Microsoft has removed 500+ groups, including 21 Windows-98 groups
in [Windows 98]
|
From: Jeff Richards on 19 Dec 2009 23:34 And we can confidently predict it will be as effective as you previous effort. http://www.us-cert.gov/reading_room/before_you_plug_in.html seems to be unchanged. How could that be? -- Jeff Richards ---------------------------------------- "MEB" <MEB-not-here(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OPWOiaNgKHA.2188(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > snip < > > Oh, here is a copy of the questions posed to Microsoft earlier this > morning: > > --- Original Message --- >>From : *****@****.com > Sent : Saturday, December 19, 2009 1:37:17 AM UTC > To : CNTUS.GNCS.NA.00.EN.000.000.CS.CMR.CUS.00.WB(a)css.one.microsoft.com > Subject : Microsoft's removal of newsgroups > > CONTACT INFORMATION > First Name: Maurice Edward, Brahier > > PRODUCT > Not Applicable > > QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS > Message: LEGAL QUESTIONS: > > Whether Microsoft intends to allow Usenet to continue fostering the > fraudulent continuance of the newsgroups recently removed, and whether > Microsoft intends to allow its newsgroups microsoft.public. to be used > in a manner inconsistent with its policies. Further, whether Microsoft > intends to allow the false and distinctly fraudulent creation of > newsgroups it has not created upon and within microsoft.public. news > groups.
From: MEB on 19 Dec 2009 23:54 On 12/19/2009 11:34 PM, Jeff Richards wrote: > And we can confidently predict it will be as effective as you previous > effort. > > http://www.us-cert.gov/reading_room/before_you_plug_in.html > seems to be unchanged. How could that be? REALLY< are you going on official record with that... The documents at CERT are CUED for modification. AND AS I NOTED, that document DOES NOT REFLECT what you attempted to state. IT SAYS INITIALLY. The document, as I specifically NOTED in the relevant discussion, could ONLY be mis-interpreted by someone WITHOUT the ability to comprehend what it FULLY STATES. You need to brush up on your reading skills. AND you should read the rest of the recommended materials at the site. That is, unless you want to remain a fool. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___---
From: Sunny on 19 Dec 2009 23:59 Well I though Maurice was a tad strange, now I know he is. :-) "Whether Microsoft intends to *allow Usenet* to continue fostering the fraudulent continuance of the newsgroups recently removed" <snip> "Jeff Richards" <JRichards(a)msn.com.au> wrote in message news:u4PR92SgKHA.2596(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > And we can confidently predict it will be as effective as you previous > effort. > > http://www.us-cert.gov/reading_room/before_you_plug_in.html > seems to be unchanged. How could that be? > -- > Jeff Richards > ---------------------------------------- > > "MEB" <MEB-not-here(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:OPWOiaNgKHA.2188(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> snip < >> >> Oh, here is a copy of the questions posed to Microsoft earlier this >> morning: >> >> --- Original Message --- >>>From : *****@****.com >> Sent : Saturday, December 19, 2009 1:37:17 AM UTC >> To : CNTUS.GNCS.NA.00.EN.000.000.CS.CMR.CUS.00.WB(a)css.one.microsoft.com >> Subject : Microsoft's removal of newsgroups >> >> CONTACT INFORMATION >> First Name: Maurice Edward, Brahier >> >> PRODUCT >> Not Applicable >> >> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS >> Message: LEGAL QUESTIONS: >> >> Whether Microsoft intends to allow Usenet to continue fostering the >> fraudulent continuance of the newsgroups recently removed, and whether >> Microsoft intends to allow its newsgroups microsoft.public. to be used >> in a manner inconsistent with its policies. Further, whether Microsoft >> intends to allow the false and distinctly fraudulent creation of >> newsgroups it has not created upon and within microsoft.public. news >> groups. > >
From: MEB on 20 Dec 2009 00:26 On 12/19/2009 11:59 PM, Sunny wrote: > Well I though Maurice was a tad strange, now I know he is. :-) > > "Whether Microsoft intends to *allow Usenet* to continue fostering the > fraudulent continuance of the newsgroups recently removed" <snip> > What part of *allow* do you not understand. > > "Jeff Richards" <JRichards(a)msn.com.au> wrote in message > news:u4PR92SgKHA.2596(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> And we can confidently predict it will be as effective as you previous >> effort. >> >> http://www.us-cert.gov/reading_room/before_you_plug_in.html >> seems to be unchanged. How could that be? >> -- >> Jeff Richards >> ---------------------------------------- >> >> "MEB" <MEB-not-here(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:OPWOiaNgKHA.2188(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> snip < >>> >>> Oh, here is a copy of the questions posed to Microsoft earlier this >>> morning: >>> >>> --- Original Message --- >>> >From : *****@****.com >>> Sent : Saturday, December 19, 2009 1:37:17 AM UTC >>> To : CNTUS.GNCS.NA.00.EN.000.000.CS.CMR.CUS.00.WB(a)css.one.microsoft.com >>> Subject : Microsoft's removal of newsgroups >>> >>> CONTACT INFORMATION >>> First Name: Maurice Edward, Brahier >>> >>> PRODUCT >>> Not Applicable >>> >>> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS >>> Message: LEGAL QUESTIONS: >>> >>> Whether Microsoft intends to allow Usenet to continue fostering the >>> fraudulent continuance of the newsgroups recently removed, and whether >>> Microsoft intends to allow its newsgroups microsoft.public. to be used >>> in a manner inconsistent with its policies. Further, whether Microsoft >>> intends to allow the false and distinctly fraudulent creation of >>> newsgroups it has not created upon and within microsoft.public. news >>> groups. >> >> > > -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___---
From: 98 Guy on 20 Dec 2009 00:30
MEB wrote: > > You seem to think that just because Microsoft originally created > > these groups on it's own NNTP server, that such an event > > constitutes ownership of them regardless where they subsequently > > exist. > > And THAT *FACT* is the *ONLY* relevant matter. Microsoft created > the groups and OWNS THEM. Then why did they not object when those groups were created on other servers? Why did they not object to the "sucking" of posts from their servers and injection into the other servers? Why did they not broadcast group-delete and check-group messages to the rest of usenet when they remove some groups from their server? Why are you evading answering those questions? Microsoft's actions are not consistent with your assertion that their control of these groups extend to servers beyond their own. |