[John Smith]

wrote:

...
rec.radio.amateur.equipment
rec.radio.amateur.moderated
rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
sci.physics.electromag

Though the point is moot since your original premise that USENET is being
in any way shut down is utter nonsense.



1) Those are not antenna groups.

2) If USENET is made inaccessible, those groups will be gone also.

3) You did NOT read that article, else you are unable or unwilling to
realize USENET is very much in danger. There is/was no reason to force
those ISP's into dropping USENET support, dropping the perv groups would
be enough. Once USENET is gone it will be too late to become aware of
what is happening ... now this has been explained enough, if you can't
get it by now--you won't ever ...

Trust me, if you don't have the resources to realize the importance of
the actions being discussed (and, you can read the comments on the URL I
originally gave to see others concerns) just relax, others can move to
protect your rights for you ...

Regards,
JS

[[email protected]]

John Smith wrote:
wrote:

...
rec.radio.amateur.equipment
rec.radio.amateur.moderated
rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
sci.physics.electromag

Though the point is moot since your original premise that USENET is being
in any way shut down is utter nonsense.



1) Those are not antenna groups.

Antennas are not electromagnetic devices?

Antennas are not amateur radio equipment?

Antennas are not homebrewed by hams?

Antennas are not a suitable subject for discussion among hams?

2) If USENET is made inaccessible, those groups will be gone also.

All American ISP's could drop their USENET feeds and it would not
make USNET inaccessible.

A bunch of clueless dillhole web users would lose access, but that would
be for the better of all.

You obviously haven't a clue what USENET is or how it works.

3) You did NOT read that article, else you are unable or unwilling to
realize USENET is very much in danger. There is/was no reason to force
those ISP's into dropping USENET support, dropping the perv groups would
be enough. Once USENET is gone it will be too late to become aware of
what is happening ... now this has been explained enough, if you can't
get it by now--you won't ever ...

I did read the article.

You did not read the last three paragraphs.

The ISP's involved were not forced into anything.

They agreed to it voluntarily.

Trust me, if you don't have the resources to realize the importance of
the actions being discussed (and, you can read the comments on the URL I
originally gave to see others concerns) just relax, others can move to
protect your rights for you ...

Yeah, right.

I've been on USENET since it was distributed by 1200 baud modems over
UUCP and back in the day I was a UUCP leaf node.

Tell me all about it.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[John Smith]

wrote:
John Smith wrote:
wrote:

...
rec.radio.amateur.equipment
rec.radio.amateur.moderated
rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
sci.physics.electromag

Though the point is moot since your original premise that USENET is being
in any way shut down is utter nonsense.



1) Those are not antenna groups.

Antennas are not electromagnetic devices?

Antennas are not amateur radio equipment?

Antennas are not homebrewed by hams?

Antennas are not a suitable subject for discussion among hams?

2) If USENET is made inaccessible, those groups will be gone also.

All American ISP's could drop their USENET feeds and it would not
make USNET inaccessible.

A bunch of clueless dillhole web users would lose access, but that would
be for the better of all.

You obviously haven't a clue what USENET is or how it works.

3) You did NOT read that article, else you are unable or unwilling to
realize USENET is very much in danger. There is/was no reason to force
those ISP's into dropping USENET support, dropping the perv groups would
be enough. Once USENET is gone it will be too late to become aware of
what is happening ... now this has been explained enough, if you can't
get it by now--you won't ever ...

I did read the article.

You did not read the last three paragraphs.

The ISP's involved were not forced into anything.

They agreed to it voluntarily.

Trust me, if you don't have the resources to realize the importance of
the actions being discussed (and, you can read the comments on the URL I
originally gave to see others concerns) just relax, others can move to
protect your rights for you ...

Yeah, right.

I've been on USENET since it was distributed by 1200 baud modems over
UUCP and back in the day I was a UUCP leaf node.

Tell me all about it.



I cite your reply as a sufficient argument to convince me you are a
hopeless idiot and a complete waste of a persons time--if I ever had a
doubt.

Good job fool ... :-(

plonk ...

JS

[[email protected]]

John Smith wrote:

I cite your reply as a sufficient argument to convince me you are a
hopeless idiot and a complete waste of a persons time--if I ever had a
doubt.

Good job fool ... :-(

plonk ...

You've already "plonked" me several times genius.

Obviously you are one of the clueless dillweeds without a clue what
USENET is or how it works.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bert Hyman]

() wrote in
:

To the best of my knowledge the Attorney General hasn't taken a
stand about/against the average newsgroup, only those such as the
child porn groups.

But several national ISPs (cable-based privders, generally) are taking
the easy way out by dropping their internal USENET service entirely.

The independent commercial and free servers will still be around (for
a while, anyway).

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

[commander john]

On Jun 10, 5:27*pm, John Smith wrote:
W3CQH wrote:
OK - SO WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANTENNAS - OR ARE YOU JUST TROLLING
ALONG??
...

U R kidding, right? *Or, are you just attempting to play the part of a
LARGE idiot?

If USENET is dropped by major ISP's, as already has began (actually
forced the the Attorney General), there will be no antenna newsgroup
left. *I don't know how that could be more fitting to be discussed here!

Please tell me you were just blind, and not that big an idiot--from past
discussions here I am beginning to believe this NG is full of such ...
it causes one to doubt the sanity of many here.

Regards,
JS

[commander john]

On Jun 10, 5:07*pm, "W3CQH" wrote:
OK - SO WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANTENNAS - OR ARE YOU JUST TROLLING
ALONG??

"John Smith" wrote in message

...



It is my belief VERY few would ever oppose an attack on child porn and the
perverts it serves; *however, that is not what this is about. *I believe
this is an attack on free speech and the peoples' right to engage in the
free exchange of ideas--a CREATOR given right ...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying
its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
..."

Deny perverts access and exercise of their perversions. *Don't deny
citizens their rights which are beyond any governments authority.

Regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think this entire group should be shut down.
It serves no useful purpose . The showing of the crap above only show
the truthfullness of what I say.
SHUT USENET DOWN

[Bert Hyman]

(commander john) wrote in
:

SHUT USENET DOWN

If you simply stop reading googlegroups, that personal problem will be
solved. Then you can get to work on the rest of your problems.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

[John Smith]

Bert Hyman wrote:
(commander john) wrote in
:

SHUT USENET DOWN

If you simply stop reading googlegroups, that personal problem will be
solved. Then you can get to work on the rest of your problems.


Something tells me there is a common thread which runs though most of
his problems--a solution to that thread will end most of of the problems
he complains of with a single action.

The one you suggest could just be just such a solution. :-)

Regards,
JS

[Roy Lewallen]

wrote:
Hmm. I have several 'odd' ideas. One of them is that if I want to
talk politics, civil rights, etc, I do so on/in a user group that
deals with that sort of thing. I don't do so on/in user groups that
don't generally deal with those topic, such as this one. Why? Cuz
'off topic' stuff generally is only irritating, has nothing to do with
the topics generally found here, and only show the poster's general
disregard for that/this group and the people on/in it. It's generally
called SPAM. But then what do I know? I'm just a LARGE idiot...
right?
- 'Doc

What's more irritating is that people respond to it. I plonked "John
Smith" quite some time ago, so I'm not bothered at all by his rantings,
since I don't even see them. But I do see the responses from the folks
who respond to them. The best way to deal with this kind of posting is
to ignore them. Ignored OT posters go elsewhere, where they can get the
attention they're after, before very long. But they don't if they get a
constant supply of it.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL