?? Throwing epithets is the
last refuge of a net.scoundrel. . .
> We are all free and equal
> citizens here. As long as we
> abide by the laws of our lands
> everything and anything goes
> on Usenet, the WWW and the
> Internet in general. No bigoted
> American suburban pigs are
> going to set my personal or
> literary standards Not now,
> not ever.
My, my.... I'm now bigoted, Suburban, AND a pig. . .
On what grounds do you base that judgement ??
AND. . .My Rabbi would be shocked. . . . a non-Kosher member
of the congregation. I guess I'm lucky I'm not Orthodox....
<g>
> So fuck off Glass and fuck off
> America. Me, Bob, is setting
> the standards here.
And a low standard it is. . .
> And you
> may choose to read or not to
> read my words. Just stop reading.
> It's that simple you fucking
> dim wit USA Today, entertainment
> tonight brain dead morons.
I'm not fond of either. But in all the so-called "poetry" of yours,
I've seen nothing more than the adolescent ravings of a self-centered,
self-righteous fool.
And even as free verse, it was pretty bad. . .
Jerome Jahnke
In article <E60HK8.BJ...@torfree.net>, ab...@torfree.net (Bob
Allisat) wrote:
> It is through FREENET that
> I access the Internet.
[ lotsa vintage bob deleted, including lotsa profanity which he abhors.]
Bob and just how does your FREENET access the rest of the internet?? Oh do
go oonn it is always entertaining.
Jer,
--
Jerome Jahnke
Biological Sciences Division/ Office of Academic Computing
University of Chicago
Tommy the Terrorist
This thread has gone on endlessly, but I still don't know *precisely*
what you are accusing Gerry Swetsky of doing. Please elaborate.
In the meanwhile:
The "Electronic Bill of Rights" is generally excellent, although the
'positive right' of universal access to networks is more a goal than a
feasible proposal for the near future, and if pursued by the wrong
measures could be counterproductive (e.g. the 'justification' of a 'byte
tax' in order to pay for 'universal access', but really, to suppress
communication and facilitate closer monitoring of traffic)
Government vs. business is irrelevant to the free speech issue. The U.S.
military put the first large investment into networks because they had
the money - it doesn't mean they have the right to rule the world, even
if they do, even in Croatia [see Ivo Skoric's recent article on
alt.censorship]. One could argue that phreakers on Alliance
Teleconferencing, or linked BBS arrangements, or Fidonet, or uucp, or
whatever, beat them to it or at least challenge them for priority - but
priority doesn't matter. We deserve free speech as a universal right,
and should not give it up out of 'gratitude' to anybody!
Don't claim that business interests spell doom for free speech, because
there is no reason why that should be true. Fact is, fascist governments
and totalitarian corporations will ALL give way if the people unite in
their demands and refuse to be suppressed. It's happened many times
before, in grimmer circumstances. To say that corporations can never
sell a car by showing a man and a woman having wild sex on top of it
because of current American censorship law is like saying that
corporations can never show ads with women's faces because Iranian
censors want the veil. We change the politics, and the corporations will
adapt.
John B. Hines
Tommy the Terrorist <may...@super.zippo.com> wrote:
>This thread has gone on endlessly, but I still don't know *precisely*
>what you are accusing Gerry Swetsky of doing. Please elaborate.
Probably trying to defend the charter, like usual.
>In the meanwhile:
>
>The "Electronic Bill of Rights" is generally excellent, although the
>'positive right' of universal access to networks is more a goal than a
>feasible proposal for the near future, and if pursued by the wrong
>measures could be counterproductive (e.g. the 'justification' of a 'byte
>tax' in order to pay for 'universal access', but really, to suppress
>communication and facilitate closer monitoring of traffic)
It was a bunch of crap. It was even self-contradictory calling for free
access anywhere, and also the right to security.
You have as much "rights" to private property (an isp) as they let you
have (eg what you have paid for).
Bob Allisat is my reason #1 why government should not be in the ISP
business, such as the "freenets", since the free speech issue interfears
with the enforcement of what few rules there are.
If you want to exercise your "right" to free speech, setup a system and
publish away. But don't expect your "rights" to extend to other peoples
private property.
Bob Allisat
Tommy the Terrorist (may...@super.zippo.com) wrote:
: This thread has gone on endlessly, but I still don't know *precisely*
: what you are accusing Gerry Swetsky of doing. Please elaborate.
