Lawrence Godfrey
squirr...@deja.com
true identity then a quick search on deja.com will probably find it. The only
reason I'm posting under a different (but valid) email address is so as not
to implicate Demon Internet in any more legal proceedings. Also apologies for
the cross-post, but I want this to reach as wide an audience as possible.
The recent court case between Demon Internet and Lawrence Godfrey has left me
(and I'm sure many other internet users) appalled, both at Godfrey's actions
and at the UK law court's absurd ruling.
An Internet Service Provider can not possibly be held liable for the millions
of usenet messages that pass through its servers every day. The case in
question is particularly absurd and grossly unfair, as the article didn't
even originate in the UK.
For those people reading that haven't heard the case, a defamatory article
concerning Godfrey was posted on a Canadian news server. Godfrey then made
legal threats against British ISPs. Demon fought back, and lost.
The fact that the article was defamatory was never in doubt. However, anyone
with any clue about the way the internet (and usenet) works will see quite
clearly that neither Demon nor any other ISP has any control about any
article posted from outside their internal networks.
If something isn't done, the Internet as we know it could come to an end. How
is any ISP supposed to run a news server when they are under constant thread
of legal action from people like Godfrey?
If Lawrence Godfrey is reading this, perhaps he would like to comment?
Perhaps he would like to tell us why, in his own words, he is trying to
destroy the Internet in the UK? And perhaps he would like to post his real
email address here, rather than hiding behind lawyers and beaurocracy, like
the coward that he appears?
Unless the Usenet community stands up to people like Godfrey, and unless the
lawmakers learn how the internet works, and why it is impossible for a
service provider to control the content of newsgroups, and their customers'
web space, the very foundation of the internet is threatened.
It's up to us to act now. Contact your MP, contact the local papers,
anything. Every little thing helps.
--
Concerned Demon customer
Nathan
writes
>Unless the Usenet community stands up to people like Godfrey, and unless the
>lawmakers learn how the internet works, and why it is impossible for a
>service provider to control the content of newsgroups, and their customers'
>web space, the very foundation of the internet is threatened.
>
Exactly right: Godfrey is a muppet, and has harmed the future of the
internet.
Besides, the original posting probably had some basis of truth.
--
Nathan Hull
Tel +44 (0)7930 848277
http://www.nathan.hull.btinternet.co.uk
on IRC #mylene as Hully
website of the week: http://www.absurd.org
Juergen Heinzl
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 19:58:50 +0100, squirr...@deja.com wrote:
>
>}The recent court case between Demon Internet and Lawrence Godfrey has left me
>}(and I'm sure many other internet users) appalled, both at Godfrey's actions
>}and at the UK law court's absurd ruling.
>
>
>}An Internet Service Provider can not possibly be held liable for the millions
>}of usenet messages that pass through its servers every day. The case in
>}question is particularly absurd and grossly unfair, as the article didn't
>}even originate in the UK.
>
>of the article is irrelevant. As are your opinions.
[...]
So I am free to shut up some ISP in Australia as soon as I feel peeved by
something some clown dared to publish about me there ? Thanks a lot.
Oh yes, I presume your opinion(s) are irrelevant too then ? Yup, thanks
for the confirmation.
>}For those people reading that haven't heard the case, a defamatory article
>}concerning Godfrey was posted on a Canadian news server. Godfrey then made
>}legal threats against British ISPs. Demon fought back, and lost.
>
>Wrong.
[...]
IIRC is sued his Canadian employer too ... seems to be a kind of hobby
of him.
>}The fact that the article was defamatory was never in doubt. However, anyone
>}with any clue about the way the internet (and usenet) works will see quite
>}clearly that neither Demon nor any other ISP has any control about any
>}article posted from outside their internal networks.
>
>Do some research; even the lunatics in demon.service understand the issue
>better than you.
>
>}If something isn't done, the Internet as we know it could come to an end. How
>}is any ISP supposed to run a news server when they are under constant thread
>}of legal action from people like Godfrey?
>
>They act when someone complains, Demon didn't and lost. They so nothing
>otherwise as they are not liable.
[...]
So quite some ISP's in the middle are liable too, finally they had had
an active role in distributing the message in question.
>
>}If Lawrence Godfrey is reading this, perhaps he would like to comment?
>}Perhaps he would like to tell us why, in his own words, he is trying to
>}destroy the Internet in the UK? And perhaps he would like to post his real
>}email address here, rather than hiding behind lawyers and beaurocracy, like
>}the coward that he appears?
>
>This shit does not deserve any response.
[...]
Yes, that is true ...
>}Unless the Usenet community stands up to people like Godfrey, and unless the
>}lawmakers learn how the internet works, and why it is impossible for a
>}service provider to control the content of newsgroups, and their customers'
>}web space, the very foundation of the internet is threatened.
>
>Fuck off. Go read John Gilmore
[...]
Cool, yes .. you are a big, strong guy .. you are the king .. you
are the greatest .. well, whatever ...
Never mind, just cannot stand people who have nothing to say, spitting
around instead.
[...]
Have a nice day,
Juergen
PS: No, English is not my native language, so feel free to make
fun of it should it help to make you feel better. I even promise
not to sue anyone.
--
\ Real name : Jürgen Heinzl \ no flames /
\ EMail Private : jue...@monocerus.demon.co.uk \ send money instead /
John Underwood
wrote in demon.ip.support:
(Reference: <RZnayUAT...@nathan.hull.btinternet.co.uk>)
>Exactly right: Godfrey is a muppet, and has harmed the future of the
>internet.
Yes, almost as much as Jack Straw who doesn't misuse the law to do so,
he creates it.
--
John Underwood
John Underwood
demon.ip.support:
(Reference: <65lkess51adf5fsf4...@pink.semolina.org>)
>This shit does not deserve any response.
Your eloquence certainly emphasises the power of your logic, I am really
impressed by your power of argument. So much so that I it has persuaded
me to take a stance on this.
--
John Underwood
Raj Rijhwani
nat...@thomson-racal.co.uk "Nathan" writes:
> In article <779f1...@anonymous.demon.co.uk>, squirr...@deja.com
> writes
> >Unless the Usenet community stands up to people like Godfrey, and unless the
> >lawmakers learn how the internet works, and why it is impossible for a
> >service provider to control the content of newsgroups, and their customers'
> >web space, the very foundation of the internet is threatened.
> Exactly right: Godfrey is a muppet, and has harmed the future of the
> internet.
Don't blame Godfrey overly for the consequences of his actions, only for
choosing to take them. Someone was bound to eventually take umbrage
and throw the lawyers into the melting pot. The confrontation was
inevitable. It just so happens that the first to choose to act on the
notion was Godfrey. If he hadn't, someone else would have, sooner or
later. (Which doesn't stop me hoping he chokes on his ill-gotten gains.)
What you should really concerned about is that the law itself was allowed
to remain so divorced from the striding changes in technology and society
even now taking place. The law needs to be expressly re-vamped to take
the current circumstances into account.
> Besides, the original posting probably had some basis of truth.
Unless you know the fellow personally, and have detailed knowledge of
his life this is hardly a rational statement.
(demon.ip.support removed as irrelevent)
--
Raj Rijhwani (umtsb5/16) | This is the voice of the Mysterons...
r...@rijhwani.org | ... We know that you can hear us Earthmen
sca...@fido.zetnet.co.uk | "Lieutenant Green: Launch all Angels!"
http://www.courtfld.demon.co.uk/raj/ (demon, and gods, willing...)
John McGinlay
[clipped]
...although 'writes' does not adequately describe the vitriol. Why are
you so obnoxious in your posting style these days, Richard? What
happened to the old {R} who used to post with wit and style (although
usually a somewhat 'robust' style, I will grant :) ) and who was often
so helpful on technical matters?
--
John McGinlay (curious at the sea-change in Richard)
Paul C. Dickie
>Perhaps he would like to tell us why, in his own words, he is trying to
>destroy the Internet in the UK? And perhaps he would like to post his real
>email address here,
He does.
You don't.
>Concerned Demon customer
Phooey! NNTP-Posting-Host: host62-6-81-60.btinternet.com
I do not believe you.
--
< Paul >
Peter Kirby
Paul C. Dickie wrote in message ...
>>Concerned Demon customer
>
>Phooey! NNTP-Posting-Host: host62-6-81-60.btinternet.com
>
>I do not believe you.
I have no personal stance on this matter, however the poster would not post
from his demon account since that would be a static IP and would remove the
whole point of posting 'semi anonymously' since BT internet use dynamic IP
it is a more 'anonymous' posting.
Julie Brandon
>you so obnoxious in your posting style these days, Richard? What
>happened to the old {R} who used to post with wit and style (although
>usually a somewhat 'robust' style, I will grant :) ) and who was often
>so helpful on technical matters?
A question I've been contemplating as well to be honest.
I used to imagine him as an old sysop I knew at IBM once (in fact
I did wonder for a while if he was that guy- turns out he isn't)
but now progressively with each of his posts I'm finding the
image of Father Jack Hackett is appearing ever clearer in my mind. *8-)
Ta-ra,
Julie (yes, already running.....)
--
Disclaimer: this post is just my insignificant mumblings, so don't believe
a word of it -- relax, and take it all with a pinch of salt. Any relevance
to real life is purely co-incidental, and is statistically very unlikely.
Gluten free. Requires 4xAA batteries (not included). May contain peanuts.
Paul C. Dickie
>(and I'm sure many other internet users) appalled, both at Godfrey's actions
>and at the UK law court's absurd ruling.
That's not exactly amazing, as it's quite obvious that you neither
understand the law nor understand what's happened.
>An Internet Service Provider can not possibly be held liable for the millions
>of usenet messages that pass through its servers every day.
Until and unless they're informed about a posting, they're not.
>The case in question is particularly absurd and grossly unfair, as the
>article didn't even originate in the UK.
There were *two* postings, sunshine. The second posting *did* originate
in the UK, since it was posted by a Demon customer via Demon's system.
>For those people reading that haven't heard the case, a defamatory article
>concerning Godfrey was posted on a Canadian news server. Godfrey then made
>legal threats against British ISPs. Demon fought back, and lost.
The above paragraph omits most of the facts.
It omits the facts that Demon were asked to remove the first posting
from their server(s) but didn't, that a second defamatory posting was
made by a Demon customer, that Demon were asked to remove that one and,
again, didn't.
AFAIK, Laurence never made any threats, legal or otherwise, against any
British ISP. He asked other ISPs to remove the postings and they
complied. He asked Demon and they just ignored the faxes.
>The fact that the article was defamatory was never in doubt. However, anyone
>with any clue about the way the internet (and usenet) works will see quite
>clearly that neither Demon nor any other ISP has any control about any
>article posted from outside their internal networks.
They do have control, but only retrospectively unless they alias a site
-- i.e. unless they block all postings from a site or system. They can
certainly remove a posting from their servers, or they'd not be able to
comply with the requests from the IWF. They could certainly issue a
cancel request, or post a blank (or amended) article with the
"Supercedes" header containing the message-id of the libellous posting.
>If something isn't done, the Internet as we know it could come to an end. How
>is any ISP supposed to run a news server when they are under constant thread
>of legal action from people like Godfrey?
They are under neither "constant thread" (sic) nor constant threat of
legal actions by anyone; until and unless they are put on notice of a
posting that is alleged to be defamatory, they may continue exactly as
they did before. If they are told about a posting, they should remove
it just as they'd doubtless remove it were it to contain illegal
pornography or pirated software.
>If Lawrence Godfrey is reading this, perhaps he would like to comment?
I'd doubt if he will; for one thing, he's better things to do with his
time and, for another, he no longer bothers to bandy words with people
unable and unwilling to learn. I'm only posting this in a conscious
effort to try to develop more patience.
Not only do you appear more than slightly devoid of clues, you also
appear to have been impervious to all clues posted over the last four
days. {R} has a word for folk like that, but I'm trying to develop my
tolerance; besides, I'm too much of a gentleman to use it.
>Perhaps he would like to tell us why, in his own words, he is trying to
>destroy the Internet in the UK?
He hasn't done that, he hasn't tried to do that and his success against
Demon won't have that effect.
>Unless the Usenet community stands up to people like Godfrey, and unless the
>lawmakers learn how the internet works, and why it is impossible for a
>service provider to control the content of newsgroups, and their customers'
>web space, the very foundation of the internet is threatened.
Web pages started to be removed by service providers *years* ago. The
"Scallywag" web site was but one example of a web site that was closed
by Demon; more recently, the "Vomit" website and its mirror on
"Iniquity" were closed because it was alleged that one or more articles
archived therein defamed one or more officers of a certain council.
Indeed, the mirror site on the "iniquity" account was closed very
quickly, within only a day or two of its existence being announced on
Usenet...
>It's up to us to act now.
I do not believe you *need* merely to act. You've convinced me that you
are terminally clueless.
>Contact your MP, contact the local papers, anything.
Scrawl something on a Durex machine?
>Every little thing helps.
A little more learning would certainly help you, for you might thus
cease from posting such drivel.
--
< Paul >
John Underwood
>Alive and well elsewhere, the stupidity of the rats in demon.sewer is
>probably getting to me.
>
>{R}
Aren't the rats the ones who leave the sinking ship?
--
John Underwood
John Underwood
demon.ip.support:
(Reference: <954887...@rijhwani.org>)
>(Which doesn't stop me hoping he chokes on his ill-gotten
>gains.)
Are you sure he made any? I thought his unrecoverable costs far exceeded
the costs and damages he won.
--
John Underwood
John McGinlay
Richard Ashton <{R}@soggy.semolina.org> writes
>
>Alive and well elsewhere,
Glad to hear it.
> the stupidity of the rats in demon.sewer is probably getting to me.
>
Time for a breather, then. They'll still be here when you get back :)
--
John McGinlay (buckling on the oxygen tanks as he prepares to submerge beneath
the murky surface of d.s and immerse himself in the roiling currents that surge
and seeth beneat....can I really fit all this within the 'four lines or
less,sunshine' limit..but, heaves a sigh of relief, this isn't d.l so I don't
have to worry ...now where was I...)
Angus MacCulloch
{R} Richard Ashton wrote:
> I understand he is preparing for a lucrative lecture tour round various UK
> Universities Law Faculties.
