att: dbis.ns.ca customers
NetWorks Internet
Att: dbis.ns.ca customers
As of right now, email originating from domain "dbis.ns.ca" will be not be
processed by our server for delivery to any of the 50+ commercial domains
hosted therein.
This action is due to the abusive emails received by our company from one
user of that ISP and will be in effect until that user is removed from that
ISP.
While we have our own feelings about who is responsible, (ISP or User) we
encourage dbis to not allow the abusive user of THEIR system continued
access to the internet.
regards,
Darren Woods
NetWorks Internet - www.daemon.ca
Not surprised
I think we can all guess who the offending customer is!!!!!
NetWorks Internet wrote in message ...
postm...@cyberpromo.com
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 08:43:21 -0400, "Not surprised"
<spammers_ea...@chebucto.ns.ca> eloquently wrote:
>I think we can all guess who the offending customer is!!!!!
>
Ah, sweet Babs. Are you listening?
Barbara Amero
NetWorks Internet wrote:
>
> Att: dbis.ns.ca customers
>
> As of right now, email originating from domain "dbis.ns.ca" will be not be
> processed by our server for delivery to any of the 50+ commercial domains
> hosted therein.
>
> This action is due to the abusive emails received by our company from one
> user of that ISP and will be in effect until that user is removed from that
> ISP.
You're a nut case! I did not send any email to your "company".
I sent a copy of my reply to your, "Darren Woods", POST to YOU
and CCN -- a post which was about the termination of my account.
Then you sent me right some nasty email threatening to sue me
for harassment and sue DBIS if I sent one more. Then I emailed
you and DBIS explaining why I had sent you the email, which was
to let you know that I'd sent your words to CCN. And I also
offered an apology, if you thought that I meant you were
harassing me. My post was not about you.
You also stated that you warned my provider that you would
take action against them if I targeted you or your business
with my garbage. I didn't even know you had a business until
you told me in your email. I don't know who the hell you are...
that post was the first post I'd ever seen you make. And I
don't care who you are... my post was not about you. And I
certainly have no interest in you, no interest in targeting
you or your company. You are testerical!
> While we have our own feelings about who is responsible, (ISP or User) we
Where is the "our" coming from? I sent the post to YOU, Darren Woods.
> encourage dbis to not allow the abusive user of THEIR system continued
> access to the internet.
I think your twig is bent!
Barbara Amero
bee...@Lilos.net wrote:
> Shit. Another little censor prick like the ones we have in Manitoba. I
> tell you guys, it's spreading. Soon every-one will be cut off from
> every-one else. This is not a joke, I suggest you start fighting it
> now. I offer the following from our news admin via deja as evidence.
That fellas twig is bent! I replied to Darren Woods' _post_
in the newsgroup and sent copies to him (not "our company")
and CCN. Then he went off the deep end... TESTERICAL! Said
I'd sent _him_ abusive email. My post was not about _him_.
And I sent an email to him with a CC to DBIS telling him
that my post was not about him. The fellas are gettin' worse!
> It's just a matter of time before it hits your neighborhood, in fact,
> it looks like it just did, I would be jumping all over this little
> censor before a cyber curtain falls on you!
It did hit our neighbourhood, Chebucto Community Net
terminated my account after people who wanted to
silence me, to CENSOR me sent MANY complaints. That
is CENSORSHIP! Chebucto Community Net sent a clear
message to the public: If you want to silence,
CENSOR a user just send MANY bogus complaints
and we will comply with your request.
The CCN Chair of the Policy Committee, John van Gurp
stated that most of the complaints were NOT legitimate
and could easily be dismissed but some had to be looked
at out of concern for liability. I was advised of only
one of these complaints and that complaint was made by
John Jenkins Sr. who started the hate-mongering campaign
to get my account terminated by calling on the public
to send MANY complaints to CCN, hoping that a volunteer
run organization would buckle.
NOTE: Chebucto Community Net publicly stated that the
reason for my account termination was the number of
complaints, not the content, about my Usenet postings.
Yet, to date, none of these complaints have been
verified by CCN.
Barbara A. Amero
Dan Peori
NetWorks Internet (netw...@daemon.ca) wrote:
: This action is due to the abusive emails received by our company from one
: user of that ISP and will be in effect until that user is removed from that
: ISP.
Show us some of the abusive email. Show us some of the logs stating
when/where they were sent. Show us the message you sent to DBIS to
politely ask for some sort of action. Show us you're doing more than
abusing your position.
Show us more than a pompous attitude.
- Dan
NetWorks Internet
> Shit. Another little censor prick like the ones we have in Manitoba. I
> tell you guys, it's spreading. Soon every-one will be cut off from
> every-one else. This is not a joke, I suggest you start fighting it
> now. I offer the following from our news admin via deja as evidence.
Sir,
You can call it censorship all you want...We prefer to call it not wanting
to deal with unsolicited abusive email or it's source. Nobody here has the
time. The provider of services to the abusive user didn't have time to
respond to our complaints so why should we have to clean up the mess they
allow to happen?
Words for the notice and the title of the thread were chosen carefully so
as to put the responsibilty square on the shoulders of the ISP.
I'm not really interested in debating net censorship. A user of a service
was told to cease their unsolicted abusive emails, the user persisted. The
ISP didn't respond to complaints, so we took necessary action and made it
public. Basically the same reaction we have to SPAM.
R. Alan MacKenzie
NetWorks Internet wrote:
> Att: dbis.ns.ca customers
>
> As of right now, email originating from domain "dbis.ns.ca" will be not be
> processed by our server for delivery to any of the 50+ commercial domains
> hosted therein.
>
> This action is due to the abusive emails received by our company from one
> user of that ISP and will be in effect until that user is removed from that
> ISP.
>
> While we have our own feelings about who is responsible, (ISP or User) we
> encourage dbis to not allow the abusive user of THEIR system continued
> access to the internet.
>
> regards,
>
> Darren Woods
>
> NetWorks Internet - www.daemon.ca
Much as i hate censorship, I can't blame them for this action. She will be back
with another isp in no time at all. I feel sorry for her new isp though.
Al
mlin...@bigfoot.com
In article <34F2E5...@dbis.ns.ca>,
Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> bee...@Lilos.net wrote:
>
> > Shit. Another little censor prick like the ones we have in Manitoba. I
> > tell you guys, it's spreading. Soon every-one will be cut off from
> > every-one else. This is not a joke, I suggest you start fighting it
> > now. I offer the following from our news admin via deja as evidence.
>
> in the newsgroup
So why didn't you leave it at that?
>and sent copies to him (not "our company")
> and CCN.
Groan!!!!! WHY?
It's only a newsgroup Barb., not LIFE.
>Then he went off the deep end... TESTERICAL! Said
> I'd sent _him_ abusive email. My post was not about _him_.
And then, to make matters worse....
> And I sent an email to him with a CC to DBIS telling him
> that my post was not about him. The fellas are gettin' worse!
The FELLAS?
>
> Barbara A. Amero
>
Mike
PTQ
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Gordon Sleigh
> NetWorks Internet wrote:
where did you get the impression that she was going anywhere?
--
/ InfoInterActive - http://www.interactive.ca - Internet Call Manager \
[|) 1989 Acura Integra RS: Pioneer - JL Audio - Kenwood - Monster Cable (|]
\ An object at rest cannot be stopped! - http://spoon.org /
[ Opinions stated are mine, not IIA's, if you thought otherwise get help. ]
Yo Yo Ma
On 24 Feb 1998 19:56:57 GMT, Gordon Sleigh
<go...@rubidium.vantagewww.com> wrote:
>R. Alan MacKenzie <mac...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
>
>> NetWorks Internet wrote:
>
>> > Att: dbis.ns.ca customers
>> >
>> > As of right now, email originating from domain "dbis.ns.ca" will be not be
>> > processed by our server for delivery to any of the 50+ commercial domains
>> > hosted therein.
>> >
>> > This action is due to the abusive emails received by our company from one
>> > user of that ISP and will be in effect until that user is removed from that
>> > ISP.
>> >
>> > While we have our own feelings about who is responsible, (ISP or User) we
>> > encourage dbis to not allow the abusive user of THEIR system continued
>> > access to the internet.
>> >
>> > regards,
>> >
>> > Darren Woods
>> >
>> > NetWorks Internet - www.daemon.ca
>
>> Much as i hate censorship, I can't blame them for this action. She will be back
>> with another isp in no time at all. I feel sorry for her new isp though.
>
>where did you get the impression that she was going anywhere?
We can only hope.
Brandon Hume
NetWorks Internet (netw...@daemon.ca) wrote:
: As of right now, email originating from domain "dbis.ns.ca" will be not be
: processed by our server for delivery to any of the 50+ commercial domains
Aha. The "procmail" manpages too hard to plow through, were they? I've
seen ISPs block others' mail due to multiple abusive users, or a single
user who was faking their user@host, but this is just juvenile.
: This action is due to the abusive emails received by our company from one
: user of that ISP and will be in effect until that user is removed from that
"One" user. Indeed.
: encourage dbis to not allow the abusive user of THEIR system continued
: access to the internet.
And will this "encouragement" extend to active attacks and harrassment of
the DBIS admins?
--
Brandon Hume
- Finger for Geek codes, PGP, /dev/zero, yadda yadda.
NetWorks Internet
In article <6cvii4$976$1...@usenet52.supernews.com>,
hume.sp...@apis.bofh.halifax.ns.ca (Brandon Hume) wrote:
^^^^
> Aha. The "procmail" manpages too hard to plow through, were they? I've
> seen ISPs block others' mail due to multiple abusive users, or a single
> user who was faking their user@host, but this is just juvenile.
You've missed the point...and you, if anyone, should have understood. BOFH
references notwithstanding, your tolerance for offensive users is probably
below point zero eight as well.
> And will this "encouragement" extend to active attacks and harrassment of
> the DBIS admins?
Not from here. If I don't have time to deal with spam or plow through
procmail manpages, I certainly don't have time for that.
geez, you are the last person I'd expect criticism from in this regard.
Darren Woods
Bruce Thornhill
You're finally getting the point, Dan. The internet is not a right, it's a
priviledge which is supported by paying customers. If someone brings undue
stress to a business, then the free-market takes over.
Dan Peori wrote in message <6cuu80$ec2$1...@News.Dal.Ca>...
Barbara Amero
Dan Peori wrote:
>
> NetWorks Internet (netw...@daemon.ca) wrote:
> : This action is due to the abusive emails received by our company from one
> : user of that ISP and will be in effect until that user is removed from that
> Show us some of the abusive email.
Well, if you insist; but at risk of putting myself
in a bad light - possibly drawn 'n' quartered.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca>
> To: Darren Woods <netw...@daemon.ca>,acco...@dbis.ns.ca,sa...@dbis.ncs.ca
> Barbara Amero wrote:
> > When I send people email that involves
> > another person, I send that person a Cc of the email. That is the
> > proper thing to do. In this case, I sent your public post with my
> > reply to CCN. That is why I Cc'd you, so that you would know your
> > words went to CCN. That is the proper thing to do.
> I see that the first email went to you with a Cc to CCN.
> I meant to have it the other way around. Not used to this
> new set up at DBIS yet.
>
> Have a good day.
>
> For now,
> Barbara
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NetWorks Internet
In article <34f67bdb...@news.ilos.net>, d...@doherty-enterprises.mb.ca
wrote:
> Let me get this straight. You are now censoring an ISP and all it's
> user's because of one individual? You don't have the time to deal
> with an e-mail? Ever heard of a delete key? You can call it what you
> want, but I will call it censorship, and it falls right in line with
> Usenet-2. I guess you may not like my views, so you may as well censor
> my ISP also. Same with Mr. Peori, who has asked some good questions.
> But , why do I have the feeling that you will not answer.
I don't mind your views at all. I've been in the publishing industry for
close to 20 years, the last thing I would support is censorship in any
forum. Our reasons were disclosed here earlier and are far from censorship.
In fact, if you would like webspace to publish your views on internet
censorship, I'll provide it for free for 1 year. (as long as it doesn't
slander anyone or break any laws) This offer is extended to you only since
you are an authority on internet censorship.
> If I did business with you, Sir. I would be leaving as soon as I
> could.
That would be your CHOICE. It's certainly nice to live in Canada where one
can make choices, including declining to allow one's system to be used for
SPAM and offensive emailing.
regards,
Darren Woods
R. Alan MacKenzie
Barbara Amero wrote:
> Dan Peori wrote:
> >
> > NetWorks Internet (netw...@daemon.ca) wrote:
> > : This action is due to the abusive emails received by our company from one
> > : user of that ISP and will be in effect until that user is removed from that
> > : ISP.
>
> > Show us some of the abusive email.
>
> Well, if you insist; but at risk of putting myself
> in a bad light - possibly drawn 'n' quartered.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca>
> > To: Darren Woods <netw...@daemon.ca>,acco...@dbis.ns.ca,sa...@dbis.ncs.ca
> >
> > Have a good day.
> >
> > For now,
> > Barbara
> -----------------------------------------------------------------Thats a good one
> baba, must be the first time you ever were that polite. Why don't i believe you?
Al
R. Alan MacKenzie
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Darren Woods
> > >
> > > NetWorks Internet - www.daemon.ca
>
> > Much as i hate censorship, I can't blame them for this action. She will be back
> > with another isp in no time at all. I feel sorry for her new isp though.
>
> where did you get the impression that she was going anywhere?
> Do you think she will stay with Dbis and not be able to post her drivel here
> anymore?
NetWorks Internet
In article <6cvuim$c8k$1...@usenet87.supernews.com>,
hume.sp...@apis.bofh.halifax.ns.ca (Brandon Hume) wrote:
> To do so based on what for all appearances seems to be a PERSONAL vendetta
> is what I consider to be undignified and unprofessional.
Again, you've missed the point.
I would be lax in my duties as admin if I knowingly allowed our system to
distribute spam or offensive unsolicited emails. It would take us 5 minutes
to set the ban to the user only but we decided to draw attention to the
fact that dbis (we assume) is condoning that user's behaviour.
The fact that our clients agree with our decision speaks for itself.
Brandon, I have respect for your technical knowledge but I think you've
taken the wrong stand here.
regards,
Darren Woods
Barbara Amero
q59...@ilos.net wrote:
>
> x-no-archive:yes On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 07:19:57 -0800, Barbara Amero
> <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> >> It's just a matter of time before it hits your neighborhood, in fact,
> >> it looks like it just did, I would be jumping all over this little
> >> censor before a cyber curtain falls on you!