: In the meanwhile:
:
: The "Electronic Bill of Rights" is generally excellent, although the
: 'positive right' of universal access to networks is more a goal than a
: feasible proposal for the near future, and if pursued by the wrong
: measures could be counterproductive (e.g. the 'justification' of a 'byte
: tax' in order to pay for 'universal access', but really, to suppress
: communication and facilitate closer monitoring of traffic)
All of this nonsense started when
Some alleged system administrator
wrote me saying that IO shouldn't
have sent an article to chi.general
that was, unknowing to me, previously
sent to chi.internet. Via E-Mail I
told same guy to fuck off in technicolour
after recieving threatening messages.
Critical to this discussion is my
right and your right to send articles
to whatever newsgroup I choose. It is
central to the idea of the Electronic
Bill of Rights that we are all equal.
Not even computer operators can determine
what is or is not appropriate. We may
have laws but technicians are not the
lawmakers, police, judges or juries.
- 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.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <331197d...@news.enteract.com> John B. Hines,
jhi...@enteract.com writes:
>It was a bunch of crap. It was even self-contradictory calling for free
>access anywhere, and also the right to security.
>You have as much "rights" to private property (an isp) as they let you
>have (eg what you have paid for).
>Bob Allisat is my reason #1 why government should not be in the ISP
>business, such as the "freenets", since the free speech issue interfears
>with the enforcement of what few rules there are.
>If you want to exercise your "right" to free speech, setup a system and
>publish away. But don't expect your "rights" to extend to other peoples
>private property.
Oh Gh0d, not another Capitalist Fundamentalist knee-jerk reaction.
I'm starting to wonder if they really *do* put subliminal messages in
television or some such silly thing, because how else do these people all
end up sounding -exactly- alike? [that's a joke, for now... ;) ]
I mean, I actually *AGREE* with you on the "government" issue, and
about ISP's having a right to decide how their systems are used. I
understand very well that government enforcement of "free speech" can
readily become censorship (for instance, when they first mandate that
phone companies must serve everyone for every call, even if they're
abusive telemarketers, and then "have" to make legislative limits on how
telemarketing is done).
Nonetheless, private policies of free speech are generally a Good
Thing, and arbitrary censorship, even by a private company, is damaging
to the free exchange of ideas on Internet. We *do* have to oppose such
censorship, and defend our rights to -actual- free speech, not
hypothetical free speech. I'm not willing to adopt a passive (indeed,
submissive, shall we say receptive?) position merely because corporate
power is involved.
The point, therefore, is that we need to favor free speech uniformly,
at every level - BUT we need to have a sense of perspective as well. We
need to oppose physical penalties such as imprisonment or terrorist
attack against authors unconditionally. *Therefore*, when we oppose
censorship *by* an Internet provider, we must not advocate physical
penalties. Instead, we should use measures appropriate to the situation
- economic measures, putting our money where our mouths are; widespread
publicity, to amplify economic impact; and of course, trying to persuade
the provider to change its policies directly. Likewise, when an
individual using a provider - a moderator of a mailing list, or a spam
canceller, or a spammer, or so on - is accused of abusing his position,
we shouldn't immediately back strict enforcement policies by the
provider, because we're opposed to such restrictions; instead, we should
counter by other means, of creating alternate lists, and getting better
software alternatives for stopping spam and forged cancels that both save
the bandwidth AND give us personal choice. In this second case, however,
the issue is somewhat diluted - since a spammer, for instance, who is
thrown off an account, is not actually physically harmed, there is really
"no harm done" - except that we've given up a chance to stress a real
solution to spam (and unwanted 'garbage posts' in general) that will last
longer than the day it takes the spammer to buy another account
somewhere, and which will actually improve the technical quality of
Internet. All through this question of free speech, we see this kind of
a hierarchy of importance, in which the measures we take to improve the
quality of communication we have should always be *appropriate* to the
specific situation we're trying to deal with. Such hierarchies can stack
so deeply as to appear almost recursive at times, such as when the
participants in a mailing list debate whether a particular poster should
have been booted for a piece of off-topic material, and some argue for
more selective mailing strategies while others want the participant
thrown off or the moderator thrown off or want a certain kind of material
banned entirely by the legislature. We just need to remember, "open
discussion in open forums".
I consider, therefore, the "Electronic Bill of Rights" to be a good model
for what customers should expect and demand from ISP's - excepting the
point I complained about, which seems impossible. Even that point could
make sense, however, if interpreted as a consumer demand against the
government for greater freedom to broadcast radio messages, including
"indecent" or encrypted messages, in remote areas, to link with service
providers. I'm a bit disturbed to see you immediately presuming it was
entirely a request to governments, rather than a suggested common policy
for users. There was a time when Internet policies were not immediately
presumed to be legislative issues, and I mourn its passing. I wonder if
new users are now assuming that even the sinister Emily Postnews is
actually stating some kind of government regulations. [I say "the
sinister" because according to Phrack she's been implicated in a police
investigation of hackers...]
Another possible issue would be if the "freenets" you're referring to
gain any sort of subsidy from government. In general, public
indoctrination and censorship are very closely related, since they could
always try taxing you 100% and then "giving" back your money if they like
what you say. In specific, taxing you to support a network and then
giving you service with it if you're willing to submit to censorship is
not a progressive act.
... meanwhile ... Bob Allisat: your statement of the problem still is
not enlightening me. Perhaps (as far as I know, the courts haven't
*officially* banned it under copyright yet...) you could repost the
original thing mailed to your postmaster, and interesting (if any...)
parts of your exchanges with Gerry Swetsky? As long as we're going to
have a 500-post thread about this damned thing we might as well get our
hands on some data, instead of vague summarizing. Sorry, but on Usenet,
nobody takes nobody's word about nuthin'! We want to see what actually
happened.
Note also that in the Overall Scheme of Things, Swetsky is not a
government censor, or even a censorious sysadmin, but merely a person
sending E-mail you don't like. This is possibly intended to facilitate
censorship, which would be reprehensible, but basically the most that
seems justifiable to do here is to yell at him in public (which is what
you're doing). And it is possible that the "voluntary standards" he's
trying to enforce could be necessary in the short term. We need the
facts...
Bob Allisat
John B. Hines (jhi...@enteract.com) wrote:
: You have as much "rights" to private property (an isp) as they let you
: have (eg what you have paid for).
:
: Bob Allisat is my reason #1 why government should not be in the ISP
: business, such as the "freenets", since the free speech issue interfears
: with the enforcement of what few rules there are.
:
: If you want to exercise your "right" to free speech, setup a system and
: publish away. But don't expect your "rights" to extend to other peoples
: private property.
Our Civil Liberties and Human
Rights extend to our peaceable
and law abiding activities on
so-called private property. You
can no more violate my rights
and liberties on an ISP or in
other spaces than you could on
the street or in my home. The
Electronic Bill of Rights merely
formalizes this fact.
As for rules there are laws and
bylaws galore our elected officials
create. The Internet has no rules
that I recognize or that have been
sanctioned by any represetatives
I elected. Not yet.
I look forward to the day when
our electronic privacy and various
Internet correspondences are protected
under the Electronic Bill of Rights.
This way the arbitrary censorship and
illegal activities of capitalist info-
czars wil be held very much in check.
Geoffrey Gies
Jerome Jahnke (j-ja...@uchicago.edu) wrote:
: Bob, we danced this dance at least once already, but when the goverment
: stopped paying the freight any influence individuals had was lost. Since
: you were not a taxpayer in this, to begin with, what give you any rights
: on it before businesses started to support it? As I remember this came out
: of DARPANet which was a defense network, which of course means American
: defense, no where did I see Canada in there. So where are your rights? It
: is through business that you have access not the largess of either the
: American or Canadian goverments.
ever heard of the dew line? you yankees really need to get some
less americentric history lessons. what do you think they used to
communicate between radar stations and missile batteries? caribou?
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <5esb5n$l...@nntp.interaccess.com> movable articles,
w...@interaccess.com writes:
>Who ratified it? What legal teeth does it have? What teeth
>of any kind for that matter?
Those who believe in free speech and privacy rights in communication
"ratified" it, to the degree that they believe in the ideas expressed.
Its "legal teeth" should be our determination to stymie any and all
governmental measures that infringe upon our rights, and its "other
teeth" should be our determination to stymie any and all private
corporate measures that infringe upon our rights - using, in each case,
those methods which are most appropriate to the situation.
I realize that the position I'm drawing here has the potential to be
confusing, since I'm at once saying that we must vigorously oppose any
governmental attempt to infringe on an ISP's right to censor - for free
speech reasons! - as well as saying that we must vigorously oppose any
ISP censorship. Nonetheless, that's the thing about free speech issues
in general - no sooner do you give somebody the right than you start
trying to convince him not to abuse it! But if you actually deny the
right then you've lost everything.
RatTrap
On 25 Feb 1997 05:44:54 GMT, Tommy the Terrorist <may...@super.zippo.com> spewed
the following dreck:
] -In article <5esb5n$l...@nntp.interaccess.com> movable articles,
] -w...@interaccess.com writes:
] ->Who ratified it? What legal teeth does it have? What teeth
] ->of any kind for that matter?
] -
] -Those who believe in free speech and privacy rights in communication
] -"ratified" it, to the degree that they believe in the ideas expressed.
] -Its "legal teeth" should be our determination to stymie any and all
] -governmental measures that infringe upon our rights, and its "other
] -teeth" should be our determination to stymie any and all private
] -corporate measures that infringe upon our rights - using, in each case,
] -those methods which are most appropriate to the situation.
] -
] -I realize that the position I'm drawing here has the potential to be
] -confusing, since I'm at once saying that we must vigorously oppose any
] -governmental attempt to infringe on an ISP's right to censor - for free
] -speech reasons! - as well as saying that we must vigorously oppose any
] -ISP censorship. Nonetheless, that's the thing about free speech issues
] -in general - no sooner do you give somebody the right than you start
] -trying to convince him not to abuse it! But if you actually deny the
] -right then you've lost everything.
So, the question stands as: When a person sends out junk spam to thousands of
people's email boxes, and an ISP cancels his account, is THAT a violation of
free speech? Is that a denial of his rights? Or is it an abuse of rights on the
perps part.
Don't forget the violation against the people who receive the mail, the people
who didn't ask to have their hard drive taken up, the people who have to spend
that extra few minutes out of their day downloading it, determining whether it's
junk or not, clearing it off of their system.
Free speech is based around non-intrusive discussion. If a party is
uninterested, they can walk away. Spam is intrusive, and requires the
end-receiver to take action.
... you have a nice day too.
RatTrap
rattrap@usa..net
--------------------------------------------------------
"We share the same biology, regardless of ideology"
- Sting - "Russians"
--------------------------------------------------------
The comments, ideas and beliefs expressed here are mine,
not my employer's, not my politician's, not my mom's,
and not some garbage dragged out of a book or magazine.
Use your mind, examine your morals, and think freely.
-------------------------------------------------------
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <331512d8...@nntp.uunet.ca> RatTrap,
rat...@delete-this-to-reply.usa.net writes:
>So, the question stands as: When a person sends out junk spam to thousands of
>people's email boxes, and an ISP cancels his account, is THAT a violation of
>free speech? Is that a denial of his rights? Or is it an abuse of rights on the
>perps part.
>Don't forget the violation against the people who receive the mail, the people
>who didn't ask to have their hard drive taken up, the people who have to spend
>that extra few minutes out of their day downloading it, determining whether it's
>junk or not, clearing it off of their system.
I agree that it's hard to care about the "right" to spam, particularly
when the prohibition of spam is apparently content-neutral, and when it
causes so many problems. I would vehemently oppose any attempt to create
government regulation against "spam", because such regulation would (like
all censorship laws) be vague, prone to abuse, lack proportion, and would
not work. For ISP's to throw people off when it is *genuinely* necessary
to keep the network running right on a technical level isn't so
objectionable, on the other hand.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that it's not the appropriate way to
counter spam. It just *doesn't work*. We still keep getting spam! The
guy gets booted from one account and he probably has the other one set up
already. Normally, when censorship measures don't work (and they never
do, not for their ostensible purpose at least) it's the one redeeming
quality, but in this case obviously it's more annoying.
The fact remains that there's NO reason why technical progress on
Internet should have stopped dead the way it has. There was a time when
"progress" meant you threw away your Gopher client for a Web browser, and
now these guys seem helpless to offer you an E-mail account with some
simple options for blocking spam mail, like looking for strings, from
names, sites passed through, reports of similar messages, and of course,
checking to see if every user on the whole damn machine is getting the
same message.
One thing that would help get people working on better answers, would
be if we stopped taking the line that "acceptable use policies"
accomplished anything particularly useful, and recognized that if we want
the Net to work the way we want, we're going to have to program it to do
so.
RatTrap
On 26 Feb 1997 00:49:09 GMT, Tommy the Terrorist <may...@super.zippo.com> graced
our monitors with the following:
] -In article <331512d8...@nntp.uunet.ca> RatTrap,
] -rat...@delete-this-to-reply.usa.net writes:
] ->So, the question stands as: When a person sends out junk spam to thousands of
] ->people's email boxes, and an ISP cancels his account, is THAT a violation of
] ->free speech? Is that a denial of his rights? Or is it an abuse of rights on the
] ->perps part.
] -
] ->Don't forget the violation against the people who receive the mail, the people
] ->who didn't ask to have their hard drive taken up, the people who have to spend
] ->that extra few minutes out of their day downloading it, determining whether it's
] ->junk or not, clearing it off of their system.
] -
] - I agree that it's hard to care about the "right" to spam, particularly
] -when the prohibition of spam is apparently content-neutral, and when it
] -causes so many problems. I would vehemently oppose any attempt to create
] -government regulation against "spam", because such regulation would (like
] -all censorship laws) be vague, prone to abuse, lack proportion, and would
] -not work. For ISP's to throw people off when it is *genuinely* necessary
] -to keep the network running right on a technical level isn't so
] -objectionable, on the other hand.
The idea behind regulations is to define what is and what isn't *genuinely*
necessary. As it sits, each ISP has their own definition of this, and all one
person has to do is find the ISP who turns a blind eye to his/her offenses, and
the war is lost.
] - Nonetheless, the fact remains that it's not the appropriate way to
] -counter spam. It just *doesn't work*. We still keep getting spam! The
] -guy gets booted from one account and he probably has the other one set up
] -already. Normally, when censorship measures don't work (and they never
] -do, not for their ostensible purpose at least) it's the one redeeming
] -quality, but in this case obviously it's more annoying.
] -
While I agree that it's not the appropriate way to counter spam, it's a start.
Inconveniencing spammers is a hell of a lot better than ignoring them.
] - The fact remains that there's NO reason why technical progress on
] -Internet should have stopped dead the way it has. There was a time when
] -"progress" meant you threw away your Gopher client for a Web browser, and
] -now these guys seem helpless to offer you an E-mail account with some
] -simple options for blocking spam mail, like looking for strings, from
] -names, sites passed through, reports of similar messages, and of course,
] -checking to see if every user on the whole damn machine is getting the
] -same message.
Spam is like a virus, keeping on top of Spam protection would be a full time
job, and would never end. New viruses crop up every week...
] - One thing that would help get people working on better answers, would
] -be if we stopped taking the line that "acceptable use policies"
] -accomplished anything particularly useful, and recognized that if we want
] -the Net to work the way we want, we're going to have to program it to do
] -so.
I agree... but it's going to be a long time in coming... unfortunately.
Bob Allisat
RatTrap <rattrap@usa..net> wrote:
>So, the question stands as: When a person sends out junk spam to
>is THAT a violation of free speech? Is that a denial of his rights?
>Or is it an abuse of rights...
One of the Rights the
authors of the Electronic
Bill of Rights included
was the right to protection
from such abuse. Read on...
Electronic Bill of Rights
--
Bob Allisat
Jerome Jahnke (j-ja...@uchicago.edu) wrote:
: Bob and just how does your FREENET access the rest of the internet??
: Oh do go oonn it is always entertaining.
How does the University of
Chicago access the Internet?
The same way the Freenet does:
through business arrangements
in the full knowledge that
the activities of both must
be beyond interferance and
commercial manipulations.
The Toronto Freenet has 15,000
people whose mail and information
flows through it. This material
is beyond influence by any and
all volunteers, supporters and
sponsors of the Freenet. I am
sure your fine university has
a similar situation. It is good.
Bob Allisat
:
: Electronic Bill of Rights
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <33184b10...@nntp.uunet.ca> RatTrap,
rat...@delete-this-to-reply.usa.net writes:
>The idea behind regulations is to define what is and what isn't *genuinely*
>necessary. As it sits, each ISP has their own definition of this, and all one
>person has to do is find the ISP who turns a blind eye to his/her offenses, and
>the war is lost.
If the war's lost, why are you suggesting fighting it? The only thing
I can think that you mean by this is that you're favoring some
government-type measure, but "all a spammer has to do is find the
government who turns a blind eye..." I mean really, you could MAIL your
friggin' ad to a "service" in Ecuador that would send the spam out, if
you had to.
Besides which, have you EVER seen a set of regulations that only
covered what was "*genuinely* necessary"? In case you haven't noticed,
the governmental system we're looking at is so damned corrupt that even
when the corruption is exposed flat out to the public to see, the people
still get re-elected. Look at the election in Cicero recently - this
bitch Loren-Maltese has suspicious ties with an insurance company that
swallowed a few extra million, confiscates records and shreds them, runs
through her opponent's offices with drug-sniffing dogs to intimidate
them, retaliates against one of her opponents' relativee's job in the
fire department, changes the town policy so that anyone accused of
wrongdoing will have their legal fees paid by the town even for blatant
acts of deliberate corruption, and hires an "independent investigator" to
"look into" the charges people made against her -as an alternative- to a
real prosecutor, and this investigator of course is perceived to be
looking for people to purge before they can expose anything. (he's also
the guy 'prosecuting' the cops who framed Rolondo Cruz [loon laugh] ).
