Most intelligent people know a warning when they see one. People who
disregard warnings from their providers are not most intelligent people.

Uni and Artist Mike have been annoying people for years. There comes a
point when having a good group matters more than letting one person or a
handful of people deliberately disrupt it for months or years on end.

Good trolls can play without breaking the groups they play with.
Someone who posts to Usenet to be deliberately malicious and claims that
people just shouldn't respond to words on a screen is asking that people
not respond to language -- and people seem to be hardwired to do this as
in the wild, responding to language can save lives.

Some of us have trained ourselves out of these responses to language,
but there comes a point where getting rid of people who take pleasure in
annoying others and claiming anyone who gets annoyed shouldn't has its
own pleasure.

Umm, Fred? You do know that you are talking to one of Mike's socks
don't you?

Mike's posting privs were revoked for a different reason that what Uni
was warned about. The fact that both are TOSable offenses is the only
thing they have in common.

Ed

Exactly wrong. Supernews is showing itself to be not that
much better than Uni by joining in too many tiffs, and by
voicing (personal) opinions. At most.

I have questioned them about that in the past and drew the
conclusion that personally I would not want them as my news
provider because to my taste they discuss their users too
much (publicly) with other users.

The difference with Uni is that they have the 'power' of
banning and denying access to their server.

Post-editing can be done in several ways. Uni's ways often
seem fun or even harmless but sometimes they are aimed at
defamation and they aren't always based on truth. As I did
when he posted lies about me in order to discredit me,
Supernews in my view is free to use the means it has to
counteract his less harmless attempts to defame people.
Defending oneself is part of 'free speech' too and would
only not be so to those overlooking the content and intent
of lies for some personal goal.

Joske

Just for your edification Roy is an ArtistMike Sockpuppet.
The giveaways since he has not a clue how to hide these things are
that the post comes from Astraweb and the header:
User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022

The other giveaway is who else defends the 'Tard, attacks SN and is a
moron? The answer: Spammer ArtistMike and all its sockpuppets, frogs
and forgeries.

'Ratz

Which is not what the person you are defending is doing. He
could indeed write 'I disagree' or 'I don't like you' or 'I
want you to like me'. Or whatever he really thinks and
feels, as you put it. Instead he twists their literal words
and will never be open to a straight discussion. That is not
free speech and has nothing whatsoever to do with the
principle thereof.

Joske

In real life, anyone who went to a non-public gathering and was as
disruptive and malicious as Artist Mike and Uni wouldn't find their
actions protected as free speech.

Free speech, as it is defined by the first amendement to the U.S.
constitution, says only that the "...Conress shall make no law ... abridging
the freedom of speech...."

Calling this a free speech issue is silly and just confuses what free speech
really is. Government isn't involved here and the only guarantee you get is
that they will not make any law preventing your free speech, and that's not
absolute. You never get a guarantee that you be able to use other people's
property as you see fit to make yourself heard.

Fred Doyle

Or...or they are people that think the price is too high for the ability to
post in newsgroups... and they are not willing to pay the price asked by the
news provider. The price being their self-limiting, self-censorship of what
they wish to write and how they wish to write in the newsgroups.

So they choose to not pay the price being asked by the news provider and
instead pay the price that all free people must pay...

People do not have a right to NOT be annoyed. In fact free people support
the rights of other people to annoy them. That is one very small price that
all free people pay... they know that at some point someone will annoy them
in a free and open society.

A group can't "Disrupt" a newsgroup by just posting messages. It takes the
help of the entire newsgroup to make a newsgroup "disrupted".

You know that.

Your definition of "good" may not be mine.

Yes, that is what such people are asking of you. They are asking you to
control yourself.

So we each do as we wish and that is as it should be.

Supernews throws it's weight around in the newsgroups way too much for my
taste. They flaunt their ability to censor people at their own whim, and
then rewrite their TOS later after they have done the censoring.

That is just one of their flaws.

And for reasons that are not in the TOS but only added later.

Take it to the newsgroup and rebut his untruths.

They are not lawyers. They are not a court system. They should keep their
noses out of this area because they are not qualified to decide such things.

If you feel that Uni and defamed you, then take it to court.

That is why you take it to the newsgroup and defend yourself.

What you imagine is not important to me.

Move on.

Don't forget this one also.

hahahaha.

Hard shit spammer mikey.
Some of us don't pay a bean to post to Usenet.

I am writing my opinion. If you see it as defending "Uni", you are in
error.

I am defending my right to write my opinions as I wish, wherever I wish.

What "Uni" chooses to do is not my concern.

That is not my problem, nor responsibility.

Your opinion is noted, but it has little to do with what "Uni" is allowed to
do.

Newsgroups are both public and private. They have qualities of both
situations. Thus your confusion.

I use the system as I wish, and if I choose to call it Free Speech, then
that is what it is.

You are free to call it limited free speech if you wish. I don't care.

That is why your kind will always fail in a newsgroup. Your kind always
resorts to violence to gain what you desire. But in a newsgroup you can't
do that. So you always fail.

hahahahaha.

Ask your mommy.

OK, where is it written in the laws of this country that a private
company has to allow free speech? The government has to, but not private
companies.

Likewise a private company is not capable of censoring what individuals
say. That's only something that a government can do.

A private company is not censoring when they are enforcing their rules,
written or not, about what they will or will not allow their customers to
post. In a broad sense, they are nothing more then a newspaper editor.
If you don't like the rules at one company, there are others to choose
from.

--
Ed

http://www.geeks.org/~ed/Usenet_Servers.html
strip to reply

If Supernews does not update their web site TOS soon, I'll construct one
for them.

:-)

Uni

Huh?

Post the links to the free speech web site by just spelling the word "dot"
instead of typing a "."

What was the web site?

Spell out the web link...

Or just don't put the http:// in front of it... that should let it go
through.

Ya Right! Mike.

J.P.

Supernews has been in business, what 10 years? All the sudden they are
concerned with cute post editing? Bullshit.

:-)

I caught them banning links to a free speech site. Was post rejected in
a reply, just like Artist Mike's URL was.

:-)

Uni

Glad you agree.

Yep, that's what the problem is.

Then don't join them.

Try telling the truth next time.

They wouldn't find their actions protected as free speech in a public
place, either.

One thing that *really* pisses me off is people who act like total
assholes and then hide behind the banner of "free speech", claiming it
somehow applies to them. They don't even understand what it means, and
when they proceed to whine about "censorship", they don't understand
that, either.

--
Jeremy | [Email Removed]

Here's how professional Supernews (a Critical Path owned company) is,
sicking Brandon on me, for the x-teenth time:

Brandon - Supernews Support wrote:

..

Calling you both fuckheaded wankbadgers doesn't mean we[tinw] think you're
the same person.

Was in the news:alt.config group, awhile back. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Thanks.

Uni

One other thought. Not many other NSP are owned by a larger company,
like Critical Path owns Supernews. I have to assume Supernews doesn't
care much about making a profit, because the larger company will carry
them. This is why Supernews has such a fat staff and tons of time to
play in usenet, while other NSPs work hard.

I have never seen where a parent company (Critical Path) does not
mention the sister company (Supernews) on their web site.

Makes one wonder why.

Uni

Little news for you... it is not your right to be protected from "assholes".
You don't have the right to not be offended.

In words that you might understand, you are going to be offended by someone
in a free speech society, that is your guarantee.

"Asshole-ness" is protected by free speech. Get use to it.

You use that protection every day.

It was determined by the Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler (FNVW) of
news:alt.usenet.kooks for purposes of usenet k00kery that the Unitard
and the Spammer ArtistMike (and all associated Socks, Frogs &
Forgeries) are one. This is defined as either one unit having 2
personalities or two units sharing the same brain. So for purposes of
these and future discussions all references to one unit shall apply to
the other.

I do like the "fuckheaded wankbadgers" and promise to use it without
reference to whom I stole it from.

'Ratz


--

A Number 1, Grade A, Prime USDA 'Ratz
Accept No Substitute

You and your invisible friends can think whatever you wish, but you are a
goofball.

Don't get so upset. Enjoy this silliness.

People obviously have some problem understanding what the terms "free
speech" and "censorship" really mean, but so what. Some think that whatever
they say ok, because they have "free speech" everyone will support their
right to say it. It sounds like a few may be getting a direct lesson in what
free speech really means and what its real limits are.

I loved this line from above. "I use the system as I wish, and if I choose
to call it Free Speech, then that is what it is." In other words, "If I call
my a$$ my elbow, then it is my elbow, and even if everyone else says I don't
know my a$$ from my elbow, I must because I say so."

Talk about a poor confused soul. I laughed a long time at that silliness.

Fred Doyle

If I choose to say my postings are protected speech, and I have broken no
law, then I am correct --- and there is nothing you can do about it.

lol, word definitions seem to give you trouble; first the definition of
"free speech" then the definition of "correct." You ARE a funny guy.

I agree. Too bad you still don't understand the fundamental concept.

--
Jeremy | [Email Removed]

I understand it well enough for my needs. As to your needs, they are not my
concern.

Try going to a city counsel meeting and talking all you want and seeing
where that gets you, for that matter.

Oh, what a surprise.

Only really sick individuals try to claim that they have a right to be
annoying and that we should just ignore them.

Supernews didn't think so and didn't allow so, so what you have proven
is that other people correctly call you nuts.

In real life, annoying people for years is often prosecuted as stalking.
You and Uni aren't just making annoying statements in the support of a
high belief. You're deliberately making annoying statements for years
on end, disrupting other people's conversations.

I used to support people who were annoying on line, but there comes a
time when the good conversations between people who respect each other,
even with a few ugly words (and Robert and I have exchanged some in the
past) is worth more collectively than one or two people's right to be
ugly.

And I don't believe in free speech. Historically, it's lead to flabby
art.

Supernews has shown themselves to not be a valid judge. They lie, they use
forged data to attempt to justify their acts, they make up rules and then
add them later to the TOS.

So I judge them to be irrelevant. Just like you.

Only fearful individuals think they have a right to be protected from
annoyance.

You are still attempting to use real life to explain newsgroups. They are
not the same.

Thus your level of confusion.