Just in case he's still reading, there's no point in coming to
Manchester. We have filled all our guest slots.
Angus.
--
Faculty of Law, University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
http://les.man.ac.uk/law (remove *spam* to reply)
Paul C. Dickie
<Phil_...@goons.cx> writes
>On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:37:06 +0100, "Paul C. Dickie"
><p...@bozzie.force9.co.uk> borrowed
><VVDAiLAy...@bozzie.force9.co.uk> to say...
>>AFAIK, Laurence never made any threats, legal or otherwise, against any
>
>several people in an effort to quash reasoned debate.
Perhaps he doesn't share your idiosyncratic notion of "reasoned debate"?
I know that I don't and I dare say that {R} doesn't, either.
>>British ISP. He asked other ISPs to remove the postings and they
>>complied. He asked Demon and they just ignored the faxes.
>All the other ISPs complied did they, if you wish to comment, please
>make it an accurate one. What was Claranet's response?
I didn't write "all the other ISPs" -- that's your supposition. As for
Claranet's response, I've not the least idea and neither do you.
>>A little more learning would certainly help you, for you might thus
>>cease from posting such drivel.
>So where's my apology then you arsehole. I take it I proved I wasn't
>lying as you stated in a previous post of yours?
You proved nothing, sunshine, except that cancel requests patently do
not work as well as some here have suggested. If they did, I'd not have
been able to download an article you claimed to have cancelled within
one minute of its having been posted.
Are you *sure* you cancelled the right posting?
--
< Paul >
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
a.mac*spam*cul...@man.ac.uk "Angus MacCulloch" writes:
> {R} Richard Ashton wrote:
>
> > I understand he is preparing for a lucrative lecture tour round various UK
> > Universities Law Faculties.
>
> Just in case he's still reading, there's no point in coming to
> Manchester. We have filled all our guest slots.
With someone(s) with a greater level of intellect, one hopes?
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"If we could apply the power of electrical repulsion to preserve us from
ever hearing anything more of them [Americans], I should think we had for
once derived a benefit from science." T L Peacock, /Gryll Grange/ 1861
Raj Rijhwani
jo...@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk "John Underwood" writes:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 at 22:23:51, Raj Rijhwani <r...@rijhwani.org> wrote in
> demon.ip.support:
> (Reference: <954887...@rijhwani.org>)
>
> >(Which doesn't stop me hoping he chokes on his ill-gotten
> >gains.)
>
> Are you sure he made any?
My own opinion is that he will derive far more profit in times to come.
It wouldn't surprise me that this was one of the considerations that
drove his actions toward to this particular conclusion...
Glenn Richards
>> If Lawrence Godfrey is reading this, perhaps he would like to comment?
>> Perhaps he would like to tell us why, in his own words, he is trying to
>> destroy the Internet in the UK? And perhaps he would like to post his real
>> email address here,
> He does.
> You don't.
Well, maybe I was being a bit paranoid... (the address I used to post the
article is actually valid).
>> Concerned Demon customer
> Phooey! NNTP-Posting-Host: host62-6-81-60.btinternet.com
> I do not believe you.
Believe this. Check the headers. I use BT's news server, because BT Internet
have unmetered access, Demon don't.
The email address in my .sig is valid, as is the URL.
Satisfied now?
--
Glenn Richards E-Mail: gl...@squirrel-net.demon.co.uk
Squirrel Solutions WWW: http://www.squirrel-net.demon.co.uk/
"Don't ask me, ask an OS developer! I only work for RISCOS Ltd!" -- Anon
Glenn Richards
5 Apr:
>>> Concerned Demon customer
>> Phooey! NNTP-Posting-Host: host62-6-81-60.btinternet.com
>> I do not believe you.
> I have no personal stance on this matter, however the poster would not post
> from his demon account since that would be a static IP and would remove the
> whole point of posting 'semi anonymously' since BT internet use dynamic IP
> it is a more 'anonymous' posting.
Plus the fact that BT Internet's access is unmetered, and that's why I use
them for news instead of Demon.
Look at my Demon hostname. Has the penny dropped?
I was originally going to post that article from DejaNews, but for some
reason the Post link had vanished. So I pasted it into Messenger, and changed
the email address to my Deja address. Whatever - it didn't go through Demon's
news server, at least not from me. And other UK ISPs aren't booting customers
off for mentioning LG.
Interesting thought - BT Internet are part of BT, so would they (as a telco)
be classed as a "common carrier", or whatever it's called in the UK, and
therefore be immune from prosecution for libellious material posted by
customers?
John Underwood
net.demon.co.uk> wrote in demon.ip.support:
(Reference: <4e9e4ead49%gl...@jodi.squirrel-net.demon.co.uk>)
>Interesting thought - BT Internet are part of BT, so would they (as a
>telco) be classed as a "common carrier", or whatever it's called in the
>UK, and therefore be immune from prosecution for libellious material
>posted by customers?
Demon are not only part of Thus (Scottish Telecom) but, I believe, also
a teleco in their own right (and were before their purchase). If the
defence of being a common carrier were applicable, I would be surprised
if Demon's lawyers didn't suggest it.
--
John Underwood
Molly Mockford
>
I guess there is a divergence on opinion as to whether or not he
succeeded in that aim.
--
Molly (change nospam to orbs to email me)
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com for a totally free and simple way
to donate food to the hungry. (Go on, try it!)
Thomas Lee
<Phil_...@goons.cx> writes
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:59:40 +0100, {R} Richard Ashton
><{R}@soggy.semolina.org> borrowed
><2q46fsohl2g18vc2i...@pink.semolina.org> to say...
>
>>I know you won't believe it but he only wanted to protect his reputation.
>
>
>Which reputation was he attempting to protect. His professional
>reputation, his Usenet reputation, his reputation as a man, which was
>it?
Kurt
Please take what I say as friendly advice. This post, and others you
have sent recently, seem to me to be straying over the line between
insults and defamation.
Knowing what I do of the man, some of you comments will not be taken
lightly. You might choose to find some other target for your youthful
indignation - someone less liable to sue you for defamation.
Feel free to insult me to your heart's content if you like, but if you
continue to defame Dr Godfrey, you may find him less charitable. And his
track record is one I'd rather not be on the loosing side of.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Paul Baker
Richard Ashton <{R}@soggy.semolina.org> writes
>}It wouldn't surprise me that this was one of the considerations that
>}drove his actions toward to this particular conclusion...
>
Did he succeed?
--
Paul
Paul Baker
writes
>Feel free to insult me to your heart's content if you like, but if you
>continue to defame Dr Godfrey,
What is the different between "insult" and "defame" in the context of
Kurt's posting?
--
Paul
David G. Bell
<zpFI4.38654$9g4.8...@news5.giganews.com>
Phil_...@goons.cx "Kurt Adkins" wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:59:40 +0100, {R} Richard Ashton
> <{R}@soggy.semolina.org> borrowed
> <2q46fsohl2g18vc2i...@pink.semolina.org> to say...
>
> >I know you won't believe it but he only wanted to protect his reputation.
>
> Has there been any proof that his reputation was damaged in any way?
>
> Which reputation was he attempting to protect. His professional
> reputation, his Usenet reputation, his reputation as a man, which was
> it?
Does that detail matter?
I saw enough of the original defamation, when people started playing
silly beggars last year, to realise just how damaging it could be. It's
ironic that similar accusations have been made against Demon by some
sections of the national press, and they seem able to get away with it.
But for the whole sorry mess to carry on for as long as it did, it
required Demon to make a lot of mistakes. Initially, they didn't take
things seriously, and I don't think anyone would have disagreed that,
regardless of source and truthfulness, the original article would have
damaged Dr. Godfrey's reputation.
We now have a situation in which Demon appear to have switched to the
opposite extreme, and are risking provoking somebody equally determined.
And, in this, I have some sympathy with Dr. Godfrey and his hypothetical
image. There's a common pattern I see, not just in connection with
Demon. It almost seems that big businesses, in general, pay only lip
srvice to the idea that they should have any respect for the people they
deal with.
And there is something very tempting about dumping a virtual horse's
head in the bed of whoever it is in charge of Demon. Ya gotta have
respect, right?
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Copyright 2000 David G. Bell
Stuart Millington
<gl...@squirrel-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Plus the fact that BT Internet's access is unmetered, and that's why I use
>them for news instead of Demon.
As do I - when their server is working...
>Interesting thought - BT Internet are part of BT, so would they (as a telco)
>be classed as a "common carrier", or whatever it's called in the UK, and
>therefore be immune from prosecution for libellious material posted by
>customers?
I would /guess/ that BTi is "legally" an ISP, a wholly owned
subsiduary(or division) of a teleco, not a teleco in it's own right?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stuart Millington -
- mailto:ph...@dsv1.co.uk -
- http://www.wormhole.demon.co.uk/ -
Stuart Millington
<jo...@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Demon are not only part of Thus (Scottish Telecom) but, I believe, also
>a teleco in their own right (and were before their purchase). If the
>defence of being a common carrier were applicable, I would be surprised
>if Demon's lawyers didn't suggest it.
IIRC Demon only obtained a "simple resale" license.
Alan Ford
[Kurt's post snipped, just in case what you say is right]
>Please take what I say as friendly advice. This post, and others you
>have sent recently, seem to me to be straying over the line between
>insults and defamation.
I would agree that some of Kurt's posts have been floating around the
line a bit, but I don't think that one you were replying to was. It
seemed a perfectly legitimate question (one of his most reasonable ones).
After all, it is true, everybody has a different reputation on Usenet
than in real life. But problems do occur when people those two start
to merge together. I haven't experienced such a thing myself, as I know
very few people on both Usenet and in real life. But I could see how it
could happen.
--
Alan Ford * al...@whirlnet.co.uk * http://www.whirlnet.co.uk/
PGP Key: 0x8F807D7D - email p...@whirlnet.co.uk or see keyservers
Demon Newsgroups Info + FAQs: http://www.whirlnet.co.uk/demon/
!! YOUR PRIVACY IS AT RISK. TELL YOUR MP *NOW*! http://www.stand.org.uk/ !!
Glenn Richards
>> Plus the fact that BT Internet's access is unmetered, and that's why I use
>> them for news instead of Demon.
> As do I - when their server is working...
Yeah. Seems to get rather overloaded at weekends... :-)
Still, it seems fine during the week, and Usenet is a weeknight activity. I
tend to do IRC at weekends (when I'm stuck in).
Speaking of which, it's snowing again.
>> Interesting thought - BT Internet are part of BT, so would they (as a
>> telco) be classed as a "common carrier", or whatever it's called in the
>> UK, and therefore be immune from prosecution for libellious material
>> posted by customers?
> I would /guess/ that BTi is "legally" an ISP, a wholly owned
> subsiduary(or division) of a teleco, not a teleco in it's own right?
Probably. But you can bet your arse that BT Internet wouldn't take it lying
down the way Demon did.
BT is worth more than Scottish Telecom (or whoever owns it now), at least in
the UK. They have more at stake. So they're more likely to fight it to the
end.
Shame they can't put some of that value into fixing the cabe outside our
house, which is corroded right through and keeps tripping out the ISDN...
Stuart Millington
<gl...@squirrel-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Quoting Stuart Millington <ne...@dsv1.co.uk> in a message dated 11 Apr:
>
>>> Plus the fact that BT Internet's access is unmetered, and that's why I use
>>> them for news instead of Demon.
>> As do I - when their server is working...
>
>Yeah. Seems to get rather overloaded at weekends... :-)
>
>Still, it seems fine during the week, and Usenet is a weeknight activity. I
>tend to do IRC at weekends (when I'm stuck in).
I tend to find the "working" ISDN number (7972) is usually engaged
during the week (12+ redials to get a connection!) but is OK Saturdays
and Sunday AM - which is when the news server is crap :-(
>Speaking of which, it's snowing again.
It's raining here and my car's windscreen wipers are still "dodgy"
(I'm not driving and typing!). Anyone know how to get the stupid
"guaranteed un-removeable" original wiper arms off a 406???
>> I would /guess/ that BTi is "legally" an ISP, a wholly owned
>> subsiduary(or division) of a teleco, not a teleco in it's own right?
>
>Probably. But you can bet your arse that BT Internet wouldn't take it lying
>down the way Demon did.
>
>BT is worth more than Scottish Telecom (or whoever owns it now), at least in
>the UK. They have more at stake. So they're more likely to fight it to the
>end.
They can afford to give away a 1M UKP prize, even if they can't fix
their broken service. Didn't stop me from entering the competition
though ;-)
>Shame they can't put some of that value into fixing the cabe outside our
>house, which is corroded right through and keeps tripping out the ISDN...
Or fixing the poxy servers, or the news server, or the...
Paul C. Dickie
<Fred_th...@goons.cx> writes
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:50:13 +0100, Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> borrowed
><iNqmXiBV...@psp.co.uk> to say...
>>Feel free to insult me to your heart's content if you like, but if you
>>track record is one I'd rather not be on the loosing side of.
>
>architect of my currently reduced level of service from Demon.
No.
You were.
--
< Paul >
Thomas Lee
<al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:50:13 +0100, Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>[Kurt's post snipped, just in case what you say is right]
>>Please take what I say as friendly advice. This post, and others you
>>have sent recently, seem to me to be straying over the line between
>>insults and defamation.
>
>I would agree that some of Kurt's posts have been floating around the
>line a bit, but I don't think that one you were replying to was. It
>seemed a perfectly legitimate question (one of his most reasonable ones).
Possibly. It is not for me to say whether it was, or was not defmatory.
It sure smelled that way to me though. Ultimately, it's up to Dr Godfrey
whether he wishes to pursue it. Given an apology from Kurt, I'd expect
him to not pursue it, but who knows.
>After all, it is true, everybody has a different reputation on Usenet
>than in real life. But problems do occur when people those two start
>to merge together. I haven't experienced such a thing myself, as I know
>very few people on both Usenet and in real life. But I could see how it
>could happen.
True. But you do not make a study out of trying to insult one person.
Kurt has done this repeatedly. And of late, I sense his insults are
straying into defamation territory.
Kurt can insult me all he likes - but defaming Dr Godfrey is not an
approach I can recommend.
Thomas Lee
<news...@levante.demon.co.uk> writes
>>continue to defame Dr Godfrey,
>
>Kurt's posting?
I'll decline to answer, to avoid the risk of repeating the libel.
Suffice it to say that there is a fine line between libel and insult. I
believe kurt has overstepped this line.
Stuart Millington
<{R}@soggy.semolina.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 22:27:09 +0100, Stuart Millington <ne...@dsv1.co.uk>
>wrote:
>} I tend to find the "working" ISDN number (7972) is usually engaged
>}during the week (12+ redials to get a connection!) but is OK Saturdays
>}and Sunday AM - which is when the news server is crap :-(
>
>Try the 7964 ending, first time, every time, any time, (well nearly) ISDN of
>course.
I used to use it and would go back to it, except the 7972 number
does not appear to connect to any of the dodgy IP address ranges, so
at least when I get a connection I'm 99.9% certain it will have
routing.
>The BTI news server is crap,
Yep :-(
Raj Rijhwani
new...@pink.semolina.org writes:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:03:33 GMT, r...@rijhwani.org (Raj Rijhwani) wrote:
> }My own opinion is that he will derive far more profit in times to come.
> If you have any ideas I am sure he would appreciate an emil
The ideas I have for him wouldn't be particularly fruitful for him. He's
already setting himself up for the pundit circuit, isn't he?
> }It wouldn't surprise me that this was one of the considerations that
> }drove his actions toward to this particular conclusion...
> I know you won't believe it but he only wanted to protect his reputation.
Well he sure ballsed up that one, then. He had no reputation at all
as far as most average people went. Now he's mud...
Glenn Richards
>>>> Plus the fact that BT Internet's access is unmetered, and that's why I
>>>> use them for news instead of Demon.
>>> As do I - when their server is working...
>> Yeah. Seems to get rather overloaded at weekends... :-)
>> Still, it seems fine during the week, and Usenet is a weeknight activity.
>> I tend to do IRC at weekends (when I'm stuck in).
> I tend to find the "working" ISDN number (7972) is usually engaged during
> the week (12+ redials to get a connection!) but is OK Saturdays and Sunday
> AM - which is when the news server is crap :-(
touch /var/pppd/connect; touch var/pppd/persist
<grin>
My unix box connects automatically at 6pm every weeknight, and remains
connected (redialling immediately if the line drops) as long as the file
/var/pppd/connect exists. So cron creates the file at 6pm every weekday, and
deletes it at midnight. Except on Friday night, when it doesn't delete it
until midnight on Sunday/Monday. So it's connected all the time when free
access is available.
>> Speaking of which, it's snowing again.
> It's raining here and my car's windscreen wipers are still "dodgy" (I'm not
> driving and typing!).
Lovely.
> Anyone know how to get the stupid guaranteed un-removeable" original wiper
> arms off a 406???
Nope. I don't drive. Well, I can drive, but not legally (only have a
provisional license atm).
>> BT is worth more than Scottish Telecom (or whoever owns it now), at least
>> in the UK. They have more at stake. So they're more likely to fight it to
>> the end.
> They can afford to give away a 1M UKP prize, even if they can't fix their
> broken service. Didn't stop me from entering the competition though ;-)
<grin>
Have to look at that. Although knowing my luck I've probably missed the
closing date...
>> Shame they can't put some of that value into fixing the cable outside our
>> house, which is corroded right through and keeps tripping out the ISDN...
> Or fixing the poxy servers, or the news server, or the...
That's BT Internet, not BT itself...
I've also been getting a lot of line drops lately. Which, although it's ISDN,
I'm suspecting the cable outside. As I've been getting kicked off
considerably more frequently than every 2 hours. It dropped 3 times in the
space of 20 minutes last night.
BT said that they were sending contractors out to dig the road up at the
beginning of this week. It's now Thursday... then again, I suppose it was
snowing the other night.
And I just found out that OnDigital is unavailable in our area. Well, the BBC
channels work, but according to their aerial fitter the signal is too weak to
get a reliable service. I suppose I'll have to send that free box back at
some point... I've cancelled my subscription (and they haven't actually
charged me, which is good) and ordered a Sky Digital system instead.
Installation is £20 (instead of £40) until the end of this month if you get
it from Radio Rentals, and subscribe to the full channel package for one
month or more (£32, then I'll dump the premium channels and just go with the
£13/month one).
Anyway, getting off topic now.
Glenn Richards
>> Probably. But you can bet your arse that BT Internet wouldn't take it
>> lying down the way Demon did.
> I bet you they wouldn't even respond to a request for an article to be
> removed.
They'd probably respond saying "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that".
> Indeed I've had a support person there tell me Btinternet is "unable" to
> remove messages from their newsfeed!
Hmmm...
> Do they have any sort of clue? I doubt it.
On the contrary, they may have more of a clue than you realise. :-)
Although getting my account set up was a monumental pain in the arse, as I
don't have a Windows or MacOS box here. When I phoned the sales number, the
girl on the desk took my details, then asked "do you have Windows 95, 98 or
an Apple Mac?" At which point I threw a rather large spanner in the works and
replied "none of the above."
"Eh?"
"I'm using unix."
"Errm, what's that?"
"An operating system."
"Oh!"
"Hmmm... I guess you've got an autostart CD-ROM, which needs to run under
windoze or on a Mac?"
"Yeah."
"Which means it won't work on my unix machine - which btw doesn't have a
CD-ROM drive."
"Oh!"
"Are you able to set up the account details over the phone?"
"I can't do that Sir, but I can give you the technical support number, and
they can set it up for you."
Anyway, she gives me the number (back then it was 0345, none of this
£1/minute stuff), so I call them and explain what the problem is. It takes
several phone calls going back and forward to get the account created an
activated, and every time a new call starts I'm greeted with "you are aware
that we can't offer support for systems other than Windows or Mac, other than
giving out IP addresses and account names/passwords?" Maybe it didn't occur
to them that someone using unix (particularly BSD unix as opposed to Linux)
will probably have a clue. :-)
Ah well. We got there in the end. And I have to say that the support staff,
although obviously not trained in a highly technical capacity, were friendly
and as helpful as they could be. And they got the job done. So I guess I can
let them off. :-)
Rachael Munns
In demon.service, Glenn Richards wrote:
> My unix box connects automatically at 6pm every weeknight, and remains
> connected (redialling immediately if the line drops) as long as the file
> /var/pppd/connect exists. So cron creates the file at 6pm every weekday, and
> deletes it at midnight. Except on Friday night, when it doesn't delete it
> until midnight on Sunday/Monday. So it's connected all the time when free
> access is available.
Are you using the service all that time?
--
Rachael
Stuart Millington
<gl...@squirrel-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Quoting Stuart Millington <ne...@dsv1.co.uk> in a message dated 11 Apr:
>> I tend to find the "working" ISDN number (7972) is usually engaged during
>> the week (12+ redials to get a connection!) but is OK Saturdays and Sunday
>> AM - which is when the news server is crap :-(
FWIW BTi have just "announced" in .winge that 7972 is being
withdrawn on May 22nd. So much for a working 0800 ISDN number on BTi.
>touch /var/pppd/connect; touch var/pppd/persist
>
><grin>
<mode = off topic & sore point>
I've just spent an hour trying to figure out why a cgi script was
giving me "500" errors, why logrotate was failing, why apache wasn't
writing logs.
I was looking for logs dated Thursday **20th** :-(
One little chmod and it worked.
UN*X is pissing me off...
</mode>
>My unix box connects automatically at 6pm every weeknight, and remains
>connected (redialling immediately if the line drops) as long as the file
>/var/pppd/connect exists. So cron creates the file at 6pm every weekday, and
>deletes it at midnight. Except on Friday night, when it doesn't delete it
>until midnight on Sunday/Monday. So it's connected all the time when free
>access is available.
It would stop people ringing me if I did that with ML-PPP - not a
bad idea :-)
>> They can afford to give away a 1M UKP prize, even if they can't fix their
>> broken service. Didn't stop me from entering the competition though ;-)
>Have to look at that. Although knowing my luck I've probably missed the
>closing date...
Nah, 3 more weeks IIRC...
Glenn Richards
>>> I tend to find the "working" ISDN number (7972) is usually engaged during
>>> the week (12+ redials to get a connection!) but is OK Saturdays and
>>> Sunday AM - which is when the news server is crap :-(
> FWIW BTi have just "announced" in .winge that 7972 is being withdrawn on
> May 22nd. So much for a working 0800 ISDN number on BTi.
Hmmm... the standard one seems to work for me...
Shame the same can't be said about my phone line, never mind. Seems to be
fixed now.
Now I wonder if BT are going to come and fill in the large hole in the
pavement outside?
> <mode = off topic & sore point>
>
> I've just spent an hour trying to figure out why a cgi script was
> giving me "500" errors, why logrotate was failing, why apache wasn't
> writing logs.
>
> I was looking for logs dated Thursday **20th** :-(
>
> One little chmod and it worked.
>
> UN*X is pissing me off...
>
> </mode>
Ah, but unix is cool. And knowing how to use vi is a Good Thing [TM], if only
because it seriously impressed all your sysadmon friends who don't know how
to use it.
Actually, if someone doesn't know how to use vi, they shouldn't even be a
sysadmin. But that's another water heating vessel filled with aquatic finned
creatures.
>> Have to look at that. Although knowing my luck I've probably missed the
>> closing date...
> Nah, 3 more weeks IIRC...
Ok, let's have a look. I need a new TV. :-)