|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
June 6th 05, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Riley
: On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 08:42:41 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t wrote: :Bertie the Bunyip wrote: : : : It doesn't. It says what subject matter is allowed. ISP's : are required to use terms of service that require their : members to comply with the charter. : : :, no they aren't.. : :If they don't, and the members from that ISP repeatedly :violate the charters of usenet, then access to the group is :cut off. Todd, after some of the wars that have run through the various Rec.Av groups, your claim is - well, quaint. Amusing. Charming. Like a 4 year old girl explaining to the mailman that kissing a boo-boo makes it better. And while somewhere on paper it may be correct, here in the real world it's about as true as Ptolemy. You can cite charters - we've dealt with lawsuits. : :Try komplaining to mine, sunshine... : :I have no plan to do so. This is a gentle reminder, even if :you plan to ignore your responsibilities. Some ISP somewhere might yank your access for being off topic. Maybe. But I doubt it. Alt.net - where Bertie is posting from - most certainly won't, that's one of the reasons they exist. God bless 'em. Sniff! Mine - the cursed Adelphia at the moment - won't. Google won't. AOL won't. They might if you were genuinely spamming the usenet - but spam on usenet is pretty much suppressed technically these days. I'm tempted to introduce him to some... interesting people, but I haven't the time. I gotta go make a wing. Bertie 
|
|
#22
June 6th 05, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message My responsibility is to behave ccording to the user's agreement of my provider. Period. Your right and Google could construe this paragraph in a way that they could cut you off. " a.. interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks connected to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Service; " Not that they will. Gone are the days that providers gave a crap about USENET. As as example I was having problems with my providers USENET feed a week or so ago. I had to go through 4 customer service people before I found one that even knew they had USENET server even after I gave them the name and IP address of the server.
|
|
#23
June 6th 05, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet
sednews:qx_oe.25803$DC2.25072@okepread01: "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message My responsibility is to behave ccording to the user's agreement of my provider. Period. Your right and Google could construe this paragraph in a way that they could cut you off. Google could try! " a.. interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks connected to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Service; " Not that they will. Gone are the days that providers gave a crap about USENET. those were the days. Sigh. As as example I was having problems with my providers USENET feed a week or so ago. I had to go through 4 customer service people before I found one that even knew they had USENET server even after I gave them the name and IP address of the server. He he. Yeah. I think most people only have contact with each pther through Ebay nowadays. Bertie
|
|
#24
June 6th 05, 10:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
T o d d P a t t i s t
: Richard Riley wrote: Todd, after some of the wars that have run through the various Rec.Av groups, your claim is - well, quaint. Amusing. Charming. Like a 4 year old girl explaining to the mailman that kissing a boo-boo makes it better. And while somewhere on paper it may be correct, here in the real world it's about as true as Ptolemy. You can cite charters - we've dealt with lawsuits. Lawsuits - so what? All I'm pointing to is the rules. It would be nice if people abide by them. That's the point, the rules are only what the consensus of providers say they are. and that's not written in stone anywhere.. Bertie
|
|
#25
June 7th 05, 04:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bertie the Bunyip wrote: ... That's the point, the rules are only what the consensus of providers say they are. and that's not written in stone anywhere.. Consensus of users, not providers. UseNet has a defined process whereby users vote to establish groups. -- FF
|
|
#26
June 7th 05, 01:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com,
wrote: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: ... That's the point, the rules are only what the consensus of providers say they are. and that's not written in stone anywhere.. Consensus of users, not providers. UseNet has a defined process whereby users vote to establish groups. Fred, you should *know* better than to assert that. That 'consensus of users' is meaningful *ONLY* because there is a consensus of providers to listen to the opinions of the users when expressed that way.. Nothing _requires_ that they do so. *LOTS* of stuff happens _without_ going through that process, either. e.g. the _entire_ "microsoft.*" hierarchy.
|
|
#27
June 7th 05, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote: T o d d P a t t i s t m: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: It doesn't. It says what subject matter is allowed. ISP's are required to use terms of service that require their members to comply with the charter. , no they aren't.. If they don't, and the members from that ISP repeatedly violate the charters of usenet, then access to the group is cut off. Nope. Yup. *LOTS* of places drop _everything_ from alt.net on the floor for that precise reason. Try komplaining to mine, sunshine... I have no plan to do so. This is a gentle reminder, even if you plan to ignore your responsibilities. My responsibility is to behave ccording to the user's agreement of my provider. That is the extent of your _legal_ responsibility, yes. "moral" responsibility extends to include recognizing that _other_people_ make their resourses available to you "at no cost" on the expectation that you will use those resources _only_ for the intended purposes. Alt.net, corporately, doesn't think that that "respect for other's property" is important. Alt.net users have rather spotty propogation of their postings as a result. Everybody ends up happy.
|
|
#28
June 7th 05, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
T o d d P a t t i s t
: "karel" wrote: As I pointed out before, I never saw a charter for this place news://rec.aviation.homebuilt strange though I found that. It's not unusual for the charter for a usenet group to be lost, but to be formed in the first place required a charter and a vote. The charter for r.a.h came from the original charter for rec.aviation before it split. Much stranger is it to find people like Todd Pattist (who has appeared well-educated and polite) referring to "rules" unsubstantiated The rules of all usenet forums include a requirement that people stay on-topic and not post commercial messages unless the charter specifically permits such. Most forums I follow have a charter, posted weekly, ut I never saw such a thing round here That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, nor does it mean you can post commercial messages, nor post off-topic. I agree we can dispute what on-topic means in the absence of research to find the lost charter, but Gore's claims or non-claims relative to the Internet are not going to be on-topic. under rec.aviation's old charter or r.a.h's split off charter. And do not believe providers can impose rules. They can't. They can only be required to restrict their own customers and they can only be cut off from access to usenet if they fail to do so. Bull****. Mine will alllow m to post anything I want here, including binaries and "the Cabal" won't touch them for it. Bertie
|
|
#29
June 7th 05, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#30
June 7th 05, 02:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