But what's the kicker??? The KICKER is that the dip shits in her
township just RE-ELECTED HER over the opponents! Because the so-called
'political process' is merely a matter of patronage, and nobody but
nobody with any kind of reliance on zoning or licensing would want to
have been perceived as being on the other side if she won; they assumed
she'd win; and once you've had the signs up all month and made such an
effort to be perceived as positive to her cause, why would you vote
against her and risk missing the chance to cash in on the good-will?
That's "patronage" - how politics works in Chicago.
With the 900 murders a year, the whole departments of corrupt cops,
the relatives of Al Capone pulling these stunts, and the on-going field
day of drug Prohibition and the gangs, corruption, and degradation it
spawns, I can't see how anybody can possibly claim that this city is MORE
honest than it was during alcohol Prohibition! I only *wish* that this
city were so honest that the public knew the names of all the notorious
gang leaders, and when they did one measly drive-by shooting that people
would call it "The Saint Valentine's Day Massacre" for a hundred years
afterward, as if it were special.
But I digress - my only real point was just that any law against "spam
E-mail" will probably be enforced FIRST against some political mailing
list, by someone who doesn't like it and signs up everybody in congress
like they did with cypherpunks. Or the prosecutors will just pick it
out, misrepresent the facts, and play stupid - something they're pretty
good at. We must NOT assume "democracy" or "reasonable" behavior,
because it doesn't happen. We should use the same tactics that work in
dictatorships like that of Serbia, because they're not different from our
own.
>While I agree that it's not the appropriate way to counter spam, it's a start.
>Inconveniencing spammers is a hell of a lot better than ignoring them.
It's not obvious that inconveniencing the spammer really matters at
all. I think they get their business from the ads at the back of
newspapers where they offer to "reach 30,000 customers", etc. Once the
poor sucker from the business drops the money in their hands, it doesn't
matter what they do - they've been paid.
RatTrap
On 27 Feb 1997 13:42:50 GMT, Tommy the Terrorist <may...@super.zippo.com> graced
our monitors with the following:
] -In article <33184b10...@nntp.uunet.ca> RatTrap,
] -rat...@delete-this-to-reply.usa.net writes:
] ->The idea behind regulations is to define what is and what isn't *genuinely*
] ->necessary. As it sits, each ISP has their own definition of this, and all one
] ->person has to do is find the ISP who turns a blind eye to his/her offenses, and
] ->the war is lost.
] -
] - If the war's lost, why are you suggesting fighting it? The only thing
] -I can think that you mean by this is that you're favoring some
] -government-type measure, but "all a spammer has to do is find the
] -government who turns a blind eye..." I mean really, you could MAIL your
] -friggin' ad to a "service" in Ecuador that would send the spam out, if
] -you had to.
I've never said that the war is lost... I don't like spam... it's a waste of my
time if I fight it, and it's a waste of my time if I ignore it. If you start
spamming from Ecuador, I will end up putting a filter on that provider, or ask
my ISP to not allow that provider to pass messages through. It would then fall
upon the Ecuadorian providers shoulders to kill or keep their subscriber. The
more ISP's that follow this type of example, the less the spammers get their
messages across to me without my consent.
If I can get a spammer to jump from subscriber to subscriber, then he's
subjected to the same waste of time I was subjected to.
] - Besides which, have you EVER seen a set of regulations that only
] -covered what was "*genuinely* necessary"? In case you haven't noticed,
] -the governmental system we're looking at is so damned corrupt that even
] -when the corruption is exposed flat out to the public to see, the people
] -still get re-elected. Look at the election in Cicero recently - this
] -bitch Loren-Maltese has suspicious ties with an insurance company that
] -swallowed a few extra million, confiscates records and shreds them, runs
] -through her opponent's offices with drug-sniffing dogs to intimidate
] -them, retaliates against one of her opponents' relativee's job in the
] -fire department, changes the town policy so that anyone accused of
] -wrongdoing will have their legal fees paid by the town even for blatant
] -acts of deliberate corruption, and hires an "independent investigator" to
] -"look into" the charges people made against her -as an alternative- to a
] -real prosecutor, and this investigator of course is perceived to be
] -looking for people to purge before they can expose anything. (he's also
] -the guy 'prosecuting' the cops who framed Rolondo Cruz [loon laugh] ).
