[John Smith]

Res wrote:

...
make the poster responsible for their actions, not protect them.



Actually, I am for less govt. involvement, NOT more.

However, child porn perverts and their groups is/are one large exception
and the govt. banning them would be greatly appreciated by the vast
majority.

I think it is obvious some people do not read the material before they
begin to enter into the discussion (such as the URL of the article I
gave when this thread began.) And, actually, this is good. It gives us
warning that we need not be bothered giving them and they their text any
consideration(s) at all, i.e. those arguing solely for the purpose of
argument--and then only responding with arguments contrary to "common
logic." (akin to common sense)

Perhaps they want USENET and r.r.a.a. gone! Who knows what logic drives
them--indeed, one can easily draw the conclusion that no logic
whatsoever is involved in their text.

The rest of us should write our public servants and demand they take
action against this rogue Attorney General, his actions are truly
un-American. The ISP's should also be written and/or any subscriptions
to their services be dropped.

However, with the number of politicians caught engaging in perversions
and/or inappropriate sexual behavior, perhaps only the child porn groups
will be left on USENET--and those only populated by our public
servants--on their private ISP supported by public monies!

Ya never know, ya just never know ... :-(

Regards,
JS

[[email protected]]

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

[John Smith]

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

Well, if you want to talk amateur antennas on usenet, you will need this
group, IDIOT!

JS

[[email protected]]

John Smith wrote:
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

Well, if you want to talk amateur antennas on usenet, you will need this
group, IDIOT!

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.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[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

[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

[John Smith]

Roy Lewallen wrote:
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

I guess that all implies that if ISPs drop USENET it just doesn't
matter, this will not set a trend, the attorney general will just stop
with the few he has already manipulated, this will not set the stage
encourage frivolous lawsuits--I can't help but differ with that ...

Perhaps they wish to imply that only dimwits use the ISPs in question
(the ones which have discontinued USENET)... I simply have no way to
prove/disprove that ... however, I suspect NOT!

Perhaps it implies government manipulation of the channels of citizens
communications is a good thing ... I think not.

Perhaps it implies that ISPs dropping USENET (and this NG) is a good
thing which just falsely appears to be an evil ... again, I differ ...

Perhaps the people who use the pervert NGs are the ones screaming not to
worry? They might fear this will focus attention on their perversions?
Hmmm ... I wonder, however, sometimes I am given to bouts of paranoia.

Perhaps I am the problem; just plonk me and ISPs dropping USENET are
seen for what they really are--only a figment of my imagination. Plonk
me and you will immediately realize it is all just a phony bad dream ...
well maybe, who knows.

But, I think it all points to the logic of a few which attempts to drive
the direction of this newsgroup. A few remain blind to the insanity
they drown in ... :-(

I leave this to others to sort out. However, if the small group of
illogical amateurs which have manipulated amateur radio are able to
influence the course of the internet, why would we think they would do
any different than they have done with the amateur bands? i.e.
stagnation, decay, good-ole-boys-club mentality, loss of importance,
ancient equipment designs, resistance to progress, etc.

Regards,
JS

[[email protected]]

That has got to be the best example of misdirection, false
humility, and pseudo-apologizing this stagnant, decaying, unimportant,
'GOB' user of ancient equipment who is resistant to progress, has seen
in a long time! Are you by chance a politician? OH! And us 'GOB's
who disagree with you are the reason the amateur bands are in the
state they are in now!
"Dang me, dang me! Ought'a take a rope and hang me!"... that's how it
goes, ain't it? What the hell, might as well admit to being one of
them 'pervs' who live on the child porn sites. Stands to reason,
don't it?
- 'Doc


(I'm 'PC', by the way. ~IF~ that 'PC' stands for Patsy Cline.)