> >
> >It did hit our neighbourhood, Chebucto Community Net
> >terminated my account after people who wanted to
> >silence me, to CENSOR me sent MANY complaints. That
> >is CENSORSHIP! Chebucto Community Net sent a clear
>
> address?
I told you in a previous post to email John or I would email
John van Gurp with a Cc to you asking the questions you've been
harassing me about in another thread, but you didn't get back to me.
So what are you gonna do? Send a complaint about me to CCN (g)
Barbara Amero
NetWorks Internet wrote:
>
> In article <34f2b2c...@news.ilos.net>, d...@doherty-enterprises.mb.ca wrote:
>
> > Shit. Another little censor prick like the ones we have in Manitoba. I
> > tell you guys, it's spreading. Soon every-one will be cut off from
> > every-one else. This is not a joke, I suggest you start fighting it
> > now. I offer the following from our news admin via deja as evidence.
>
> You can call it censorship all you want...We prefer to call it not wanting
> to deal with unsolicited abusive email or it's source.
Mr. Woods, I prefer to call it a power trip.
> Nobody here has the time.
You seemed to have the time to make an ignorant post in
the thread "Truth? Not in this Lifetime..." in which you
noted that it doesn't matter what's written in brochures
or online policy a business has the right to decline service.
So is that how your company, Networks, does business?
You also seemed to have the time to send an abusive email reply
to the copy of my post that went to you and CCN. The subject
title of this email you sent me: "try that again and I'll sue".
> The provider of services to the abusive user didn't have time to
> respond to our complaints so why should we have to clean up the mess they
^^^
How powerful, eh....
> allow to happen?
How much time did you give them? Seemingly you want immediate
gratification, like a child. Were the complaints sent like
the abusive threatening testerical fit you sent me?? If so,
should you be surprised when you don't get immediate results?
What time did you send these complaints and start this thread?
Well, let's see......
My post went off to you: Mon 23 Feb at 21:23:30
Your reply with Cc to my ISP was sent: Tues 24 Feb at 01:50:46
Then you started this thread to inform the public of the action
being taken by your company: Tues 24 at 04:21:32
Then you make a post noting that the provider didn't have time
to respond to your complaints: Tues 24 at 13:35:49
Mr. Woods, your complaints were sent in the wee hours of
the morn'. The provider's office hours are 10:00 - 19:00.
As far as I know the provider does not have someone doing
nightwatch for complaints from men having a testerical fit
because a woman sent an unsolicited email follow-up post.
And perhaps the provider had more pressing things to attend
to during the first 3 1/2 hours of their work day, then your
rude, abusive demands -- power trip.
> Words for the notice and the title of the thread were chosen carefully so
> as to put the responsibilty square on the shoulders of the ISP.
As far as I know the ISP is not responsible for the post I
sent you with Cc to CCN or my email reply to your abusive
email with Cc to the ISP in which I explained why I sent
the post to you. I say this because seemingly other well
known ISPs such as AOL and Sympatico do not accept any
responsibility for the posts or email sent by their users
- at least users who are MEN - since they don't even
acknowledge complaints about such.
> I'm not really interested in debating net censorship.
Seems to me what you're really interested in doing is
throwing your weight around threatening an ISP and user.
> A user of a service
> was told to cease their unsolicted abusive emails, the user persisted.
I posted one in this thread that I sent with Cc to my ISP
which was further to the explanation sent of why I emailed
you my follow-up post. You must have been (*sarcasm on*)
terribly traumatized by your experience of being exposed to
such abuse and surely should be awarded damages for mental
anguish when you sue me (*sarcasm off*).
> The
> ISP didn't respond to complaints, so we took necessary action and made it
> public. Basically the same reaction we have to SPAM.
So, Mr. Woods, are you saying that the ISP should have
responded to your complaints in the wee hours of the morn'
between 01:50 and 04:21 ??
Well, Mr.Woods, I might like that ISP to respond to problems
I have online in the wee hours of the morn', but I sure as hell
don't expect it.
In fact, some ISPs don't respond at all to complaints, such
as AOL that sent me an automated email response to my complaint
about a man, Pa...@aol.com, who sent me disgusting, replusive,
harassing email daily for almost 2 months - more than 5 emails
a day. And did the same prior to that for a few weeks. Don't
know how this fella had the time since he was also a prolific
poster and sending other women online daily harassing email,
which they complained about.
So, Mr. Woods, you must think you're right some special....
> regards,
> Darren Woods
> NetWorks Internet - www.daemon.ca
Mr. Woods, you stated that I sent the email follow-up post
to your "company". What I see in the post in question (below)
in the "To" field is the name "Darren". *Rarely* when I make
follow-up posts in newsgroups do I send the post to the poster.
In this case, I did so because the post also went off to CCN
and thought I was sending the follow-up post to _"Darren"_ not
a "company". Mr. Woods, you were being dishonest when you stated
that I sent email to "our company".
NOTE: Men mentioned in the post in question have harassed me
via email, some of it abusive email. Not only that, but
George Johnston filled a "team" mailbox with lies about me.
Robert Speirs harassed me via email, sending *unsolicited*
emails and continued to do so after I complained to his ISP
Chebucto Community Net and I did not get a reply to my complaint
from CCN. Nor did I get a reply from CCN to my complaint about
one of their male users making a libelous public post about me.
No gender discrimination or double standard in here.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 21:23:30 -0800
From: Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca>
Organization: DBIS Internet Services
To: Darren <dar...@daemon.ca>
CC: ab...@chebucto.ns.ca, ccn...@chebucto.ns.ca,
ccn-...@chebucto.ns.ca
Newsgroups: ns.general
Darren wrote:
>
> In article <6ct5k4$4u5$1...@News.Dal.Ca>, aa...@chebucto.ns.ca (Sean Smith) wrote:
>
> > I'm not connected with CCN (other than being a user), but it could be that
> > the volume of complaints was such that it was interfering with service
> > levels offered to other users of the system. Should the proprietors of a
> > system be forced to provide service to one user, even when it impacts on
> > (potentially) many other users of the system?
>
> NO.
Should the proprietors of a system, in particular a FREENET
Internet system, allow themselves to be terrorized by 'net
bullies who want to deny service to one user? What if a buncha
netizens decide they want to get rid of CCN user homophobe
Robert Speirs, who some think is a dink, and send MANY
complaints to CCN to get his account terminated? I know some
people I can round up out West and in Toronto to send MANY
complaints about that dink. How about CCN user LIAR George
Johnston? Some of those bikers might want to send MANY
complaints to CCN to get his account terminated and I know
a few people who would welcome the opportunity to screw that
lying asshole!
> CCN's actions do not need to be debated or analyzed.
So you want a publicly funded, community run FASCIST organization???
> It doesn't matter what was printed in a brochure or stated
> in an online policy.
Then why have a contract for service, a User Agreement??
I suggest that you would be right some pissed off if your
contract for service was violated, broken when you did not
break the rules of the User Agreement.
> They chose to
> decline service...end of story. They have that right.
No, it's not necessarily the "end of story". One can sue.
If CCN can chose willy nilly to decline service, then what
is the point in having a Freenet which is supposed to provide
access to all members of the community who would otherwise
not have access to the Internet.
At the time my account was terminated the CCN Mission Statement
stated that CCN provides access to the Internet for all members
of the community. It is or was supposed to be a free community
service. However, since my account was terminated, I see a
different Mission Statement on CCN's homepage. There is no
mention of providing access to the Internet for all members
of the community.
Does that mean that CCN is now going to be discriminating?
If so, what will be the basis of discrimination?? Income?
Race? Sex? Sexual Orientation or Preference? Marital Status?
Political Views? Religious Views? Abortion Views? Family Views?
Who will be given access? Who will not be given access?
Sounds like a fuckin' fascist organization to me.
NOTE: Last year I was told by a member of the CCN Board of
Directors that I should be careful because if his position
was filled by a right-winger, then I would be history.
NOTE: An ex-Board Member of CCN stated in a CCN newsgroup
that if he got back on the Board he would do his best to
get my account terminated. That is disgusting!! I have as
much right as anyone else does to an Internet account. Any
post that I've ever made pales in comparison to the offensive
posts made my MEN in here! And the MEN do not lose their
accounts and rarely does anyone other than me ever complain
about the offensive posts made by gawd dang MEN! This is
what is called "discrimination" based on sex. Asshole men
in here SHOUT that I am a man-hater. Yet, I've never started
a hate-mongering campaign to get any man's account terminated
as John Jenkins Sr. started a hate-mongering campaign to get
my account terminated. In fact, out of ALL the MANY _MEN_
who harass, attack, libel me in here I have made very few
complaints! IOW I have made complaints about few men,
disgusting despicable men who make posts about the smell
of my genitals. And I suggest that the disgusting cyber
Mother's Day Card that was sent to me was sent by a man.
When I got a Valentines Day cyber card I did not open it
because I did not want to be harassed. But the card may
not have been from harassers. SO you asshole harassers
ruin my enjoyment of the 'net! You do so with impunity
and expect to do so with impunity, make complaints and
get my account terminated. JERKS!
Barbara A. Amero
Barbara Amero
mlin...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
> In article <34F2E5...@dbis.ns.ca>,
> Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Shit. Another little censor prick like the ones we have in Manitoba. I
> > > tell you guys, it's spreading. Soon every-one will be cut off from
> > > every-one else. This is not a joke, I suggest you start fighting it
> > > now. I offer the following from our news admin via deja as evidence.
> >
> > in the newsgroup
>
> So why didn't you leave it at that?
Because, as I posted, I sent a copy of his words to CCN.
> >and sent copies to him (not "our company")
> > and CCN.
> Groan!!!!! WHY?
See above.
> It's only a newsgroup Barb., not LIFE.
You must mean me, Barbara. The last time I checked I had a pulse.
> >Then he went off the deep end... TESTERICAL! Said
> > I'd sent _him_ abusive email. My post was not about _him_.
>
> And then, to make matters worse....
>
> > And I sent an email to him with a CC to DBIS telling him
> > that my post was not about him.
That was such a terrible thing to do.
> The fellas are gettin' worse!
> The FELLAS?
Perhaps if I'd used men's language and said the assholes
you would have understood!
Barbara Amero
R. Alan MacKenzie wrote:
> Much as i hate censorship, I can't blame them for this action.
> She will be back with another isp in no time at all. I feel
> sorry for her new isp though.
>
> Al
I see you're @sprint. Are you the same "Al" I complained about
to Sympatico after you started the derogaotry, abusive thread
about me and sent me at least 6 abusive emails within 15 minutes?
I never got a reply from Sympatico. You see it's OK for MEN to
make abusive libelous posts about women send women abusive,
unsolicited, unwanted, harassing, sexually harassing threatening
email. Well... it's OK for men to send such to other men. After
all boys will be boys.... the men are just fooooooolin' around.
Barbara A. Amero
Barbara Amero
R. Alan MacKenzie wrote:
Whoever wrote:
> where did you get the impression that she was going anywhere?
>> Do you think she will stay with Dbis and not be able to post her
>> drivel here anymore?
Geez... if it's just "drivel" what difference does it make?
These newsgroups are full of the fellas "drivel" and no one
is tryin' to stop them from posting here or tryin' to deny
them access to the 'net. Surely there's room for ONE woman's
"drivel" along with the "drivel" of _many_ men in here --
in particular in ns.general. Now, in ns.general generally,
amongst all the fellas, there's only two regular women posters --
her and the socially conscious Marilyn Burford with such
interesting and thought provoking posts on ticks and celebrities,
no "drivel" from that woman. Another woman was posting for
awhile last year and the fellas didn't pick on her until she
took one of the fellas to task. She was then reduced to a
body part by the fella and left the newsgroup. Seems as tho'
the fellas don't like to be taken to task in this MALE-DOMINATED
newsgroup where they engage in their locker room talk about their
"GF's" and have a public voice about single mothers, a woman
kicked out of her apt., women at the Correction Centre, women
in bars, divorced women, etc. Now, don't get me wrong here...
the fellas do at times have many interesting debates in here
which aren't off-topic while calling each other morons, assholes,
ASSWIPES.... in English of course.
>> / InfoInterActive - http://www.interactive.ca - Internet Call Manager \
>> [|) 1989 Acura Integra RS: Pioneer - JL Audio - Kenwood - Monster Cable (|]
>> \ An object at rest cannot be stopped! - http://spoon.org /
Apparently one in motion cannot be stopped!
>> [ Opinions stated are mine, not IIA's, if you thought otherwise get help. ]
Well, bud, the thought is irrelevant. If you use your
employer's equipment, company name in your sig. and
say sumpthin' you shouldn't your employer is liable.
Brandon Hume
NetWorks Internet (netw...@daemon.ca) wrote:
: You've missed the point...and you, if anyone, should have understood. BOFH
: references notwithstanding, your tolerance for offensive users is probably
I've blown off more than my share of offensive users, both on systems I
run and others. But I didn't waste my time punishing hundreds of users
on those other systems unless 1) the abuser in question was deliberately
attempting to circumvent blocks, 2) there was more than one abusive user
or a history of abusive users.
To do so based on what for all appearances seems to be a PERSONAL vendetta
is what I consider to be undignified and unprofessional.
But, you're free to run your system any way you like. As a client, though,
I wouldn't be particularly impressed by an admin who needed to block out
an entire ISP just because he couldn't aim fine enough to get one user
with an unvarying user@host.
NetWorks Internet
Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
> So, Mr. Woods, are you saying that the ISP should have
> responded to your complaints in the wee hours of the morn'
> between 01:50 and 04:21 ??
What I am saying is that YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEND ME EMAIL. You can
twist my words all you like, the end result is we are deaf to you.
No debate, no apologies.
David
>The provider of services to the abusive user didn't have time to
>respond to our complaints so why should we have to clean up the mess they
>allow to happen?
*SNIP*
I was a customer of DBIS for sometime, and never... not ONCE... did I
ever receive a reply to any email I sent them whether it was a simple
question, comment or request. I'm not surprrised they didn't answer
you... they rarely even reply to their customers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
REMOVE *NOSPAM* from email address to reply, thanks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dti...@accesscable.net
Barbara Amero
Bruce Thornhill wrote:
>
> You're finally getting the point, Dan. The internet is not a right, it's a
> priviledge which is supported by paying customers. If someone brings undue
> stress to a business, then the free-market takes over.
Are you suggesting that Darren Woods has had undue stress
brought to his business by me?? Surely you can't mean that.
And I'm sure you wouldn't suggest that I brought undue
stress to Chebucto Community Net that terminated my account
because people flooded CCN mailboxes with MANY complaints
about me, most of which - according to the Chair of the
Policy Committee - were not legitmate complaints, tho' some
had to be looked at out of concern for liablity (and I
was informed of one, the one by John Jenkins Sr. who
started the hate-mongering campaign to get my account
terminated).
Mr. Thornhill didn't you send me "unsolicited" email awhile
ago voicing your opinion on my public posts? If not, my
apology for asking. I have the email saved somewhere. The
sender noted that he would likely be attacked by me in
the newsgroups for emailing me and asked me to be respectful
of him having a private voice. I didn't post his email or
attack him in the newsgroup; his email was not rude and abusive.
The point is, however, that he sent me "unsolicited" email
taking me to task for my posts -- which was unwanted. Men
in here seem to think they have a right to do that and to
continue doing so after they've been told to STOP! To say
the least much of the "unsolicited" email IRT my public posts
is unwanted -- abusive, disgusting, repulsive, harassing,
sexually harassing, threatening email. Often my verbose
posts are returned in their entirety with just a vile and
loathsome one liner reply. Men in here seem to think they
have a right to send such email, to do so without impunity.
Now, I don't know if the following email is from a man
but I'll betcha a dollar to a ROLLING DOUGHNUT it is --
the same ROLLING DOUGHNUT Rich Johnson publicly told me
to GO FUCK! And then posted that I made him so angry I
"caused" him to swear. How did I do that? Well, I posted
in one the fellas polictical threads that men are resistant
to change.
One night I had the following "unsolicited" email sent
to me not once but 80 some times ... seemingly LICKME
really wanted me to be silent.
Return-Path: <LIC...@nowhere.com>
Received:
from smtp1.mts.net (smtp1.mts.net [205.200.16.74]) by nala.dbis.ns.ca
(8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA11691 for <am...@dbis.ns.ca>; Wed 21
Jan 1998 10:21:19 -0400 (AST)
From: LIC...@nowhere.com
Received:
from smtp.mb.sympatico.ca (win-mb1-41.netcom.ca [207.181.75.105]) by
smtp1.mts.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA07057 for am...@dbis.ns.ca;
Wed, 21 Jan 1998 08:20:28 -0600 (CST)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 08:20:28 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <1998012114...@smtp1.mts.net>
To: am...@dbis.ns.ca
Reply-To: <LIC...@nowhere.com>
Subject: Stupid Bitch
X-UIDL: 0b6d085a4294c391f1eff5d599c761ee Status: RO
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
Stupid Bitch! Shutup already!!!!
NetWorks Internet
In article <35087577...@204.112.54.13>, w3sp...@wpg.flame wrote:
> How even-handed of you. Ever occur to you your customers may want
> email from that domain? Because you're pissed off at 1 user you cause
> all your customers to feel the brunt of your inability to deal with
> it?
We checked. There was no concern expressed to us.
> You know you're actions brand you as a censorious bastard with an axe
> to grind. If you had any sense at all you would have quietly killfiled
> the user in question and not have been so stupid as imply you're too
> incompetent to deal with it.
That's your spin on it. Reality is, a gentleman from Manitoba will be
publishing his views on net censorship at our expense on our server due to
his response to our post. Very cool. I look forward to promoting his work.
Thanks for your input.
Darren Woods
(censor, no. stupid, no. b*st*rd, depends on whom you ask)
Barbara Amero
Barbara Amero wrote:
>
> Bruce Thornhill wrote:
> >
> > You're finally getting the point, Dan. The internet is not a right, it's a
> > priviledge which is supported by
[...]
> One night I had the following "unsolicited" email sent
> to me not once but 80 some times ... seemingly LICKME
> really wanted me to be silent.
Well, you know that woman won't shut up... so the next day
LICKME sent her "Part 2" ... 80 + more
Return-Path: <LIC...@nowhere.com>
Received:
from smtp1.mts.net (smtp1.mts.net [205.200.16.74]) by nala.dbis.ns.ca
(8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA21578 for <am...@dbis.ns.ca>; Thu, 22
Jan 1998 15:16:58 -0400 (AST)
From: LIC...@nowhere.com
Received:
from smtp.mb.sympatico.ca (win-mb1-14.netcom.ca [207.181.75.78]) by
smtp1.mts.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA25387 for am...@dbis.ns.ca;
Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:15:46 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:15:46 -0600 (CST)
Message-I <1998012219...@smtp1.mts.net>
X-UIDL: 36bf22b0c2f0db91daa1ec0fed8396b9 Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
To: am...@dbis.ns.ca
Reply-To: <LIC...@nowhere.com>
Subject: Stupid Bitch (Part 2)
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Shut up you stupid bitch
Barbara Amero
NetWorks Internet wrote:
>
> In article <35087577...@204.112.54.13>, w3sp...@wpg.flame wrote:
>
> > How even-handed of you. Ever occur to you your customers may want
> > email from that domain? Because you're pissed off at 1 user you cause
> > all your customers to feel the brunt of your inability to deal with
> > it?
>
> We checked. There was no concern expressed to us.
>
> > You know you're actions brand you as a censorious bastard with an axe
> > to grind. If you had any sense at all you would have quietly killfiled
> > the user in question and not have been so stupid as imply you're too
> > incompetent to deal with it.
>
> That's your spin on it. Reality is, a gentleman from Manitoba will be
> publishing his views on net censorship at our expense on our server due to
> his response to our post. Very cool. I look forward to promoting his work.
Well, Mr. Woods, is certainly no gentleman and seemingly
power-driven, not to mention testerical. Reality is there
was no need for Mr. Woods to have quietly killfiled the user
in question since she had no intention of every emailing him
again. The email was simply sent from the newsgroup because
I was sending a Cc to CCN of my follow-up post to his post,
which for the most part had nothing to do with him and
certainly not his business since I didn't know he had one.
Then I received an abusive, gone off the deep end, email
from Mr. Woods telling me that he'd warned my provider
that he would take action against them if I targeted him
or his business with my garbage -- when I didn't even know
he had a business until he sent me his garbage or what it
was until I read the posts.
And I still don't know what his business is other than he
apparently has the power to punish DBIS and is using such
power to get my account terminated for what?? Sending an
email follow-up post and then email explanation with
apology, albeit calling him a JERK - which he has proven
himself to be. If men who behave as such are controlling
the Internet, then we are all in deep doo doos.
Barbara A. Amero
mlin...@bigfoot.com
In article <34F3B4...@dbis.ns.ca>,
Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> mlin...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > And then, to make matters worse....
> >
> > > And I sent an email to him with a CC to DBIS telling him
> > > that my post was not about him.
>
Look at your own attitude to unsolicited e-mail.
You call it harassment.
Mike(the Jerk)
mlin...@bigfoot.com
Harassment.
> > > And I sent an email to him
More harassment
> > >with a CC to DBIS telling him
> > > that my post was not about him.
>
> That was such a terrible thing to do?
>
It was, when you were on the receiving end of unwanted e-mails.
> > The fellas are gettin' worse!
>
> Perhaps if I'd used men's language and said the assholes
> you would have understood!
>
Language like that doesn't increase my undertanding of anything.
Mike (the jek)
rewt
R. Alan MacKenzie (mac...@sprint.ca) wrote:
: > where did you get the impression that she was going anywhere?
: >> Do you think she will stay with Dbis and not be able to post her drivel here
: >> anymore?
Do you think this daemon.ca controls usenet? Far from it. Even if he does
block all of DBIS it hardly puts the slightest crimp in Amero's audience.
--
/ exISIS/AtCon/HookUp Communications - Internet Services - 902.429.5419 \
[|) 1989 Acura Integra RS: Pioneer - JL Audio - Sony - Alpine - Fosgate (|]
\www.isisnet.com/sleigh/caraudio - An object at rest cannot be stopped!!/
rewt
: Well, bud, the thought is irrelevant. If you use your
: say sumpthin' you shouldn't your employer is liable.
You can't even give it up when things aren't even directed at you can you?
The first line is an advertisement intended to generate traffic for the
product, not a representation of my employment at InfoInterActive.
The LAST line is there for people like you, and FYI I was *NOT* using ANY
of InfoInterActive's equipment for the posting of that message.
Basically what you're saying is when one posts to USENET they're legally
committing themselves to representing their employers? Enjoy selling that
one to a lawyer.
--
/ InfoInterActive - http://www.interactive.ca - Internet Call Manager \
[|) 1989 Acura Integra RS: Pioneer - JL Audio - Kenwood - Monster Cable (|]
\ An object at rest cannot be stopped! - http://spoon.org /
mlin...@bigfoot.com
In article <34F402...@dbis.ns.ca>,
Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
> The email was simply sent from the newsgroup because
> I was sending a Cc to CCN of my follow-up post to his post,
> which for the most part had nothing to do with him and
> certainly not his business since I didn't know he had one.
>
So I assume D.Christie did nothing wrong when he accidentally bounced ONE
e-mail ( with harmless "test messeage" content) to your accounr.
(Subsequently referred to "fooling around with my e-mail account)
> Then I received an abusive, gone off the deep end, email
> from Mr. Woods telling me that he'd warned my provider
> that he would take action against them if I targeted him
> or his business with my garbage
Same thing you did the the NSAC vis a vis Christie (by the way, consuming
their valuable time at THE TAXPAYERS EXPENSE)
> -- when I didn't even know
> he had a business until he sent me his garbage or what it
> was until I read the posts.
>
He didn't SEND you anything. He posted to a NG.
> And I still don't know what his business is other than he
> apparently has the power to punish DBIS and is using such
> power to get my account terminated for what??
Harassment, by
>Sending an
> email follow-up post and then email explanation with
> apology, albeit calling him a JERK -
Some apology
Mike (the Jerk)
himself@feedme
> Well, Mr. Woods, is certainly no gentleman
How do you know?
> and seemingly
> power-driven,
Your own paranoia. Since you feel powerless, all men are powerful to you.
>not to mention testerical. Reality is there
> was no need for Mr. Woods to have quietly killfiled the user
> in question
He can do what he damn well likes. It's his business. If you want unbridled acce
ss to the net,
START YOUR OWN ISP. I guess only men can do that
>since she had no intention of every emailing him
> again.
Giver your hysterical history, I doubt if he believed that.
Listen girl, ya got burned - sent one of your "I'll show the guys"
e-mail rants to the wrong guy. You were probably searching around to find out
who his employer was. Well, ya found out. And now your putting on that contrite
poor-little-me-let-me-explain-I-didn't-mean-it act. BUT if you had found out he
was
some poor bored working stiff civil servant you would have called his boss
AT THE TAXPYERS EXPENSE and tried to get him fired.
Well tough shit.
It backfired dear, and now DBIS is starting to feel some heat.
It sure is interesting to sit and watch someone self-destruct.
But then that's your gig, isn't it:
Set it up, Fuck it up, and then Whine about it.
And somehow in all this mess, mysteriously, as if my magic, MEN are to blame.
NEVER Barbie doll.
Jeez!
> The email was simply
( as in "the normal course of events")
>sent from the newsgroup because
> I was sending a Cc to CCN of my follow-up post to his post,
> which for the most part had nothing to do with him
(Oh, of course not - he's such a nice guy)
>and certainly not his business since I didn't know he had one.
>
> Then I received an abusive, gone off the deep end, email
> from Mr. Woods
(total surprise - totally out of the blue)
> telling me that he'd warned my provider
As YOU had done many times to others.
> that he would take action against them if I targeted him
> or his business with my garbage -- when I didn't even know
> he had a business
(Shit, and it's an ISP - I really fucked up this time -
well I'll blame it on MEN again, that's a safe way ouT. - Phew)
>until he sent me his garbage or what it
> was until I read the posts.
He didn't "send" anything to you. He posted a message to NS.general.
> And I still don't know what his business is other than he
> apparently has the power
Oh Shit!!!!
> to punish DBIS and is using such
> power to get my account terminated for what??
HARASSMENT
> Sending an
> email follow-up post and then email explanation with
> apology, albeit calling him a JERK
Another self-destrutive move.
>- which he has proven
> himself to be.
Now that I really fucked up, so.....
>If men who behave as such are controlling
> the Internet, then we are all in deep doo doos.
..so, I'll resort to attacking men again for all my problems,
that's worked OK up to now. But I have a suspicion that it might be
wearing a little thin by now.
Geez - I hope I don't actually have to take responsibility for
my actions, my life. Gawdferbid!!
>
> Barbara A. Amero
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hungry for NEWSGROUPS??? USE feedME.ORG
Read and Post to 30,000 groups through feedME.ORG
FREE FREE FREE http://www.feedME.ORG FREE FREE FREE
------------------------------------------------------------------
fatboy@feedme
> NetWorks Internet wrote:
> >
> > In article <3508757...@204.112.54.13>, w3sp...@wpg.flame wrote:
> >
> > > How even-handed of you. Ever occur to you your customers may want
> > > email from that domain? Because you're pissed off at 1 user you cause
> > > all your customers to feel the brunt of your inability to deal with
> > > it?
> >
> > We checked. There was no concern expressed to us.
> >
> > > You know you're actions brand you as a censorious bastard with an axe
> > > to grind. If you had any sense at all you would have quietly killfiled
> > > the user in question and not have been so stupid as imply you're too
> > > incompetent to deal with it.
> >
> > That's your spin on it. Reality is, a gentleman from Manitoba will be
> > publishing his views on net censorship at our expense on our server due to
> > his response to our post. Very cool. I look forward to promoting his work.
>
> power-driven, not to mention testerical. Reality is there
> again. The email was simply sent from the newsgroup because
>
> Then I received an abusive, gone off the deep end, email
> that he would take action against them if I targeted him
> or his business with my garbage -- when I didn't even know
>
> power to get my account terminated for what?? Sending an
> email follow-up post and then email explanation with
> himself to be. If men who behave as such are controlling
> the Internet, then we are all in deep doo doos.
>
Dear Victim at Large,
Boo hoo hoo!!!!
NanananaNananana
HeyHeyHey
Goodbye!!!!!
Astalavista Douch Bag!
Fatboy
Barbara Amero
rewt wrote:
>
> : Well, bud, the thought is irrelevant. If you use your
> : employer's equipment, company name in your sig. and
> : say sumpthin' you shouldn't your employer is liable.
>
> You can't even give it up when things aren't even directed at you can you?
The newsgroup is a place to have a public voice; things don't
have to be directed at me in order for me to have a public
voice. A voice which you can't give up trying to silence.
> The first line is an advertisement intended to generate traffic for the
> product, not a representation of my employment at InfoInterActive.
>
> The LAST line is there for people like you, and FYI I was *NOT* using ANY
> of InfoInterActive's equipment for the posting of that message.
And my response was for ignorant people like you.
> Basically what you're saying is when one posts to USENET they're legally
> committing themselves to representing their employers? Enjoy selling that
> one to a lawyer.
What I said was if you use your employer's equipment and
company name in your sig. (which you have reposted), your
employer is liable. And this is an issue for corporations
whose employees are causing problems with their Internet
activities. Aside from liability, employers are concerned
about appearances, how their employees behavior reflects
on their business, profession... and Mr.State seems to be
concerned. It wasn't that long ago that the code of conduct
for female teachers was very restrictive. And I was informed
last year that there is still gender discrimination in this
regard. In all honesty, would you want your employee on the
'net acting like a jerk calling women bimbos, etc. - using
the handle "al...@fetid.cunt.cow"?? I can assure you that
Mr.State does not look favourable on his male employees
lauching attacks on women in Usenet and likely would feel
the same about any of his employees launching attacks on
either sex. And that is an issue that would be important
to discuss ... how much control should employers have
over their employees.
IRT a lawyer, I've talked with David Potts in Toronto
who has a good "cyberlibel" web site.
Barbara A. Amero
Barbara Amero
mlin...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
> In article <34F402...@dbis.ns.ca>,
> Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
> > I was sending a Cc to CCN of my follow-up post to his post,
> > which for the most part had nothing to do with him and
> > certainly not his business since I didn't know he had one.
> >
Obvisouly I wasn't denying having sent the email since
anyone who looks at the post in the thread "Truth? Not
in this Lifetime..." will _SEE_ for themselves that I
mailed my post to Darren Woods and CCN from the newsgroup,
for public view NOT privately behind anyone's back. You are
harassing me.
> So I assume D.Christie did nothing wrong when he accidentally bounced ONE
> e-mail ( with harmless "test messeage" content) to your accounr.
> (Subsequently referred to "fooling around with my e-mail account)
This is harassment! I did nothing wrong by mailing my follow-up
post to Darren Woods post to him and CCN. The only reason I did
such was because his words (post) was going off to CCN.
> > Then I received an abusive, gone off the deep end, email
> > from Mr. Woods telling me that he'd warned my provider
> > that he would take action against them if I targeted him
> > or his business with my garbage
>
> Same thing you did the the NSAC vis a vis Christie (by the way, consuming
> their valuable time at THE TAXPAYERS EXPENSE)
This is harassment! Certainly sending Christie's email that
found it's way to my mailbox to NSAC is not going off the
deep end. And I was not rude and abusive to the Principal
(I think that's what he was called) who had the Security
Officer call me. That is what the Security Officer is paid
to do! He is an ex-RCMP officer. NSCA does not want it's
employees using gov't equipment to do liddle circuit tests
to U.S. Military web sites. What part don't you understand??
AND Christie was using my email address in that liddle
circuit test that short-circuited. By the way, why do
YOU keep _defending_ Christie for fooling around with my
email address at the TAX PAYERS EXPENSE??? You certainly
would not defend me if I'd fooled around with his email
address. You want to hang me for publicly sending a copy
of my reply to Darren Woods post to him mailbox.
> > -- when I didn't even know
> > he had a business until he sent me his garbage or what it
> > was until I read the posts.
> He didn't SEND you anything. He posted to a NG.
NOTE: There is no law or rule prohibiting making
a public post and sending a copy to the mailbox
of the author of the post you are replying to.
Presumably the liddle box at the top of my screen
with "For Both" in it is there for a reason! There
is no law or rule prohibiting making only a private
email reply to a post.
BUT there is a BIG double standard here. I get email only
replies to my posts from mostly men in the newsgroups and
I don't try to get their account terminated. If such is
unwanted, persistent, harassing, *threatening*, I have on
occasion complained to ISPs. Otherwise I use my D key!
I would prefer that people reply to my public posts in
the public forum. However, some people are just lurkers
and want to reply to my posts. I'm not opposed to that
as long as the email is not attacking.
Again, the only reason I sent it is because HIS words
went off to CCN. I would want to know if someone sent
my posts to others.
> > And I still don't know what his business is other than he
> > apparently has the power to punish DBIS and is using such
> > power to get my account terminated for what??
>
> Harassment, by
What you're doing is harassment.
> >Sending an
> > email follow-up post and then email explanation with
> > apology, albeit calling him a JERK -
> Some apology
>
> Mike (the Jerk)
And you seem to be right some proud of it.
NetWorks Internet
To all who responded to one of the hottest topics in recent memory:
We have yet to hear a convincing arguement or even a simple reply from dbis
that would cause us to reverse a ban on email from that domain for delivery
to domains on our server.
We can only assume that dbis is rogue and no one is controlling the system.
This enforces our original point.
The results:
1) Our staff and clients won't be forced to suffer unsolicited emails from
an abusive user at dbis. Because we have email doesn't give one the right
to fill it with trash, especially after one is told in no uncertain terms
to stop.
2) A provider was held responsible for the offensive actions of it's users
after multiple complaints from another provider. (don't tell me this is
wrong. I'd be getting a phone call in under 5 minutes if one of my users
caused problems or used our resources to break the law)
3) The beginnings of a fairly decent debate on net censorship which we hope
will continue.
All responses to our post were noted and considered. Thank you for your input.
Darren Woods
NetWorks Internet - www.daemon.ca
himself@feedme
> Let me get this straight. You are now censoring an ISP and all it's
> user's because of one individual?
I think censorship is too grand a word here. It's not the issue.
NOBODY has been prevented from posting/airing their views PUBLICLY anywhere
on the Internet.
Newsgroups, Web sites. IRC etc.
E-mail is NOT public, and not a right. It's a pay-per-use service.
Some e-mail is not being delivered, that's all.
If a mailman refuses to deliver mail where there's a violent dog,
or a family feud, is that censorship?
Let's get this in perspective.
daddio@feedme
> NOTE: Chebucto Community Net publicly stated that the
> reason for my account termination was the number of
> complaints, not the content, about my Usenet postings.
> Yet, to date, none of these complaints have been
> verified by CCN.
>
> Barbara A. Amero
The number of complaints WERE all about content,
so say what they may, you got the power boot because
of inappropriate content in your articles.
CCN does not have to verify their authenticity.
Just suppose they did (har har har) and they found out
that every single one was illegit, do you think they'd
ask you back??? Gimme a break! NEVER NEVER NEVER.
They're prolly really happy now that they're rid of you.
I shouldn't be too surprised when they don't answer your
calls. They're prolly in a meeting and not taking calls
from either yourself or Stu Freidman.
Maybe you can find a Hallmark greeting card with the
Ballad of Lupe and send it over to the Freenet.
mlin...@bigfoot.com
In article <34F454...@dbis.ns.ca>,
Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> You are
> harassing me.
>
And later.
>
> This is harassment! Certainly sending Christie's email that
And again.
>
> What you're doing is harassment.
>
So I have harassed you three times in one post?????????
Could you define "harassment"?
It seems to me that it should be some sort of unwanted attention.
If you don't want your views challenged, watch TV instead of posting to
newsgroups.
I've noticed that you challenge (harass) many other posters.
Does calling me a "jerk" constitute harassment?
When you can't answer a point made by me, it's called harassment.
Mike (the jerk)
PTQ
Were you ever in a debating society?
Barbara Amero
NetWorks Internet wrote:
>
> To all who responded to one of the hottest topics in recent memory:
It is?
Mr. Woods, I have a feeling that I'm your liddle scapegoat for
YOUR "hottest topics" or whatever bandwagon you're on. No doubt
the bandwagon to stifle people. So what's this power trip all
about? Whatever it's all about, you seized the opportunity _ME_
to make an issue of it!
> We have yet to hear a convincing arguement or even a simple reply from dbis
> that would cause us to reverse a ban on email from that domain for delivery
> to domains on our server.
Mr. Woods, you were WRONG to take the action you took
against DBIS. DBIS was not responsible for the email
I sent to you. AND you sent your email complaints to
DBIS in the wee hours of the morning and then made your
public post in the wee hours of the morning before
DBIS even opened shop. IOW you complained about no
feedback from DBIS when they would not even have had
the opportunity to read your complaints. That is very
dishonest. But like you say it doesn't matter what's
written on brochures or online policies, a business
has the right to decline service. You sound like a
rogue!
Mr. Woods, it is WRONG for you to try and get my
account terminated. I did not commit an offence
that warrants such. But I'll make a deal with
you. If you get the accounts terminated of all
those gawd dang men who have sent me offensive
and abusive email, harassed me via email, then
I will give up my DBIS account. Fair enough?
> We can only assume that dbis is rogue and no one is controlling the system.
> This enforces our original point.
I have no idea what that means.
I sent you my public post to let you know where your words
went. Then I responded to your abusive email with a CC to
my ISP. You remind me a local man who sends others abusive
email and then tells them not to reply or he'll report
them to their ISP and the police for harassment. He wants
to have the first and last word.
> The results:
> 1) Our staff and clients won't be forced to suffer unsolicited emails from
> an abusive user at dbis.
If you mean me, your twig is bent. I certainly would not
be sending your staff and clients email since I don't even
know who they are and couldn't care less. AND as I've said
before, I didn't know you had a business until you sent me
your abusive email. AND you are dishonest to say that I
sent your "company" email. I sent "Darren" eamil amd ONLY
Darren, other than the Cc to my ISP and CCN. I don't even
know what province you're in. Who are you? Why don't you
tell us about yourself? I'm sure not all the readers know
who you are.
> Because we have email doesn't give one the right
> to fill it with trash,
That's what I've told the fellas, but they don't
see it that way. In here there's 3 sets of rules:
one for the men, one for women, one for me.
> especially after one is told in no uncertain terms
> to stop.
Well, my experience in here has been that the fellas
won't take no for an answer or stop or fuck off. BUT
they expect me to.
Mr. Woods, YOU sent me abusive email in which you went
off the deep end. I replied to that email with a CC to
my ISP explaning why I mailed you a copy of my public
reply to your post. It was mailed simply to let you
know that your words went off to CCN in my post. Now,
I have no problem with you replying and telling me off
for sending the post to you; however, such did not warrant
the abusive email you sent to me going on about your
business which I knew nothing about. The address I saw
was "Darren", that does not look like a company with
staff and clients to me.
> 2) A provider was held responsible for the offensive actions of it's users
> after multiple complaints from another provider. (don't tell me this is
> wrong. I'd be getting a phone call in under 5 minutes if one of my users
> caused problems or used our resources to break the law)
I think you're outta touch with reality. My suggstion is that
you assume a female name and go online for awhile and see
what lands in your mailbox. If you terminated the accounts
of all users who send offensive or abusive unsolicited email,
ISPs would go bankrupt! AOL never responded to my complaint,
(other than an automated form email) about daily abusive emails
from Pa...@aol.com who sends many women such email daily. Since
I've been online I've had offensive or abusive unsolicited
email from hundreds of users unknown to me. I've had email
telling me to tell my lover to shave and to spit those pussy
hairs out. Last night I received email telling me that the
internet is no place for a pig like me. I've had very long
emails calling me down to the lowest from men who don't like
my homepage. AND often posters send offensive and abusive email
replies to my posts. One such local man called me a fucking idiot
saying people should not have to read my garbage in the newsgroups
and noted that he would cause me to be troubled. The police did not
consider such to be a threat or harassment.
> 3) The beginnings of a fairly decent debate on net censorship which we hope
> will continue.
Well, if you hope it continues, then you should not censor users!
> Darren Woods
You're a hypocrite.
Barbara Amero
mlin...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
> In article <34F402...@dbis.ns.ca>,
> Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
[...]
> >Sending an
> > email follow-up post and then email explanation with
> > apology, albeit calling him a JERK -
> Some apology
I missed that when I replied to your post.
My apology was in case he misunderstood my post
and thought I meant he was one of my harassers.
He sent me an abusive email reply in which he
acted like a JERK; hence I called him a JERK.
Mike Lindsay
In article <34f873a9...@news.ilos.net>, bee...@Lilos.net says...
.On 25 Feb 98 19:30:23 GMT, himself@feedME wrote:
... Let me get this straight. You are now censoring an ISP and all it's
... user's because of one individual?
..I think censorship is too grand a word here.
.I don't
... It's not the issue.
.
.It is the issue, because it starts the censorship ball rolling.
Hi beergut.
Could be the thin end of the wedge, but I think you've been round long enough
to know that the net is un-censorable.
I know you're having problems in MB with some provider. But look at why that
originated. It's not censorship - you are free to find
a) A freenet
b) A new ISP
c) An online service
d) Dejanews
The ISP is just pissed-off (as is DBIS). They are a biz. they can do what
they want.
Here's a problem I have.
I'm going home to Ireland to visit me old Da. So I finally found some Irish
local groups similar to NS and MB General. BUT only by accident on Dejanews.
My ISP does not provide any of the 4 groups. Is that censorship?
My ISP only carries 13,000 of the 20,000+ ng's available.
Am I being censored?
Mike the Jerk
PTQ
>
>>NOBODY has been prevented from posting/airing their views PUBLICLY anywhere
>>on the Internet.
>>Newsgroups, Web sites. IRC etc.
>
>Well that is not exactly true, You can no longer post to wpg.general
>and man.general within the confines of MBnet. That is to say 90% of
>the people in Manitoba can't read your posts. Add to that the policy
>of canceling posts from outside Manitoba, that contain the wpg.* or
>Man.* in the header, yes you heard me right. MBnet is canceling "your"
>posts even if they were to go to bc.general also, cause you are spam,
>according to them. You will then, maybe, understand my reluctance to
>see anyone's right, " paid privilege" ,stopped. Although I will agree
>that dbis should have addressed this issue by now.
>
>>E-mail is NOT public, and not a right. It's a pay-per-use service.
>>Some e-mail is not being delivered, that's all.
>>If a mailman refuses to deliver mail where there's a violent dog,
>>or a family feud, is that censorship?
>
>No, such is done for fear of bodily injury. The option to the
>homeowner is to pick up his mail. I see neither option here in this
>case.
>>
>>Let's get this in perspective.
>
>I'll be waiting.
>
>beergut
>
>
>to reply please remove the capitol L from Lilos
>
> The following space for rent
>
Barbara Amero
daddio@feedME wrote:
>
> > NOTE: Chebucto Community Net publicly stated that the
> > reason for my account termination was the number of
> > complaints, not the content, about my Usenet postings.
> > Yet, to date, none of these complaints have been
> > verified by CCN.
> >
> > Barbara A. Amero
>
> The number of complaints WERE all about content,
> so say what they may, you got the power boot because
> of inappropriate content in your articles.
You're right that the complaints were about content.
They certainly were not about my typos. But that does
does not mean that the content was inappropriate - such
is a value judgemnet - or that CCN terminated my account
because the content was inappropriate. CCN publicly stated
that content was not the reason for termination. Volume
of complaints was the reason for termination according to
CCN. However, even if that was the reason, one could say
that my account was terminated because of content -- content
as I understand is what the complaints were about. Aside
from that there would be complaints for those who simply
wanted my account terminated.
> CCN does not have to verify their authenticity.
> Just suppose they did (har har har) and they found out
> that every single one was illegit, do you think they'd
> ask you back??? Gimme a break! NEVER NEVER NEVER.
Do you know what you're saying? Why would CCN have to
verify whether or not the complaints were legitimate??
Again, my account was NOT terminated based on the
legitimacy of complaints. IT WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE
OF _VOLUME_ OF COMPLAINTS -- according to CCN.
VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VULUME
Got it?
> They're prolly really happy now that they're rid of you.
Well, that may be. However, in the past John van Gurp did
his best to protect my so-called freedom of expression.
Was Glenn Hart successful with his complaint to get my
account terminated? NO. And I have email communication
between Peter Henry and John van Gurp in which Peter
congratulates John for handling the "Amero Case" so well.
> I shouldn't be too surprised when they don't answer your
> calls. They're prolly in a meeting and not taking calls
> from either yourself or Stu Freidman.
I don't call them. Why would I call them?
> Maybe you can find a Hallmark greeting card with the
> Ballad of Lupe and send it over to the Freenet.
What is your point in that comment? What does the
Freenet have to do with men's sadistic violence
against women? -- other than no one there speaking
out against it except for me. Please explain.
NetWorks Internet
> > Darren Woods
> You're a hypocrite.
Someone talking to me? I can't hear you...
Should we start a webpage called: "Who's been slandered by Barbara Amero today?"
It might prove more popular than Microsoft's own slogan, where do you want
to go today...
Darren Woods
Barbara Amero
himself@feedME wrote:
>
> > Let me get this straight. You are now censoring an ISP and all it's
>
Then what the hell is the issue? The issue IS censorship and as in
the U.S. there is a big move toward censorship. Barbara Amero is
simply a scapegoat ... Woods seized this opportunity _ME_ ....
> NOBODY has been prevented from posting/airing their views PUBLICLY anywhere
> on the Internet.
Censorship is not just about being able to air your views.
It's also about being able to read and see -- not just speak.
FLOW OF INFORMATION. INFORMATION IS RECEIVED VIA EMAIL.
Some people use email for more than talking about "GFs"
and fantacizing about other women in "team" mailboxes.
> Newsgroups, Web sites. IRC etc.
> E-mail is NOT public, and not a right. It's a pay-per-use service.
I wasn't aware that any of it is a right.
> Some e-mail is not being delivered, that's all.
Just censorship for some.
> If a mailman refuses to deliver mail where there's a violent dog,
> or a family feud, is that censorship?
>
> Let's get this in perspective.
Seems as tho' you're saying I'm a violent dog.
Sean Smith
Barbara Amero (am...@dbis.ns.ca) wrote:
: >> [ Opinions stated are mine, not IIA's, if you thought otherwise get help. ]
: Well, bud, the thought is irrelevant. If you use your
: employer's equipment, company name in your sig. and
: say sumpthin' you shouldn't your employer is liable.
Upon what case or legal doctrine are you basing this statement?
Sean Smith
--
Sean Smith aa...@chebucto.ns.ca
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada tss...@dbis.ns.ca
The contents of this message in no way reflect tss...@isn.net
the views of my employer, whatever entity that is at the time of posting.
Barbara Amero
nos...@my.email wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 09:26:16 -0800, Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >You are harassing me.
> >You are harassing me.
>
> Don't be an idiot, this is UseNet. You don't HAVE to read it.
I'm not an idiot. In order to participate, you have to read.
Barbara Amero
Sean Smith wrote:
>
> Barbara Amero (am...@dbis.ns.ca) wrote:
> : >> [ Opinions stated are mine, not IIA's, if you thought otherwise get help. ]
>
> : Well, bud, the thought is irrelevant. If you use your
> : employer's equipment, company name in your sig. and
> : say sumpthin' you shouldn't your employer is liable.
>
> Upon what case or legal doctrine are you basing this statement?
I can't find the info since people complained about my
conduct in Usenet and got my CCN account terminated ...
should have kept my legs crossed and skirt covering my
knees while posting, I guess. Think I mentioned that
there is a good "cyberlible" web site put up by David
Potts (lawyer in Toronto). I talked to him on the phone.
I see you have moved to P.E.I.? I had a nice visit
there in '91.
Barbara Amero
NetWorks Internet wrote:
>
> In article <34F488...@dbis.ns.ca>, Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> > You're a hypocrite.
>
Mr. Woods, the fact that you hit on the post is enough
to elicit a smirk.
> Should we start a webpage called: "Who's been slandered by Barbara Amero today?"
Not only are you a hypocrite but you're also ignorant ...
perhaps I already told you that. Whatever... slander is
a defamatory statement published by means of spoken words
or gestures. And I'm givin' ya one right now. I'd tell
you about libel but you can't hear me.... in more ways
than one.
Seemingly Mr. Woods does not know about the falsehood
published in here about Barbara Amero and her family
members, much of it libelous ....almost two years worth
of falsehood published, much of it libelous.
I'm sure Mr. Woods would not agree with John Jenkins Sr.
libeling my ex-husband by editing my words to read that
my ex-husband was a wife-batterer. I know Mr. Woods would
not agree with that. I know Mr. Woods would not agree with
John Jenkins Sr. publishing the falshood that I abandoned
my family, that my daughter abandoned her child, that my
father beat my mother. I'm sure Mr.Woods knows that
falsely accusing someone of a crime punishable by
imprisonment is a type of libel that is actionable per se,
i.e. one does not have to show proof of damage. I'm sure
Mr. Woods would not agree with the published slurs cast
on my sexuality, another type of libel that is actionable
per se. And I know Mr. Woods most certainly would not
approve of the picture representing female genitals
published with "This cunt belongs to Barbara Amero"
written above it...................
> It might prove more popular than Microsoft's own slogan, where do you want
> to go today...
>
> Darren Woods
[. .]
^
Barbara Amero
postm...@cyberpromo.com wrote:
> You have absolutely no one to blame if you can't work a killfile, Babs.
Participating in my own harassment does not = masochism.
Seemingly you are new in here and don't know that I am
collecting data. Therefore killfile would not be useful.
I would appreciate it if you would call me Barbara. I'm
sure you will respect that request.
R. Alan MacKenzie
Barbara Amero wrote:
> R. Alan MacKenzie wrote:
>
> > Much as i hate censorship, I can't blame them for this action.
> > She will be back with another isp in no time at all. I feel
> > sorry for her new isp though.
> >
> > Al
>
> I see you're @sprint. Are you the same "Al" I complained about
> to Sympatico after you started the derogaotry, abusive thread
> about me and sent me at least 6 abusive emails within 15 minutes?
> I never got a reply from Sympatico. You see it's OK for MEN to
> make abusive libelous posts about women send women abusive,
> unsolicited, unwanted, harassing, sexually harassing threatening
> email. Well... it's OK for men to send such to other men. After
> all boys will be boys.... the men are just fooooooolin' around.
>
> Barbara A. Amero
Thats pretty good Baba. Now I see how you operate, make up a lie,ask
if I am the person that you made up the lie about and then slander men
over some non existant abusethat you claim to have been put through! You
are sad Baba, but dbis will probably get tired of you pretty soon and
you will be off the net again. The problem is that everybody has heard
of your idiocy and you are going to have a hard time finding an isp
pretty soon.
Oh well, another complete injustice at the hands of men. I pity you
Baba. You should get some professional help so that some day you might
see the world as it is, most men and women are very decent and a few use
and abuse the others.
Regards Al
Himself@feedme
> Dear Victim at Large,
> Boo hoo hoo!!!!
> NanananaNananana
> HeyHeyHey
> Goodbye!!!!!
>
> Astalavista Douch Bag!
>
> Fatboy
FATBOY!! FATBOY! How the HELL ARE YOU MAN? LONG TIME!
Hey Fatboy, Did you ever think about how this LOON
Barbara Amero will likely end her days?
Don't you think that she will be the permanent guest of
MR.STATE, in either:
1. A prison, because she's hurt someone else , or ,
2. An asylum, because she's hurt someone else, or herself
number #2 has the nicer wallpaper, supplied by the Simmonds matress
company.
WOOOOOOOPPPPEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!
Eddy Grant
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 22:39:38 GMT, bee...@Lilos.net wrote:
(snipped because my newsreader complained about more
quoted than was replied)
:-
:- Censorship is when you post to ns.general, man.general,
:- irish.general., once it hits the Manitoba border, your put in the spam
:- bin as there is no cross posting allowed to our now regional and local
:- groups. I would think MBnet canceling your messages would make you a
:- tad irate?
:-
:- regards
:- beergut
:-
:- to reply please remove the capitol L from Lilos
:-
:- The following space for rent
Hello beergut.
Pardon the intrusion I've heard of the situation in Manitoba but
I must admit that I didn't follow the earlier posted discussions
too closely.
I thought that it was more of a concern for people in Manitoba
and like Mr Lindsay posted earlier, that they were alternatives.
From your response it seems that there are very little.
I've removed the "ignore thread" from the "Welcome to Communist
Manitoba" and will follow it . However for my, and possibly others
education on this matter, could you fill me in on some points
having to do with this situation.
I tend to agree with your disdain for censorship, and
also feel that in the end I should be my ultimate censor, and
certainly not some low level public servant..
I just didn't know that Mbnet had things so tightly locked up.
If you have time, could you fill me in, and possibly others who may be
interested in this situation, or possibly direct us to a "credible"
site which may have some information or history on this matter.
I would be interested in finding some information which could answer
some questions on this matter. Some of which would be:
What precipitated all of this?
That is why did Mbnet take such drastic action?
Is this a temporary measure on Mbnet's part until they can get
a technical solution to whatever was troubling them,
or is it permanent?
What do users in Manitoba think of all this?
Is there some support for this measure?
Do you think this situation could be eventually reversed ?
And if so how would you go about doing something like that.
With Mbnet controlling 90% of the news feeds, you have in Manitoba a
near monopoly. Which can't be too comforting when these sorts of
issues come up. This seems much more serious than I had previously
thought. Pardon my newbie-ness on this subject, and best wishes
on your fight to get this nonsense lifted from your province
Salutations
Eddy
postm...@cyberpromo.com
fatboy@feedme
> > Dear Victim at Large,
> > Boo hoo hoo!!!!
> > NanananaNananana
> > HeyHeyHey
> > Goodbye!!!!!
> >
> > Astalavista Douch Bag!
> >
> > Fatboy
>
> FATBOY!! FATBOY! How the HELL ARE YOU MAN? LONG TIME!
>
> Hey Fatboy, Did you ever think about how this LOON
> Barbara Amero will likely end her days?
>
> Don't you think that she will be the permanent guest of
> MR.STATE, in either:
>
> 1. A prison, because she's hurt someone else , or ,
> 2. An asylum, because she's hurt someone else, or herself
>
> number #2 has the nicer wallpaper, supplied by the Simmonds matress
> company.
>
> WOOOOOOOPPPPEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!
Hey man, what up?
I'll call ahead and arrange for one of the best rubber rooms over at the
Nova Scotia Hospital.
Whooomp the it is!
Fat
memnoch@feedme
amero goes beyond fascist and right into lunatic territory.
censoring isn't the answer and neither is an attempt to debate an issue with her
/it. if proven wrong, she/it will make every attempt to destroy you so that you a
re no longer a threat to her/it.
it's not worth anyone's time to even view her/it's posting here as it gives her/
it an excuse to write more. i would therefor respectfully submit to you that the
best course of action to get rid of amero would be a lack of response.
your pal,
memnoch
fatboy@feedme
> amero goes beyond fascist and right into lunatic territory.
>
> censoring isn't the answer and neither is an attempt to debate an issue with her
> /it. if proven wrong, she/it will make every attempt to destroy you so that you a
> re no longer a threat to her/it.
>
> it's not worth anyone's time to even view her/it's posting here as it gives her/
> it an excuse to write more. i would therefor respectfully submit to you that the
> best course of action to get rid of amero would be a lack of response.
>
> your pal,
>
> memnoch
Couldnt agree more Memnoch, but its so much fun!!
Fatness
memnoch@feedme
>Couldnt agree more Memnoch, but its so much fun!!
>Fatness
dude,
it IS an interesting diversion. 'specially since she/it couldn't debate her way
out of the envelope her/it's welfare check comes in.
but seriously, nobody wants censorship. the gov. would mess that up in a big way
. a very public and messy example needs to be made of amero to discourage further
intrusion into netizens private or business lives.
left to her/it's own devices, amero is and would be responsible for people not p
osting which if anything is censorship by amero.
your pal,
memnoch
memnoch@feedme
some pig by the name of amero somehow wrote:
>Seemingly you are new in here and don't know that I am
>collecting data. Therefore killfile would not be useful.
>oink oink oink oink oink oink oink oink
hey babs,
collect this data;
"GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU OLD BAT. YOU ARE A HUNDRED YEARS OLD. DIE DIE DIE."
- Howard Stern (reproduced here because i can and it applies)
oink oink oink to you too
Barbara Amero
R. Alan MacKenzie wrote:
>
> Barbara Amero wrote:
> > I see you're @sprint. Are you the same "Al" I complained about
> > to Sympatico after you started the derogaotry, abusive thread
> > about me and sent me at least 6 abusive emails within 15 minutes?
> > I never got a reply from Sympatico. You see it's OK for MEN to
> > make abusive libelous posts about women send women abusive,
> > unsolicited, unwanted, harassing, sexually harassing threatening
> > email. Well... it's OK for men to send such to other men. After
> > all boys will be boys.... the men are just fooooooolin' around.
> >
> > Barbara A. Amero
>
> Thats pretty good Baba. Now I see how you operate, make up a lie,ask
> if I am the person that you made up the lie about and then slander men
> over some non existant abusethat you claim to have been put through!
Mr. MacKenzie it is not a lie that I sent email complaints
to Sympatico about the user (and abuser) Alan MacKenzie who
started the abusive, derogatory threads about me in ns.general
(which would be in DejaNews) and who sent me the abusive
derogatory emails (which would be in my files). I may have
mentioned such in a post to ns.general.
Have you ever had an account with Sympatico?
Are you the same Alan MacKenzie who recently started a thread
in ns.general, "Racists", in which you *target* Barbara Amero
and state: "The only racists I have ever seen in ns. general are
Barbara amero and the separatists now posting in this newsgroup."
Are you the same Alan MacKenzie who using an account with
Sympatico started abusive, derogatory threads about me in
ns.general and sent me abusive, derogatory emails?
Mr. Woods are you reading? You seem to be a man who has,
or thinks, he has much power. Can you help me find out
if these two men are one and the same Alan MacKenzie with
a Sympatico account who sent me at least 6 very abusive emails?
If so and you find that these 2 men are one and the same and
this man still has a Sympatico account, will you use your power
and take action against Sympatico - since Sympatico did not
reply to my complaints????
Barbara A. Amero
himself@feedme
>
> So what are you gonna do? Send a complaint about me to CCN (g)
The CCN thing:
It's OVER. Let it go. Move on. It ain't comin' back.
I thought you were on the NG to post topics of interest.
All you've done since joining DBIS is whine about CCN.
IT'S OVER. It ain't coming back.
The divorce is FINAL.
You won't sue. You haven't a legal leg to stand on.
If you're going to sue please do it quickly so we don't have to
listen to your public whining about losing your CCN account.
Nobody cares.
Any topics you would like to discuss?
By the way, most men behave decently toward women.....studies show.
Barbara Amero
Barbara Amero wrote:
>
> NetWorks Internet wrote:
> >
> > In article <34F488...@dbis.ns.ca>, Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > > Darren Woods
> > Someone talking to me?
Yes, Mr. Woods, I am talking to you.
> I can't hear you...
Then get the crap outta your ears ....
> Seemingly Mr. Woods does not know about the falsehood
> published in here about Barbara Amero and her family
> members, much of it libelous ....almost two years worth
> of falsehood published, much of it libelous.
>
> I'm sure Mr. Woods would not agree with John Jenkins Sr.
via his ISP - Cable Atlantic
> libeling my ex-husband by editing my words to read that
> my ex-husband was a wife-batterer. I know Mr. Woods would
> not agree with that. I know Mr. Woods would not agree with
> John Jenkins Sr. publishing the falsehood that I abandoned
> my family, that my daughter abandoned her child, that my
> father beat my mother. I'm sure Mr.Woods knows that
> falsely accusing someone of a crime punishable by
> imprisonment is a type of libel that is actionable per se,
> i.e. one does not have to show proof of damage. I'm sure
> Mr. Woods would not agree with the published slurs cast
> on my sexuality, another type of libel that is actionable
> per se. And I know Mr. Woods most certainly would not
> approve of the picture representing female genitals
> published with "This cunt belongs to Barbara Amero"
> written above it...................
Mr. Woods, what say you??
Where are you? At the cleaners pickin' up your power-suit??
Mr. Woods, if you're gonna publicly mouth off about
Barbara Amero, ask if "we" should start a website
about "Who's been slandered by Barbara Amero today?",
and hold an ISP to ransom to get Barbara Amero's account
terminated, then I expect you to publicly respond to
Barbara Amero and the public IRT the above falsehood,
some of it libelous, published in Usenet about Barbara
Amero and her family members. Should Cable Atlantic
terminate the account of John Jenkins Sr. for the libel
he has published, and continues to do so, about Barbara
Amero and her family?? Should all the other Barbara Amero
harassers (past and present) who have libeled her and her
family have their accounts terminated?? Are any of them
YOUR clients??
Since 99.9% of these Barbara Amero harassers assume the identity
of men, you're not into so-called gender discrimination, are you?
Mr. Woods, where do you and NetWorks stand on this issue?
What are your and NetWorks views on censorship? I note
NetWorks mission:
"Our mission at NetWorks is to empower the cavepainters
and scribes of today's world with the means to create
and publish without limitations." ( http://www.daemon.ca )
Mr. Woods, you representing NewWorks, launched a public
attack on Barbara Amero. I expect you to publicly respond.
Do not send me anymore email! To use YOUR words to me,
"try that again and I'll sue". *smile*
Barbara A. Amero
fatboy@feedme
> some pig by the name of amero somehow wrote:
>
> >collecting data. Therefore killfile would not be useful.
> >oink oink oink oink oink oink oink oink
>
> hey babs,
>
> collect this data;
>
> "GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU OLD BAT. YOU ARE A HUNDRED YEARS OLD. DIE DIE DIE."
> - Howard Stern (reproduced here because i can and it applies)
>
> oink oink oink to you too
>
> your pal,
>
> memnoch
>
>
You can't keep hiding your feelings like this. Just let it out my friend.
BlubberBoy
Barbara Amero
Barbara Amero wrote:
>
> Barbara Amero wrote:
[...]
> Mr. Woods, you representing NewWorks, launched a public
^^^^^^^^
CORRECTION: That should read NetWorks.
> attack on Barbara Amero. I expect you to publicly respond.
> Do not send me anymore email! To use YOUR words to me,
> "try that again and I'll sue". *smile*
My apology, Mr.Woods, for my typo... or perhaps Freudian slip.
Barbara A. Amero
> Barbara A. Amero
NetWorks Internet
In article <34f7c1ed...@news.ilos.net>, d...@doherty-enterprises.mb.ca
wrote:
> I am trying to fight censorship. That is my agenda.
> I am to busy right now with a more important fight...
Don,
I'm looking forward to seeing the info you've collected in your fight
against net censorship. It's a touchy subject to be sure and there is a
thin line that providers of net services have to walk.
However, I would maintain that a net business does not have to be a vehicle
for material that business deems disruptive to it's operation. ie. numerous
unsolicited offensive emails
In your fight, it's a different story in that the news source is making
judgements it has no right to make and which affects users provincewide.
News is not email and users can read or not read...it's a personal choice.
Responding to newsgroups postings is also a personal choice. Not to mention
the fact that your news source seems to be a publicly funded org.
An interesting addition to your research might also include a link to some
Canadian laws such as:
http://www.wwlia.org/ca-defam.htm
http://www.wwlia.org/ca-lawof.htm
and where you think a provider should step in to take responsibility for
use of it's system. In other words, censorship no...but let's define abuse.
regards,
Darren Woods
NetWorks Internet - www.daemon.ca
Barbara Amero
NetWorks Internet wrote:
>
> Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> > So, Mr. Woods, are you saying that the ISP should have
> > responded to your complaints in the wee hours of the morn'
> > between 01:50 and 04:21 ??
>
> What I am saying is that YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEND ME EMAIL.
I DON'T WANT TO SEND YOU EMAIL! Mr. Woods, you've avoided
the issue. Mr. Woods, you did not answer my question.
From the newsgroup, for the PUBLIC to see, I mailed you
my _public_ post because a copy was also being mailed to
CCN. The purpose of mailing such was to let you know that
your words had gone to CCN. Then you, Mr. Woods, sent me
_private_ *abusive* email with a Cc to DBIS which the public
could not see, could not see how abusive you were to me.
> You can twist my words all you like,
I did NOT twist your words. You _publicly_ posted on
Tues Feb 24, 1997 at 04:21 (wee hours of the morn') the
action you'd taken against DBIS which is open for business
between 10:00 and 19:00 hours. My public post in question
was mailed to you and CCN from the public newsgroup on Mon
Feb 23, 1997 at 21:23 after DBIS closes shop. YOU sent me
_private_ *abusive* email with a Cc to DBIS on Tues 24
Feb 23, 1997 at 01:50 hours, i.e. your complaint. It is
highly probable that the men at DBIS were in bed asleep
between 01:50 and 04:21, as you should have been instead
of using me as a scapegoat and publicly attacking DBIS.
Then you _publicly_ posted on Tues Feb 24 at 13:35 hours
your complaint, condemnation of DBIS for not responding to
your complaint. Perhaps DBIS had more pressing things to
attend to then checking for complaints about users during
the first 3 1/2 hours of their day at work; perhaps there
was online problems, etc. Why didn't you call DBIS before
launching your public attack? Perhaps you wanted to initate
what you referred to as "hottest topics in your recent
memory"?? Well, if attention to NetWorks is what you're
lookin' for, I really don't think this is the way to go
about getting it.
> the end result is we are deaf to you.
Seemingly you are not blind to me, since you are replying
to my words.
> No debate,
Mr. Woods, I have YOUR *abusive* email to me with CC
to DBIS with the date and time. The public can see the
date and time of your public posts condemning DBIS.
> no apologies.
I don't want any apologies from you - a testerical, abusive,
power-driven man who has publicly made a fool of himself.
IMO you and NetWorks owe DBIS a private and public apology,
for your vicious public attack and the action you took.
Barbara A. Amero
Barbara Amero
NetWorks Internet wrote:
>
> In article <34f67bdb...@news.ilos.net>, d...@doherty-enterprises.mb.ca
> wrote:
> > Let me get this straight. You are now censoring an ISP and all it's
> > user's because of one individual? You don't have the time to deal
> > with an e-mail? Ever heard of a delete key? You can call it what you
> > want, but I will call it censorship, and it falls right in line with
> > Usenet-2. I guess you may not like my views, so you may as well censor
> > my ISP also. Same with Mr. Peori, who has asked some good questions.
> > But , why do I have the feeling that you will not answer.
>
> I don't mind your views at all. I've been in the publishing industry for
> close to 20 years, the last thing I would support is censorship in any
> forum. Our reasons were disclosed here earlier and are far from censorship.
> In fact, if you would like webspace to publish your views on internet
> censorship, I'll provide it for free for 1 year. (as long as it doesn't
> slander anyone or break any laws) This offer is extended to you only since
> you are an authority on internet censorship.
Are you saying Don Doherty is an "authority" on internet
censorship? If so, since when?
Mr. Woods, it is impossible to "slander" anyone on the
internet. Slander is defamation via the spoken word or
gesture. You must mean libel. Don Doherty and his wife
libeled me and family members in Usenet, as did a fuklot
of posters!, some of whom are still doing so.
> > If I did business with you, Sir. I would be leaving as soon as I
> > could.
Agree!!!!
> That would be your CHOICE. It's certainly nice to live in Canada where one
> can make choices,
Then STOP trying to limit my CHOICE... you hypocrite!
From the newsgroup, I mailed you a copy of my PUBLIC follow-up
post to your post to let you know it also went off to CCN and
you replied with "offensive" email. Perhaps NetWorks should
terminate YOUR account! Then I replied with a Cc to DBIS to
explain why I'd mailed you the post and offered an apology
if you thought I meant you were one of my harassers, and
there are many. Then you want my account terminated. Do
you take the same action against NetWork clients??
> including declining to allow one's system to be used for
> SPAM
But there is some SPAM I want to receive... in particular
the SPAM about hair loss. *smile*
> and offensive emailing.
Who is going to decide what is offensive?
memnoch@feedme
so babs,
does your case worker at the welfare office know that you spend every waking mom
ent as a net fascist?
does your case worker know that you have spent THE TAXPAYERS MONEY on a computer
and a net connection when it should have been paying for your food and shelter?
does your case worker know that you are in fact a pig and are therefore not enti
tled to benefits that are meant for humans?
i suggest you get off your butt and get a job because the TAXPAYERS are tired of
paying for pigs on welfare.
oink
your pal,
memnoch
petedexter@feedme
> Barbara Amero wrote:
and everyone fell asleep ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.
petedexter@feedme
> Barbara Amero wrote:
and everyone fell asleep ZZZZZZZzzzzzz.
Barbara Amero
q59...@ilos.net wrote:
>
> x-no-archive:yes On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:27:34 -0800, Barbara Amero
> <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> >I don't want any apologies from you - a testerical, abusive,
> >power-driven man who has publicly made a fool of himself.
>
> we?
I'm not trying to make friends in here and certainly do not
want to be friends with that abusive man! Are you in here
looking for friends?
NOTE: This is not my social group! This is a public forum!
> >IMO you and NetWorks owe DBIS a private and public apology,
> >for your vicious public attack and the action you took.
>
> Actually if they are downline from your ISP, they can basically do
> whatever the hell they want to, and there is not one thing that you
> Barbara can do about it.
I don't know what downline means and I'm not trying to do
anything about it other than express my opinions in this
public forum and I plan to keep doing so until I no longer
want to!
gr...@grub.net
In article <34F5BD...@dbis.ns.ca>,
Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
<<< SNIP >>>
Barbara,
don't waste your time on these brownshirts. They proclaim freedom while
goostepping around their electric concentration camps. It appears to be a
concentrated effort to silence you.
Keep on fighting, it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
mlin...@bigfoot.com
RE-POST:
In article <6d2220$t2l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
mlin...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
> In article <34F454...@dbis.ns.ca>,
> Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > You are
> > harassing me.
> >
> And later.
> >
> > This is harassment! Certainly sending Christie's email that
>
> And again.
> >
> > What you're doing is harassment.
> >
> So I have harassed you three times in one post?????????
> Could you define "harassment"?
> It seems to me that it should be some sort of unwanted attention.
> If you don't want your views challenged, watch TV instead of posting to
> newsgroups.
> I've noticed that you challenge (harass) many other posters.
> Does calling me a "jerk" constitute harassment?
> When you can't answer a point made by me, it's called harassment.
>
> Mike (the jerk)
> PTQ
>
> Were you ever in a debating society?
Sean Smith
Barbara Amero (am...@dbis.ns.ca) wrote:
: Sean Smith wrote:
: I can't find the info since people complained about my
: conduct in Usenet and got my CCN account terminated ...
: should have kept my legs crossed and skirt covering my
: knees while posting, I guess. Think I mentioned that
: there is a good "cyberlible" web site put up by David
: Potts (lawyer in Toronto). I talked to him on the phone.
You wouldn't have the URL handy, would you? I'd be interested in taking a
look.
: I see you have moved to P.E.I.? I had a nice visit
: there in '91.
Indeed I have.
Sean Smith
--
Sean Smith aa...@chebucto.ns.ca
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada tss...@dbis.ns.ca
The contents of this message in no way reflect tss...@isn.net
the views of my employer, whatever entity that is at the time of posting.
fatboy@feedme
> R. Alan MacKenzie wrote:
>
> > Much as i hate censorship, I can't blame them for this action.
> > She will be back with another isp in no time at all. I feel
> > sorry for her new isp though.
> >
> > Al
>
> to Sympatico after you started the derogaotry, abusive thread
> about me and sent me at least 6 abusive emails within 15 minutes?
> I never got a reply from Sympatico. You see it's OK for MEN to
> make abusive libelous posts about women send women abusive,
> unsolicited, unwanted, harassing, sexually harassing threatening
> email. Well... it's OK for men to send such to other men. After
> all boys will be boys.... the men are just fooooooolin' around.
>
> Barbara A. Amero
Booooorrrriiinnnnnggggggggggggg!!!
memnoch@feedme
>I'm not trying to make friends in here and certainly do not
>want to be friends with that abusive man! Are you in here
simply by refusing to accept your offensive email he is abusive?
Barbara A Amero is a LIAR.
that is the issue at hand. YOU LIE.
your pal,
memnoch
brian
On 27 Feb 1998 02:14:30 GMT, aa...@chebucto.ns.ca (Sean Smith) wrote:
>Barbara Amero (am...@dbis.ns.ca) wrote:
>:think I mentioned that
>: there is a good "cyberlible" web site put up by David
>: Potts (lawyer in Toronto).
>You wouldn't have the URL handy, would you? I'd be interested in taking a
>look.
David A. Potts
Counsel to Deacon, Spears, Fedson & Montizambert
Barristers & Solicitors
Toronto, Canada
"Legal practice devoted to Libel and Reputation Management."
-=b=-
Mike Lindsay
In article <34F642...@dbis.ns.ca>, am...@dbis.ns.ca says...
>
>
>I'm not trying to make friends in here and certainly do not
>want to be friends with that abusive man!
Carefullllllll?!?!?!?!?
DOGBREATH@feedme
> Barbara,
> don't waste your time on these brownshirts. They proclaim freedom while
> goostepping around their electric concentration camps. It appears to be a
> concentrated effort to silence you.
>
> Keep on fighting, it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Hey TITHEAD. There ain't no worry 'bout Barbara Amero dyin'
on her feet, or living on her knees for that matter. She'd
hafta get up off her arse do either of those things.
It's be sumpthin' like askin' her ta git out and GIT A JOB.
You should get yourself a brown shirt.
It'd match your teeth.
Marc G. Fournier
>Subject: Usenet2: better regional group support
>From: mi...@cc.umanitoba.ca ()
>Date: 1997/08/22
>Message-ID: <mills.872261040@capella>
>Newsgroups: news.software.nntp
>
>[Subscribe to news.software.nntp]
>[More Headers]
>
>
>Since we are designing the successor to usenet, how about including
>a better scheme to support regional newsgroups? Presently, with
>nationwide or worldwide ISPs, it has become impossible to restrict
>articles to a geographic or logical region. This situation is made
>worse by people who cross-post their articles to all groups with a
>particular word (`jobs' or `forsale' for example) in the name.
>How can we make this work in a reasonable manner?
Wha a joke. The mechanism has been in place for this for sooooooo
many years now, but its been ignored for as long...its called a
Distribution header...
You can't restrict postings distributions by region unless everyone
in the region agrees to it though, since it will all leak out through that
one site.
See, what MBnet is doing is using an 'iron fist' tactic to control
the propogation of it, where they are basically saying "if you feed it out
of the province", we'll cut off your ability to post to/recv from these
hierarchies through us.
Where it is succeeding is that, for some odd reason, the ISPs in
Mantiba seem to feel that it matters whether or not MBnet is acting as a
central server.
For example, one of the ISPs in Manitoba that I've heard about
*doesn't* even get a news feed from MBnet, they get it from a US company...
except for the wpg.* and man.* groups.
My theory is that the mentality is that without MBnet acting as a
central hub, none of the ISPs in Manitoba will see what other sites aer
having posted to them. What they apparently haven't clued into is the
concept of multi-cross-feeds, where one ISP in Manitoba actually *talks* to
another one and cross-feeds news locally...
Its an odd concept, only been around for about 10 years or so *shrug*
--
Marc G. Fournier scr...@hub.org
Systems Administrator @ hub.org ICQ#7615664
scrappy@{postgresql|isc|freebsd}.org
Barbara Amero
Wh...@Up.Doc wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:09:28 -0800, Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca>,
> or someone using that name, wrote to All:
> [...]
> > I'll make a deal with you. If you get the accounts
> > terminated of all those gawd dang men who have
> > sent me offensive and abusive email, harassed
> > me via email, then I will give up my DBIS account.
> [...]
>
> She's adding new twists to her lies.
(quietly) we all tell lies... the problem for Jenkins is that
she tells the truth... obviously a threat for men....
> Isn't this blackmail, bribery and extortion.
Sounds more like a revengeful plea bargain......
Blackmail is extortion of payment in return for not disclosing
discreditable information, secret, etc. So it can't be blackmail
because I WANT to DISCLOSE discreditable information, secrets *8-)
Extortion is to obtain (money, secret, etc.) by force or threats
or intimidation. So it can't be extortion because I'm not forcing
Mr. Woods to do what I suggested, no threats or intimidation.
Bribery is inducement (esp. money) offered to procure illegal
or dishonest action in favour of giver. Hmm... well I best not
comment on that. Note, falsely accusing someone of blackmail and
extortion is libel, a type of libel that is actionable per se;
i.e. one does not have to show proof of damage.
> But I suspect that,
> realising her time is running out at DBIS, she's
> offering something she can't keep for something
> she can't have. The first part is inevitable. The
> second isn't going to happen.
Well, it don't make nonevermind what that fella suspects.
And I was safe IRT the deal offered to Woods.
> Sounds like a cancerous tumor telling a surgeon
> that it'll go away; if he'll just kill off the body it's
> been tormenting.
>
> Selective surgery could result in a complete
> cure. But only if the tumor's removal is publicised,
> to help prevent its resurfacing elsewhere.
"... if women have any duty at all essentially it's to be
a pain in the ass!" (Avital Ronell
> Gloating Gleefully,
> John Jenkins Sr. - dad...@thezone.net
Talk about a fella in denial.... he went to all that effort
to get my CCN account terminated to silence me; did it? No.
I was only without 'net access for a few hours, until I got
set up with (not by) my new ISP as we chatted about what's
goin' on in here. Then I had an offer of "personal" donations
to help pay for my new ISP sent to me via email from John van Gurp,
CCN Chair of the Policy Committee - out of "remorse", no less.
Now, seems to me, the one who should be "Gloating Gleefully"
is the "itch" Jenkins can't scratch......
Barbara A. Amero
Barbara Amero
Scarlet Pymp wrote:
(NetWorks Internet) wrote:
>
> :However, I would maintain that a net business does not have to be a
> :vehicle
> :for material that business deems disruptive to it's operation. ie.
> :numerous
> :unsolicited offensive emails
[snip pymp's discussion of Amero's genitals]
> You can't cut your customers off from the big
> boys, Mr. Networks, your customers won't put up with it and, hey,
> neither will the big boys.
Must mean the men with bigger power-suits who can take
those of Mr. NetWorks' to the cleaners......
> The days of the little ISP are pretty much over, Mr. Networks.
I don't believe that.... there will always be those who
want an atmosphere that is casual; who don't want to do
business with power-suits in high tech firms who hang out
in "the traditional industrial park, glass tower setting";
(more and more) who are fed up with "press one for..." and
want a real human being to answer the phone when they call
-- one who is an owner, never having to check with her/his
"supervisor" for anything. (Hollis Bartlett in Maritime
Computer Connections - http://www.klis.com/fundy/mcc.html )
I know this is so because I owned/operated a business from
a winterized two-car garage behind my house. One thing those
who I did business with (mostly retailers) in Western Canada
consistently stated is that they preferred to do business with
the "owner" who they could talk to, and not only talk to but
more importantly put a face to. Big companies, like Mondor in
Eastern Canada, were rejected by retailers not only because the
product I offered was the "best" (which it was!) but because of
the customer service they received directly from the "owner" --
a real human being (not a pathetic one) with whom they, mostly
women, could deal with on both a business and personal level.
To exemplify, one retailer shared the personal difficulties she
was having with her silent partner (who wasn't so silent). On the
other end, a man who'd always received the very best of service
called again wanting to know what was going on, and as I started
to put him off he said, "Quit the bullshit Barbara." So I did.
Told him that my husband and I were in the midst of negotiating
a separation so I was otherwise preoccupied. Whereupon he replied,
"No problem, I know you've never let me down."
Bartlett notes that "Real people and great service are
the cornerstone of DBIS, and may be just the edge over
the competition that will put this locally owned and
operated company on the map" -- owned by 3 Maritimers,
hold up in an historic section of downtown Halifax,
a location that was once a municipal stable. Such
provided interesting chit chat with a local man,
taxi driver, which lead to discussion of some other
historical sites I was not aware of, when I was on my
way to pay the owners of DBIS - one of whom politely
said, after at least an hour and closing time, it's time
for me to go.... and noted what he was going to do.
The fellas are right, that woman never shuts up.....
well, that's not entirely so, she did let those right
some nice men get on with their evening......
The reasons why those who choose a more expensive service
from "the little ISP, knowing they can get unlimited online
time for $22 bucks a month, are varied.
As I understand, N.S. has the highest use of Freenet. I'd
like to see only Freenets, tho' as I have experienced they
have their limitations in a capitalist society. IMO capitalism
sucks, should be abolished. However, I'm stuck in this mess,
i.e. our society, but with somewhat of a level of perception
to see where we're being done in -- as Menzies said in her talk
here a few years ago (sponsored in part by Chebucto Community Net),
the friendly fascism, inducement to embrace the new corporatist
system (e.g. colonization of Acadia University). But there will
always be those who resist being assimilated into these systems
(or TeamBronze *smile*), who won't let power-driven unscrupulous
men push them around.
Behind the silicon curtain, structures of communication
fundamentally determine what can be said, what can be heard.
The machine is all around us ... now live inside the machine,
being programmed .... total wrap around .... new reality
supplanted old social environment with no debate ... such
increasingly determines what we can work at, what we can say,
know and desire.... (quietly) fuck off Mr. NetWorks.
> It's time everyone learned to use the filters provided with
> his email software. I see you post with a Mac -- you should learn
> the ins and outs of Eudora.
"his"??? Well, I think it's safe to say, as tho' I didn't know,
the pymp is a man... or else a woman who thinks all the hers have
learned to use the filters provided with her email software, nah.
The problem with the pymp's comment, other than the obvious,
is that the filters don't filter out the first unwanted email.
> I bet your genitals are somewhat stinky too.
... "your" [sic] only assuming ....
OTOH _I_ *know* his attitude is somewhat stinky.
> ||That Damned Elusive Pimpernel||
||Couldn't care less, you Damned Fool||
Scott Miner
himself@feedME wrote:
> > Let me get this straight. You are now censoring an ISP and all it's
> > user's because of one individual?
>
> I think censorship is too grand a word here.
No, it isn't. It just isn't the right word. The right word is
"intimidation" but censorship fall in behind.
> It's not the issue.
I agree. The issue is a fairly subtle attempt to force an ISP to punt one
of their customers by inconveniencing all the others. Again, not censorship but
intimidation.
> NOBODY has been prevented from posting/airing their views PUBLICLY anywhere
> on the Internet Newsgroups, Web sites. IRC etc.
Agreed absolutely. The only newgroup censorship I am aware of is presently
occurring in Manitoba.
> E-mail is NOT public, and not a right. It's a pay-per-use service.
Agreed again but that is not the real issue.
> Some e-mail is not being delivered, that's all.
No, there's more. If the sysadmin didn't want the email delivered, he could
have quietly blocked that particular user's address and no one would be the
wiser. The "offensive email" would have been stopped. I believe a Mr. Hume
pointed that out quite eloquently.The only point to blocking an entire ISP's
domain and publicly announcing that fact is intimidation. The hope is to get
Ms. Amero removed from her ISP and that may well constitute censorship, if by
an indirect method.
> If a mailman refuses to deliver mail where there's a violent dog, or a family
> feud, is that censorship?
Hardly analogous. Your examples involve a physical threat. That can't
really be equated with hitting the "Delete" key when you see mail you don't
want.
> Let's get this in perspective.
Good advice. I hope that we can shift the focus to the attempted
intimidation of dbis.
Regards,
Scott
--
Scott G. Miner
Technologies Avante Garde Ltd.
smi...@total.net
http://www.total.net/~sminer
ICQ # 8726606
Scott Miner
NetWorks Internet wrote:
> In article <34F488...@dbis.ns.ca>, Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Darren Woods
> > You're a hypocrite.
>
> Someone talking to me? I can't hear you...
I find it curious that someone who goes to the trouble of blocking an entire
domain to elimenate email from a particular user of that domain would respond to a
message from said individual in a newsgroup. Interesting.
Barbara Amero
q59...@ilos.net wrote:
>
> x-no-archive:yes On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 12:27:37 -0800, Barbara Amero
> <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
> >
> >Talk about a fella in denial.... he went to all that effort
> >to get my CCN account terminated to silence me; did it? No.
> >I was only without 'net access for a few hours, until I got
> >set up with (not by) my new ISP as we chatted about what's
> >goin' on in here. Then I had an offer of "personal" donations
> >to help pay for my new ISP sent to me via email from John van Gurp,
> >CCN Chair of the Policy Committee -
>
> Policy Committee that offered you cash.
NOTE: I did *not* say _he_ offered me anything. I said,
the offer was sent to me via email from him. And if you
note above I said an offer of "personal" donations, which
means "personal" cash, not CCN cash! No wonder you don't
agree with me on anything; you don't understand what I'm
saying.
> ...although I find it very hard to beleive though, that a person like
> John van Gurp would get involved at all.
What do you mean by that? What is he like? I've not talked
to him F2F, but he's always been nice when talking to me
on the telephone. Even after my account was terminated he
told me that he has respect for me, and I've had CCN hat off
email communication in which he has expressed the same IRT
my participation in the newsgroup. I've always appreciated
him doing what I thought was his best to protect my freedom
to express myself in the newsgroups and on my homepage.
Certainly I have no respect for his behavior IRT my account
termination, tho' I don't know if he was in agreement with
the decision. He emailed saying that he was withdrawing, not
at my request, from discussion/decision IRT to the appeal of
my account termination. So, as far as I know, he did not vote
for or against the termination of my account at the time of
appeal. However, I suggest the decision was made before the
behind closed doors appeal process at which I was not present.
> and don't go off on a tirade Barbara, just prove it, and leave it at
> that.
Don't tell me what do; I'll express myself in the manner in
which I choose. You're free to read or not to read.
For obvious reason, I am reluctant to send anyone unsolicited
email, but if you give me permission to do so, I will email
you (Cc to him) the email in question -- as well as further
communication IRT this issue in which he notes that he suspects
the offer was "based on remorse for the termination decision."
He went on to say, "I certainly feel bad about the whole affair
and would understand others feeling the same."