] -But what's the kicker??? The KICKER is that the dip shits in her
] -township just RE-ELECTED HER over the opponents! Because the so-called
] -'political process' is merely a matter of patronage, and nobody but
] -nobody with any kind of reliance on zoning or licensing would want to
] -have been perceived as being on the other side if she won; they assumed
] -she'd win; and once you've had the signs up all month and made such an
] -effort to be perceived as positive to her cause, why would you vote
] -against her and risk missing the chance to cash in on the good-will?
] -That's "patronage" - how politics works in Chicago.
I'll bet she doesn't get spammed though...
] - With the 900 murders a year, the whole departments of corrupt cops,
] -the relatives of Al Capone pulling these stunts, and the on-going field
] -day of drug Prohibition and the gangs, corruption, and degradation it
] -spawns, I can't see how anybody can possibly claim that this city is MORE
] -honest than it was during alcohol Prohibition! I only *wish* that this
] -city were so honest that the public knew the names of all the notorious
] -gang leaders, and when they did one measly drive-by shooting that people
] -would call it "The Saint Valentine's Day Massacre" for a hundred years
] -afterward, as if it were special.
] -
] - But I digress - my only real point was just that any law against "spam
] -E-mail" will probably be enforced FIRST against some political mailing
] -list, by someone who doesn't like it and signs up everybody in congress
] -like they did with cypherpunks. Or the prosecutors will just pick it
] -out, misrepresent the facts, and play stupid - something they're pretty
] -good at. We must NOT assume "democracy" or "reasonable" behavior,
] -because it doesn't happen. We should use the same tactics that work in
] -dictatorships like that of Serbia, because they're not different from our
] -own.
The internet is hardly a democracy, but follows more of a "Mob Rules" type of
architecture... I'm not expecting governments to step in, actually, I would hope
they don't... they can't clean up their own backyards, how can you expect them
to clean up ours? I DO expect the Large ISP's of the world to form some sort of
alliance (and the people like Bob Allisat will cry foul) to maintain this
rapidly expanding digital-universe.
Cutting off spam is far from censorship, but more along the lines of preventing
someone from coming into your house and writing on the walls.
] ->While I agree that it's not the appropriate way to counter spam, it's a start.
] ->Inconveniencing spammers is a hell of a lot better than ignoring them.
] -
] - It's not obvious that inconveniencing the spammer really matters at
] -all. I think they get their business from the ads at the back of
] -newspapers where they offer to "reach 30,000 customers", etc. Once the
] -poor sucker from the business drops the money in their hands, it doesn't
] -matter what they do - they've been paid.
As it sits, very little is done to counter spam. The more people react to it,
the harder it will be to continue it... companies offering to contact large
whacks of users will dwindle... and the walls in my house will get cleaner.
Geoffrey Gies
RatTrap (rat...@delete-this-to-reply.usa.net) wrote:
(edit)
: I've never said that the war is lost... I don't like spam... it's a waste of my
: time if I fight it, and it's a waste of my time if I ignore it. If you start
: spamming from Ecuador, I will end up putting a filter on that provider, or ask
: my ISP to not allow that provider to pass messages through. It would then fall
: upon the Ecuadorian providers shoulders to kill or keep their subscriber. The
: more ISP's that follow this type of example, the less the spammers get their
: messages across to me without my consent.
: If I can get a spammer to jump from subscriber to subscriber, then he's
: subjected to the same waste of time I was subjected to.
(edit)
: The internet is hardly a democracy, but follows more of a "Mob Rules" type of
: architecture... I'm not expecting governments to step in, actually, I would hope
: they don't... they can't clean up their own backyards, how can you expect them
: to clean up ours? I DO expect the Large ISP's of the world to form some sort of
: alliance (and the people like Bob Allisat will cry foul) to maintain this
: rapidly expanding digital-universe.
: Cutting off spam is far from censorship, but more along the lines of preventing
: someone from coming into your house and writing on the walls.
hmmm. one minute we are talking about commercial spammers (who
only recently claimed web ownership in this thread), the next we are
pointing our fingers at bob. bob raises (ugly) civic issues and posts
them to a half dozen .general newsgroups provoking discussion (and aren't
.general newsgroups for this type of discussion?).
i fail to see how this compares to commercial entities which post
solicitations to all groups but those concerned with marketing like
wares. could this be a non sequiter?
(edit)
: As it sits, very little is done to counter spam. The more people react to it,
: the harder it will be to continue it... companies offering to contact large
: whacks of users will dwindle... and the walls in my house will get cleaner.
: ... you have a nice day too.
unfortunately, reacting to spam often gets you on more mailing
lists, offsetting any gain.
RatTrap
On Mon, 3 Mar 1997 16:55:39 GMT, bt...@torfree.net (Geoffrey Gies) graced our
monitors with the following:
] -RatTrap (rat...@delete-this-to-reply.usa.net) wrote:
] -
] - (edit)
] -
] -: I've never said that the war is lost... I don't like spam... it's a waste of my
] -: time if I fight it, and it's a waste of my time if I ignore it. If you start
] -: spamming from Ecuador, I will end up putting a filter on that provider, or ask
] -: my ISP to not allow that provider to pass messages through. It would then fall
] -: upon the Ecuadorian providers shoulders to kill or keep their subscriber. The
] -: more ISP's that follow this type of example, the less the spammers get their
] -: messages across to me without my consent.
] -
] -: If I can get a spammer to jump from subscriber to subscriber, then he's
] -: subjected to the same waste of time I was subjected to.
] -
] - (edit)
] -
] -: The internet is hardly a democracy, but follows more of a "Mob Rules" type of
] -: architecture... I'm not expecting governments to step in, actually, I would hope
] -: they don't... they can't clean up their own backyards, how can you expect them
] -: to clean up ours? I DO expect the Large ISP's of the world to form some sort of
] -: alliance (and the people like Bob Allisat will cry foul) to maintain this
] -: rapidly expanding digital-universe.
] -
] -: Cutting off spam is far from censorship, but more along the lines of preventing
] -: someone from coming into your house and writing on the walls.
] -
] - hmmm. one minute we are talking about commercial spammers (who
] -only recently claimed web ownership in this thread), the next we are
] -pointing our fingers at bob. bob raises (ugly) civic issues and posts
] -them to a half dozen .general newsgroups provoking discussion (and aren't
] -.general newsgroups for this type of discussion?).
] - i fail to see how this compares to commercial entities which post
] -solicitations to all groups but those concerned with marketing like
] -wares. could this be a non sequiter?
I think you missed the point. I mentioned Bob only because he seems to be
against any sort of ISP alliance that would effectively block repeat offenders
from gaining access to the net. I, in no way, am calling Bob a spammer, but
instead, an advocate of spamming.
] - (edit)
] -
] -: As it sits, very little is done to counter spam. The more people react to it,
] -: the harder it will be to continue it... companies offering to contact large
] -: whacks of users will dwindle... and the walls in my house will get cleaner.
] -: ... you have a nice day too.
] -
] - unfortunately, reacting to spam often gets you on more mailing
] -lists, offsetting any gain.
] -
I guess it would depend on how you react to it. I usually forward messages to
the ISP's postmaster pointing out any legitimate offenses... and I add the ISP's
hostmask to my mail filter, forwarding it to a folder for later review. Multiple
offenses result in instant instant deletion. The more people who take this
action, the better...
It will hopefully get to the point that the non-offending members of the ISP
realize that their valid emails aren't going through, and they start
complaining. The postmaster may not listen to me... they'll sure as hell listen
to their subscribers.
Geoffrey Gies
RatTrap (rat...@delete-this-to-reply.usa.net) wrote:
: I think you missed the point. I mentioned Bob only because he seems to be
: against any sort of ISP alliance that would effectively block repeat offenders
: from gaining access to the net. I, in no way, am calling Bob a spammer, but
: instead, an advocate of spamming.
you may be correct. however, i doubt someone who has taken more
flak for the size of his (frequently checked) inbox would oppose a
reduction of email solicitations.
most spammers tend to gather addresses from NGs and thus avid
posters tend to attract the most junk mail.
if anything, the fear of an isp alliance would be the opportunity
that would create for abuse. to wit: bob could be denied
access because a few tell the rest to deny him access simply because they
dislike the content of his posts.
similar problems already exist in that certain "individuals" (not
commercial spammers) cannot post to certain heirarchies because the
"regional moderator" (and these are not moderated NGs) have determined
these individuals posts are not acceptable.
: I guess it would depend on how you react to it. I usually forward messages to
: the ISP's postmaster pointing out any legitimate offenses... and I add the ISP's
: hostmask to my mail filter, forwarding it to a folder for later review. Multiple
: offenses result in instant instant deletion. The more people who take this
: action, the better...
: It will hopefully get to the point that the non-offending members of the ISP
: realize that their valid emails aren't going through, and they start
: complaining. The postmaster may not listen to me... they'll sure as hell listen
: to their subscribers.
much of this depends on the type of account you have. mind you,
ratcliffe has expressed he isn't particularly interested in subscriber
complaints (must be a one horse town).