jabriol@fastmail.fm wrote:
> DE wrote:
>
...
>>From your point of view. My point of view is quite different. The woman
> has spread a lie about me. I am sure that if she posted your address,
> telephone number, congregation and then said you banged your daughter
> and got her pregnant, you will be happy with glee, and would not do a
> thing about it.
> then again as I mentioned, you don't understand the dynamics of usenet.
_I_ don't understand the dynamics of usenet?
Unlike you, I know that news admins have no interest in involving
themselves in flame wars.
Unlike you, I know that if there is any basis to any of your complaints,
the matter should be settled in court and not by people who have nothing
to do with it (such as news admins who are just running a business) whom
you are trying to blackmail into taking a position in something that is
between two private parties.
>
> Other news administrators don't want the bad reputation that comes with
> a person like Carol. That why after many years HOT dumped her, and many
> NSP provider did likewise. For Carol it is a matter of time before she
> slips, and end up in front of a judge, and her NSP and ISP will be
> equally responsible, courtesey of Bin Ladden and the present way of
> buissnes being conducted in america.
I just love the way you bring the kitchen sink into these discussions.
>
>>Robb has sense enough to not can people just for being annoying; in
>>fact, if he cut customers on that basis, he'd likely not have much of a
>>customer list left.
>
> And yet, Mike, Dimitri and others don't seem to have this problem. Does
> he provide such poor service that he must take on customers who are
> downright dregs of usenet society and not wanted by more respectable
> services?
> such a shame indeed.
Mike did not cut Carol; he asked her to not use his service, and she
complied. In fact, Carol has been far more considerate and compliant in
dealing with news admins than you have.
As for Dmitry, I'll admit to overlooking him (primarily because I can't
consider him a serious provider) since he cuts anyone who annoys *him*,
even anyone who might mention his server without his permission. Of
course, it's not clear if he would cut someone for annoying someone
else; Dmitry's concerns seem to be only his personal opinion and not
whether someone is engaged in a flame war (such things being ho-hum
common on Usenet.)
>
>>"Annoying" is not a basis for cutting anyone, since
>>it's "in the eye of the beholder"; even the restrained-behavior-loving
>>Supernews doesn't cut customers for being "annoying", even if they
>>"annoy" one person who complains as loudly and persistently as you have.
>
>
> but they do cut off people who break the law. Because they are aware of
> the problems asociated with Carol type of behaviour. Some even has a
> 200 dollar clean up fee. This why Carol look for freeservers.
Carol has not broken the law; if she had, you wouldn't be in here
obsessively whining. You KNOW she hasn't broken the law; what she has
done is annoy you, and apparently you have such an obsessive mindset
that you would spend your entire life posting here on and on and on, ad
nauseum, because it's all you can think about. I gather you have no
real people in your life, no job, no real life, etc. given the fact that
the only thing you seem to do is post Carol-obsessing posts day after
day after day ... and then you expect _anyone_ to take your complaints
seriously, when you are so much more guilty of EMP, ECP, and general
obsessive excess than the person you're complaining about?
It's a tired phrase and not one I tend to use, but: Get a life!
Maybe if you venture outside your door and talk to a real person once in
a while, you will eventually come to recognize that you have spent
hours, days, weeks, months just trying to go after one person with whom
you have a disagreement of opinion.
>>And Robb has absolutely no reason to remove ARJW from his newsgroup
>>list; he may have other customers who choose to read it, and it has a
>>valid charter.
>
> yeah.. what Charter? what FAQ? I am ARJW since day one. maybe I miss
> something, please do inform me, what did I miss when I help to create
> the group so long ago.
'Scuse me? This is hardly the first time you suggested I said something
that I never said; just where did I mention a "FAQ", which is meaningless?
I mentioned a charter; I don't see your name at all in the archives ...
I wonder how that could be when you claim that you did "help to create
the group":
> From alanl@nando.net Fri Mar 22 19:49:34 1996
> Path: uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!castle.nando.net!news
> From: Alan Liverance
> Newsgroups: control.newgroup
> Subject: cmsg newgroup alt.religion.jehovahs-witn Approved
> Control: newgroup alt.religion.jehovahs-witn Approved
> Date: 23 Mar 1996 00:47:16 GMT
> Organization: Nando.net Public Access
> Lines: 17
> Message-ID: <4ivhmk$659@castle.nando.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: vyger1301.nando.net
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
> Xref: uunet control.newgroup:8960
>
> For your newsgroups file:
> alt.religion.jehovahs-witn For the open discussion of beliefs (past & present) amongst
> current and former members of Jehovah's Witnesses
>
> Approved: alanl@nando.net
> UNMODERATED
>
> This newsgroup was originally PROPOSED and put up for discussion on CONTROL as
> alt.religion.jw. Numerous messages of support for it's creation have been received by
> both current and former members who currently participate in open and free disucssion
> in several non-specific to Jehovah's Witnesses newsgroups. This is to consolidate those
> discussions under one easy-to-locate newgroup. Current active discussions are maintained
> in atl.religion.christan and talk.religion.misc as well as several e-mail based groups,
> Jesus-witnesses et. al. Final name was arrived at thru discussion, it being agreed upon
> that alt.religion.jw would not be clearly descriptive of it's mission.
>
>
>
> From grobe@netins.net Sun Mar 16 10:10:05 1997
> Path: news.isc.org!uunet!in3.uu.net!167.142.225.6!newsrelay.netins.net!news.netins.net!grobe
> From: grobe@netins.net (Jonathan Grobe)
> Newsgroups: alt.config,alt.religion.jehovahs-witn
> Subject: cmsg newgroup alt.religion.jehovahs-witn
> Control: newgroup alt.religion.jehovahs-witn
> Date: 16 Mar 1997 18:00:57 GMT
> Organization: netINS, Des Moines, IA, USA
> Lines: 22
> Approved: grobe@netins.net
> Message-ID:
> NNTP-Posting-Host: worf.netins.net
> X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.3.2 UNIX)
> Xref: news.isc.org control.newgroup:2593
>
> For your newsgroups file:
> alt.religion.jehovahs-witn Jehovah's Witnesses.
>
> While this was discussed in alt.config several months ago the control
> message was defective resulting in the group being created at very
> few sites.
>
> From the proponent: Alan Liverance
>
> This newsgroup was originally PROPOSED and put up for discussion
> alt.religion.jw. Numerous messages of support for it's creation have been
> received by both current and former members who currently participate in
> open and free disucssion in several non-specific to Jehovah's Witnesses
> newsgroups. This is to consolidate those discussions under one
> easy-to-locate newgroup. Current active discussions are maintained
> in atl.religion.christan and talk.religion.misc as well as several e-mail
> based groups, Jesus-witnesses et. al. Final name was arrived at thru
> discussion, it being agreed upon that alt.religion.jw would not be clearly
> descriptive of it's mission.
>
> --
> Jonathan Grobe
>
> From grobe@netins.net Sat Mar 22 09:12:04 1997
> Path: news.isc.org!uunet!in1.uu.net!167.142.225.6!newsrelay.netins.net!news.netins.net!grobe
> From: grobe@netins.net (Jonathan Grobe)
> Newsgroups: alt.config,alt.religion.jehovahs-witn
> Subject: cmsg newgroup alt.religion.jehovahs-witn
> Control: newgroup alt.religion.jehovahs-witn
> Date: 22 Mar 1997 16:58:38 GMT
> Organization: netINS, Des Moines, IA, USA
> Lines: 22
> Approved: grobe@netins.net
> Message-ID:
> NNTP-Posting-Host: worf.netins.net
> X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.3.2 UNIX)
> Xref: news.isc.org control.newgroup:2927
>
> For your newsgroups file:
> alt.religion.jehovahs-witn Jehovah's Witnesses.
>
> While this was discussed in alt.config several months ago the control
> message was defective resulting in the group being created at very
> few sites.
>
> From the proponent: Alan Liverance
>
> This newsgroup was originally PROPOSED and put up for discussion
> alt.religion.jw. Numerous messages of support for it's creation have been
> received by both current and former members who currently participate in
> open and free disucssion in several non-specific to Jehovah's Witnesses
> newsgroups. This is to consolidate those discussions under one
> easy-to-locate newgroup. Current active discussions are maintained
> in atl.religion.christan and talk.religion.misc as well as several e-mail
> based groups, Jesus-witnesses et. al. Final name was arrived at thru
> discussion, it being agreed upon that alt.religion.jw would not be clearly
> descriptive of it's mission.
>
> --
> Jonathan Grobe
...
> Mike from readfree
Answered above.
> Dimitry from x-priwhatever
Answered above.
> Heart Of Tenn. ( she was caught downloading kiddy porn, then she blame
> it on a "john stillman" as well as accused me of doing it, also she
> impersonated the owner, and poof cut off like a blown appendix)
And you know this HOW? You have proof of it, yet you have not taken
that to a lawyer? You have examined her computer and found she was
downloading kiddy porn? If not, just how can you make such outrageous
claims?
>
> of course if you calling these guys stupid... your problem.
Hmmm, the only person who called them "stupid" was you ... I don't see
anywhere that I made any such evaluation of any of those news admins,
and I am quite sure that Mike is aware of the respect I have for him.
But then again, he's not stupid enough to get involved in your petty
flame war, either.
Now Dmitry, well ... I do think his attitude about people linking to his
site is stupid, but that wasn't what we were discussing, was it?
>
>
>>So why don't you let it go? If you ignore her, she might ignore you,
>
> not gonna happen, even when I dont post, she regurgitate the same ole crap.
> this does not work with Carol.
And you know this how? You stopped posting for a day, or was it a whole
two days that you managed to rein in your obsession?
I said "let it go", not "take a short break". Walk away from it, go get
a life, stop trying to drag news admins and everyone else into things,
stop imagining every poster you never heard of is Carol, stop
cross-posting to irrelevant groups, STOP RESPONDING.
>
>
>>and then you won't make such an ass of yourself seeing ghosts in every
>>shadow and proving yourself more every day, with every post you make, to
>>be completely removed from the real world or any semblence of rationality.
>
> the only person looking the ass is you for being a cracklin apologist.
Another bit of proof of your complete lack of rational thought; nobody
would call me an apologist for anyone, but I do think you are a lot more
whacked and obsessed than the person you are so intent on stalking (yes,
you are stalking and harassing her) and, in any case, it gives me a nice
outlet for my daily rant (I'm only allowing myself one per day, as a
rule, but the urge to rant at you is probably understandable to anyone
who's read even a few of your obsessive posts.)
>
>>Or is this the only life you have, Carol-obsessing, and you just don't
>>have anything else to occupy your time?
>
> if you wish to belive..
You give no indication of having any life at all, beyond your
Carol-obsession. It is not a matter of what I "wish to belive [sic]"
but of what you demonstrate day-in-and-day-out.
>
> But if robb cans the account, the noise level will drop. I will not
> settle for less.
>
As I said, a blackmailer.
What's really ironic is that I've been one of the people who has
compained to Robb that he should tighten up his server against *real*
spammers, and he's finally done that, but he has my complete support
(not that he needs it!) for his refusal to get involved in a
garden-variety flame war, especially when the complainant is someone
(you) who posts more excessively than the person being complained about,
not to mention your attempts at blackmailing NSPs to try to get them to
refuse service to someone on the basis of the fact that you don't like
what they have to say.
To repeat: GET A LIFE.
-- DE
|
|