Barbara A. Amero
Barbara Amero
Barbara Amero wrote:
>
> Wh...@Up.Doc wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:09:28 -0800, Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca>,
> > or someone using that name, wrote to All:
> > [...]
[glee snipping or was that glue sniffing]
> > Gloating Gleefully,
> > John Jenkins Sr. - dad...@thezone.net
>
> Talk about a fella in denial.... he went to all that effort
> to get my CCN account terminated to silence me; did it? No.
> I was only without 'net access for a few hours, until I got
> set up with (not by) my new ISP as we chatted about what's
> goin' on in here. Then I had an offer of "personal" donations
> to help pay for my new ISP sent to me via email from John van Gurp,
> CCN Chair of the Policy Committee - out of "remorse", no less.
> Now, seems to me, the one who should be "Gloating Gleefully"
> is the "itch" Jenkins can't scratch......
I should clarify the above IRT "remorse". John van Gurp
noted that he suspects the idea was based on "remorse"
for the termination decision, given that, as he noted,
he certainly feels bad about the whole affair and would
Barbara Amero
Scarlet Pymp wrote:
(NetWorks Internet) wrote:
>
> :However, I would maintain that a net business does not have to be a
> :vehicle
> :for material that business deems disruptive to it's operation. ie.
> :numerous
> :unsolicited offensive emails
[snip pymp's discussion of Amero's genitals]
> fucking nowhere. DBIS only has 3 customers, no one gives a fuck-up-
> a-rat's-ass if you cut them off.
I wouldn't assume (as so many do in here) that DBIS only
has 3 customers because I've seen only two women and one
man posting in here who are serviced by such. Are you in
here Nutless? How come ya took off after you forged the
email about me and got caught? Guess I'll have to start
callin' ya Gutless. You told the public that 'you know who'
is the only one posting in here with a dbis.ns.ca account
.... you can't see for lookin'. So, are you the one who sent
the bogus complaint to DBIS about me using remailer, posting
anonymously or whatever??? If so, guess I'll have to go back
to callin' ya Nit Wit.
> What will you do if Babs gets an account with Netcom?
> Sprint? Sympatico? ^^
^^
See what I mean by "assume" and "stuupit"?
So called Babs already has an account with "the big boys",
and the liddle boys in here don't know if she's usin' it
or not. *smile* As they said, "Cheers, I'm really
enjoying these talks." To which the fella replied,
"Me too. *smile*". Well, ya just never know when it's
one, too, three, four or more...... *smile* Life has
dealt some of us quite a few blows and that's why some
of us are so angry. *smile* Then there's those who have
been jerked around by men most of their lives. *smile*
Ran off the track here, sorta. So what will Mr. NetWorks
do if I send email some place he says I shouldn't, using
an account with "the big boys"?? Didn't he publicly
ass u me, because of his liddle block, that I could not
send email to his company, staff, clients?? Honestagawd,
smell, when I break the fast, how many ISPs ... the fellas
do get a liddle carried away with what they think they know.
BTW fellas don't try registering my name with "feedme".
Unbeknown to me, my secretary took care of that ...
right some efficient he is, and his services are gratis.
Barbara A. Amero
"Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what
you see." (Advice to Barbara Amero from her mother)
Barbara Amero
Scarlet Pymp wrote:
(NetWorks Internet) wrote:
>
> > :However, I would maintain that a net business does not have to be a
> > :vehicle
> > :for material that business deems disruptive to it's operation. ie.
> > :numerous
> > :unsolicited offensive emails
> >
What does he mean by that? Does that mean that the hundreds
of unsolicited offensive emails sent to my CCN mailbox could
have been disruptive to CCN's operation?
> Mr. Networks, I don't like the Amero bimbo,
^^^^^
Geez... is George the pymp??
> > and I have it on good authority that her genitals emit a foul odor,
> > described by some as "foetid."
I heard it was a variation, i.e. "fetid". That unsolicited,
unwanted email from ab...@chebucto.ns.ca noted that Amero
is not a "fetid cunt", she's "merely the life support system
for a fetid cunt". So what do you think of that Mr. NetWorks?
Would that make you hair curl if you got that in your mailbox?
Well, there I go making an assumption... it's hard not to do.
NetWorks Internet
> If the sysadmin didn't want the email delivered, he could
> have quietly blocked that particular user's address and no one would be the
> wiser. The "offensive email" would have been stopped. I believe a Mr. Hume
> pointed that out quite eloquently.The only point to blocking an entire ISP's
> domain and publicly announcing that fact is intimidation. The hope is to get
> Ms. Amero removed from her ISP and that may well constitute censorship, if by
> an indirect method.
Sir,
I consider this matter closed and done with but I felt compelled to respond
to your post. The above quote, although well written, amounts to an
assumption on your part. The ISP in question didn't see fit to respond to
multiple complaints about the user from another ISP. The user is well
known for certain reactions to posts in this newsgroup. One of our
complaints was sent to dbis 3 weeks ago or more.
Professional courtesy dictates at least a reply to complaints from ones
peers in an industry. This courtesy was not shown.
The bottom line is I have to read email that comes into my mailbox, it's my
business. The user in question admits sending at least 3 emails to a
"personal" mailbox after my post in this newsgroup. My post was clearly
marked at the bottom with my name, business name and website address.
Obviously not a personal post.
After getting the first email with offensive remarks from the user, I
returned it and in no uncertain terms told the user to cease. Two more
emails from the user followed shortly thereafter. See a trend? Since we
don't knowingly allow our clients to use our resources to abuse others, you
might understand why we won't allow our resources to be a vehicle for
abusive emails from dbis's clients.
All of these things lead to our decision. I say "our" because NetWorks is a
partnership and I don't act alone with regards to NetWorks. My business
partner, who is a woman, was unlucky enough to be the one who opened the
first mail from the abusive user of dbis. The language contained therein
offended us both.
We certainly don't intend intimidation of anyone. We don't care if dbis
provides abusive users with service. That would be their choice as our
choice is to block offensive mail and spam when it interferes with our
business. I would also say that if we called or emailed any other provider
we can think of, we wouldn't have to block any mail because the matter
would be dealt with promptly.
The fact that we made this public doesn't require a defence, it's obviously
of interest to many people in Halifax, Nova Scotia who have a unique
perspective on the matter. The abuse of this newsgroup by one user and the
libel of intelligent posters by that user is Nova Scotia's shame.
memnoch@feedme
dearest admiral,
is that an idiot wind blowing in from manitoba or your jealousy of a debate in w
hich you don't have the faculties to participate?
your pal,
memnoch
Barbara Amero
Scott Miner wrote:
>
> NetWorks Internet wrote:
>
> > In article <34F488...@dbis.ns.ca>, Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > > Darren Woods
> > > You're a hypocrite.
> >
> > Someone talking to me? I can't hear you...
>
> I find it curious that someone who goes to the trouble of blocking an entire
> domain to elimenate email from a particular user of that domain would respond
> to a message from said individual in a newsgroup. Interesting.
Yes, Scott, it is interesting... especially since he said in
his email that he'd never referred to me personally and never
will.... then refers to me. Really, if he got that upset with
my public post sent to his mailbox and doesn't want any
discussion with me, then why is he hitting on my posts in
the newsgroup and replying?? Masochistic?
=============================================
Subject: try that again and I'll sue
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 01:50:46 -0400
From: Darren Woods <netw...@daemon.ca>
To: Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca>
CC: acco...@dbis.ns.ca, sa...@dbis.ns.ca
[...]
I didn't ever write to you in newsgroups or email or offer for you to
write
me. I have never referred to you personally and never will.
If you send me another email like you just did, I'll personally sue you
and
your provider for harassment.
I have already warned your provider that I would take action against
them
and you if you targeted me or my business with your garbage.
Don't write to me, I don't want your crap in my email and I don't want
to
get into a discussion with you.
regards,
Darren Woods
NetWorks Internet - www.daemon.ca
==============================================================
Barbara Amero
Arthur D. Mira wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> In ns.general, netw...@daemon.ca (NetWorks Internet) wrote:
>
> <a little snip here>
>
> =>.................. One of our complaints was sent to dbis 3 weeks
> =>ago or more. Professional courtesy dictates at least a reply to
> =>complaints from ones peers in an industry. This courtesy was not
> =>shown.
So you think you should get special treatment. You elitist
little jerk. Chebucto Community Net has not replied to my
complaints about two of it's users made almost two months
ago. AOL never replied to my complaints. Sympatico has
not replied to my complaints. Well, at least there doesn't
appear to be any gender discrimination here.
If you're peers in an industry why didn't ya pick up the
gawd dang phone and give your peers a call. When I have
problems I call DBIS, if they're busy they return my
call. Reply to my call. Perhaps because I'm courteous
-- you certainly weren't in your email complaint to
me with Cc to DBIS.
BTW are you saying that DBIS has other users who cause
you grief? Or was your complaint one of the 13 bogus
complaints about me?
[...]
> You're so far down stream on the backbone, the only
> water you can claim is what you produce by pissing in
> wind.
I'm pissed off! I'm going to start posting with a MALE
name, so that I can use language as MEN do without any
gawd dang fuckin' complaints!
> Block any e-mail you want, and knock off the hyperbole.
> You're just making yourself, and Networks look more and
> more like a bunch of basement wankers.
Like I said, he is a JERK!
Barbara Amero
himself@feedme
> q59...@ilos.net wrote:
> > There you go again Barbara, being abusive, making friends again are
> > we?
>
> I'm not trying to make friends in here and certainly do not
> want to be friends with that abusive man! Are you in here
> looking for friends?
>
> NOTE: This is not my social group!
Yes it is Barbara. In fact it's your whole life.
Barbara Amero
Scott Miner wrote:
>
> himself@feedME wrote:
>
> > > Let me get this straight. You are now censoring an ISP and all it's
> > > user's because of one individual?
> >
> > I think censorship is too grand a word here.
>
> No, it isn't. It just isn't the right word. The right word is
> "intimidation" but censorship fall in behind.
>
> > It's not the issue.
>
> I agree. The issue is a fairly subtle attempt to force an ISP to punt one
> of their customers by inconveniencing all the others. Again, not censorship but
> intimidation.
Censor: offical with power to suppress whole or parts of books,
plays, films, letters, news, etc., on grounds of obscenity,
threat to security. IMO that describes what Mr. Woods did by
blocking the email (letters).
[...]
> > Some e-mail is not being delivered, that's all.
So only some email is being censored, suppressed, that's all.
I suggest that such doesn't affect you or you'd be complaining
about it.
> No, there's more. If the sysadmin didn't want the email delivered, he could
> have quietly blocked that particular user's address and no one would be the
> wiser. The "offensive email" would have been stopped.
BUT the problem here is that particular user had NO intention
of sending further email to Darren Woods beyond the public
follow-up post which was sent to him _ONLY_ because a copy went
to Chebucto Community Net. It was from the public newsgroup.
It was not private email communication. And it had nothing
to do with Darren Woods other than my brief reply to his
comments. The rest of the post was in relation to the
termination of my account and the ASSHOLES who harass me,
which had nothing to do with Darren Woods as far as I know.
When Darren Woods replied with email that had "try that
again and I'll sue" in the subject field with a Cc to my
ISP, I replied to the sender with a Cc to my ISP to explain
and defend myself. AND when the subject title is as such,
I don't not feel obligated to be polite!
Darren Woods attack on me in his email was not warranted.
If he wanted to tell me off for mailing him a copy of my
follow-up post to his post, fine. BUT acting testerical
and telling me what he'd do if I targeted him or his business
with my garbage is not warranted. I didn't even know he had
a business. AND if I've been sending email to his staff or
clients, it has most definitely NOT been "unsolicited".
*Rarely* do I send anyone I don't know unsolicted email.
> I believe a Mr. Hume
> pointed that out quite eloquently.The only point to blocking an entire ISP's
> domain and publicly announcing that fact is intimidation.
And disgusting. And dishonest. Darren Woods did not even give
DBIS an opportunity to respond to his complaint. He made his
complaint at 2 am and made his public announcement at 4:30 am.
Now, I seriously doubt that anyone at DBIS sits up all night
watching for complaints.
> The hope is to get Ms. Amero removed from her ISP and that
> may well constitute censorship, if by an indirect method.
LISTEN... when people try to prevent me from having
access to the Internet, that is CENSORSHIP! And it is
also GENDER DISCRIMINATION!! I'm in newsgroups, most
of the time the only known woman, with VERY ABUSIVE MEN
who are VERY ABUSIVE to me, who I and others find VERY
"offensive", who have libeled me, ridiculed me and my
family members, and they don't lose their accounts.
In fact, rarely does anyone publicly complain about them.
And I doubt that many people privately complain, tho'
some have. That is GENDER DISCRIMINATION!!
That is GENDER DISCRIMINATION!!!!
Over a period of two years, I've received much abusive
"offensive" email, including sexually harassing email
and threatening email, from men and no one, other than
CCN, ever did anything about it.
Did I tell Darren Woods he has a fetid dick? Did I tell
Darren Woods to tell his lover to shave and to spit
those pussy hairs out? Did I call him a pervert fag?
Did I tell him a battered women joke? Not once but twice
within 15 minutes? Did I tell him that the internet is no
place for a pig like him? Did I tell him his post was garbage?
Did I send him 88 emails in one night with "Stupid Bitch" in
the Subject field, with Stupid Bitch Shutup Already witten
ad nauseum in the text? Did I call Darren Woods a pathetic
human being who has contributed nothing to society?
> > If a mailman refuses to deliver mail where there's a violent dog, or a family
> > feud, is that censorship?
> Hardly analogous. Your examples involve a physical threat. That can't
> really be equated with hitting the "Delete" key when you see mail you don't
> want.
Sounds like the analogy is between me and a violent dog.
> > Let's get this in perspective.
Yes, please do. And men say women are irrational! Gawdhepus!
> Good advice. I hope that we can shift the focus to the attempted
> intimidation of dbis.
And what is that intimidation about? It's about Barbara Amero.
It's about getting rid of Barbara Amero. As Robert Speirs,
Chebucto Community Net user, said in his email to posters,
the easiest way to rid the Internet of Ms. Amero is not to
reply to her posts or email. He was emailing posters and
telling them not to reply to my posts or to send me email.
He sent that email to a few people I email with.... such
was forwarded to me. And posters have the gall to say I am
hateful. They should be ashamed of themselves!
SHAME on them! SHAME on them for an organized hate-mongering
campaign to get Barbara Amero's account terminated with the
intent to get her furture accounts terminated, to deny her
access the Internet, to silence her, to CENSOR her.
SHAME on them! SHAME on them for gang raping a woman.
Barbara A. Amero