pcbutts!
in [Spyware]
|
Prev: free hosting
Next: Discover System Updater
From: kurt wismer on 14 Oct 2007 17:21 Heather wrote: > "kurt wismer" <kurtw(a)sympatico.ca> wrote in message > news:ferh01$s4h$1(a)registered.motzarella.org... >> pcbutts1 wrote: >>> http://www.blogger.com/profile/16857468123137696406 >>> >> from the site: >> "I am part of the antivirus and spyware community. I have been for 6 >> years. " >> >> more accurately, you've been a complete tool for 6 years... >> > Perhaps the word should be 'FOOL' for all of his life. A tad more > accurate, I would think. oh, i don't know... i think stool is more accurate than both of them, but i settle for calling *him* a tool... -- "it's not the right time to be sober now the idiots have taken over spreading like a social cancer, is there an answer?"
From: kurt wismer on 14 Oct 2007 17:19 pcbutts1 wrote: > So far you are losing so far you are still a complete tool... -- "it's not the right time to be sober now the idiots have taken over spreading like a social cancer, is there an answer?"
From: kurt wismer on 15 Oct 2007 19:11 pcbutts1 wrote: > Wrong on both counts. Why is it so important to you that you know I am? What > are you gonna try and do? Nothing you can do will hurt me. if that were true you wouldn't be posting under a pseudonym.... -- "it's not the right time to be sober now the idiots have taken over spreading like a social cancer, is there an answer?"
From: Rhonda Lea Kirk on 15 Oct 2007 22:31 Leythos wrote: > In article <5nfplrFi3v3oU1(a)mid.individual.net>, rhondalea(a)gmail.com > says... >> If you take away the right of anyone to speak, you have endangered >> the right of everyone to speak. It's that simple. > > In a "Public" service, where it's not privately funded, I would agree > with you - but our country has laws that limit speech. > > Fact is that a company does not have to permit "free speech" on it's > property or services and may remove any content for any reason it > wants, unless that area/service is funded by public money - if it is > publically funded then it has to exercise some defined measure to > stop/remove speech. > > In the case of MS's own Usenet servers, as they are a private group, > they are not obliged to carry any posts of any type, legally or other, > and they may manage their servers as they see fit at any time. > > To deny a private company the right to manage their own resources is > the same as denying the public the right to speak on public property. If you want to make a statement, it's fine. Hijacking what I wrote and changing the meaning of it entirely (by snippage and implication) is not fine. Moreover, you jumped from "our country has laws..." to "a company does not have to permit..." Your logical progression is flawed, and, in fact, your argument missed my point entirely. Nonetheless, I will address one thing you wrote, just because it amuses me. When Microsoft opened its server to usenet but insisted on maintaining its own TOS, it effectively violated the RFCs. Try to reconcile that with the position you took in your other post. :) Or better yet, let it go and get back to the true issue, which is the reprehensible, indefensible behavior of pcbutts. -- Rhonda Lea Kirk AUK Galactic Killfile, 15 May 2007 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/23766545e259d53c Winner, Golden Killfile, April 2007 Co-Office Holder, Ministry of Circle Jerks, April and May 2007 Member, Human O-Ring Society, March 2003 NCB#16 BJDS#2 INAC#77 PSLCK#1 SBG#1 A-29204 Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant, as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle
From: Rhonda Lea Kirk on 15 Oct 2007 23:15
Leythos wrote: > In article <5nin5kFib67gU2(a)mid.individual.net>, rhondalea(a)gmail.com > says... >> Nonetheless, I will address one thing you wrote, just because it >> amuses me. >> >> When Microsoft opened its server to usenet but insisted on >> maintaining its own TOS, it effectively violated the RFCs. > > And management of Usenet services at the server owners locations has > always been permitted by each Usenet server owner and never been an > issue except to people that believe that one person's property should > be ruled by the masses instead of the owner of that property. > > MS can do anything they want with their server and there is nothing > that anyone can do about it - the can censor/clean/remove/etc.... and > it's all fine, they own it on their side. Leythos, that's the issue that ethics addresses. It's the difference between what one can do and what one should do. Just because one has a legal right doesn't mean one has a moral or ethical right. The argument you're now making has extremely dire consequences, and it's also contradictory to the some of the arguments you'd like to make against Butts. Are you one of those situational ethics kind of people? -- Rhonda Lea Kirk AUK Galactic Killfile, 15 May 2007 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/23766545e259d53c Winner, Golden Killfile, April 2007 Co-Office Holder, Ministry of Circle Jerks, April and May 2007 Member, Human O-Ring Society, March 2003 NCB#16 BJDS#2 INAC#77 PSLCK#1 SBG#1 A-29204 Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant, as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle |