On May 27, 11:12 pm, KØHB wrote:
On May 28, 3:03 am, N9OGL wrote:



That's the truth, here's what this dishonorable ISP (CTITECH) has in
their TOS

2. You may not post or transmit any message which is libelous
defamatory or which discloses private or personal matters concerning
any person. You may not post or transmit any message, data, image or
program which is indecent, obscene or pornographic.

Todd,

Do you think an ISP should allow the posting of child pornography on
its facility? Do you think an ISP should allow the posting of
libelous defamatory material on its facility?

The problem with Child Porn is what the courts have stated it is and
what people think's it is, Pornography itself is not illegal, as a
matter of fact the US Supreme court has ruled that Pornography IS
protected by the first Amendment, unless it is deemed Obscene by the
courts. Child porn is illegal, not because of what it expressing, but
how it is created, by the harm of real children. Virtual Child porn
although many might find distasteful is protected by the first
Amendment unless it is deemed obscene, by the courts, has first
Amendment protection and is LEGAL. The Federal Courts has also stated
that the Internet Service provider does not have any control of what
is on their users computer, only what is on their (the ISP) server.

3. You may not post or transmit any message, data, image or program
that would violate the property rights of others, including
unauthorized copyrighted text, images or programs, trade secrets or
other confidential proprietary information, and trademarks or service
marks used in an infringing fashion.

Todd,

Do you think an ISP should allow violation of the property rights on
others on its facility?


The problem with that is there is such a thing as fair use, and Some
Intellectual property owners view of what fair use is and what the
courts has stated what fair use is two different things. I hold a
number of copyrights and I'm a strong believer in fair-use. Groups
like the RIAA and the MPAA makes all intellectual property owners look
bad.


4. You may not interfere with other users use of the Service.

Todd,

Do you think an ISP should allow you to interfere with the other users
of its facility?

The problem with that one is What is the definition of interfere with
other users, I have a little insight into how the internet works (I've
been on it since 1993) and the only way a person can "interfere with
someone's elses service is if the gobble up all the bandwith

5. You may not post or transmit any file which contains viruses,
worms, "Trojan horses" or any other contaminating or destructive
features.

Todd,

Do you think an ISP should allow you to spread viruses or other
malware over their facility?


There are federal Laws and state and federal agencies that over see
that issue(ask the DOJ)


9. You may not use the facilities and capabilities of the Service to
conduct any activity or solicit the performance of any illegal
activity or other activity which infringes the rights of others.

Todd,

Do you think an ISP should allow you to use their facility to solicit
for a hit man to whack your neighbor ? Do you think an ISP should
allow you to sell child pornography using its facility?


No I don't, there are laws on the books now (federal laws) that make
that illegal to threaten people over the internet, cyberstalking and
selling real child porn, It should be the police and the federal
agencies, who is required by Law going after the bad guys, If a ISP
see child porn they should report it to the authorities. ISP's should
also be made aware by these agencies of what is Legal and what is
Illegal so not to pull material that is protected by the first
amendment, we don't need ISP's Supressing LEGAL FREE SPEECH

Todd,

Do you think.........

A lot better then some of these people


Todd N9OGL



With kindest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

Toddie. Morally speaking, there are many of us who feel that your sick
cartoons of naked children are still just that. Child porn.
Cartoons or not, legal or not, Child Porn in any form is considered to be
the effort of a sick mind for some sort of sick sexual gratification. There
certainly is no "art" involved.
Depictions of grown men invading the vagina of a small, female child are
sick, sick, sick, though such depictions obviously turn you on.
Obviously you are sick, sick, sick, too.

Do you look at these cartoons and wish you were there, Todd? Since you
obviously cannot attract an adult female, do you wish you could violate a
child? Do you stare at these things while "thumping" yourself beneath your
Daddy's desk?

You are what? In your early thirties and still living at home? Under your
Daddy's roof?

You ain't "all there" in the head, Toad.

On May 27, 10:29 pm, John Smith I wrote:
YesMan wrote:
An alternative Primer on Net Abuse, Free Speech, and Usenet
Dave Hayes


The spirit of your post is not only well taken here, it is appreciated
for the thought and logic you have applied ...

Possibly the only point I can find to differ with you on is profanity
and obscenity, these should never be allowed in a forum where the
general population is not wanting of them and one is not expecting them
(most groups are not sex or perversion orientated--the group name should
provide some indication of ones expectations--and these things around
youngsters troubles me ESPECIALLY.)

The rest I will have to give some thought to, however, on the surface
you post proposes sanity--a thing of scarcity these days. And, amateurs
have always been a rag-tag group with a preponderance of misfits, kooks
and loons interspersed with some of sheer genius ... they have no
knowledge of this, the kooks are as likely to think themselves geniuses,
as the geniuses are to consider themselves odd ... go figure.

Regards,
JS

I agreed the problem does become when a cabal takes it on itself to
run off a bunch folks this was the essnese ofthe Code wars online

Myself Yes I choose to resit by fighting fire with fire, a far from
idlea solution I cam to it when posting other people personal info
resulted in harm to them

My "solution" is far from ideal but no body else comes up with
anything other than surrendering my own rights, and ognoring the fact
that You can't in practical terms use a lawyer to track the anymice as
they enage in defamation on mass

On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:33:26 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 00:49:56 -0500, "Not Roger" anon@anon wrote:

Toddie. Morally speaking, there are many of us who feel that your sick
cartoons of naked children are still just that. Child porn.

this is not the newsgruop for this discusion

You are not empowered to moderate this group, so get over it.

I happen to think your homophobia is sick I try not to go on about and
I don't try to stop you from posting something on topic

Your idea of what is "on topic" doesn't give you the right to thread
jack. Your attempts at censorship have resulted in an ongoing spew in
this group, and if you had any pride, you would be ashamed of yourself.

As to objecting to an amateur (N9OGL) posting cartoon pornography,
that's pretty much on topic, especially since it's the reason that he
lost two ISPs as other amateur operators reported him.

And it sure as hell isn't "homophobia" to object to such things, "Oh
Mark With a Chip on His Shoulder."

Judging by Todd's vile cartoons, posted both to his Google blog and
shared by him from his own server (and he once claimed to share his porn
over packet radio too), it is inevetable that people will suspect Todd
of being a closet pedophile. Nevertheless, Todd isn't disruptive.

You, on the other hand, are.

if you want RRAP to work you need to post something vaugely on radio a

We only need one major thing for RRAP to start to work: Your absence
from the group.

On May 28, 3:34?pm, wrote:

what gives the right to hijack discussion


Mark, you sniviling hypocrite. You should ask yourself the exact same
question. You've hi-jacked and crapped on so many threads there are
too many to count. Stop whining and defending your little perverted
buddy "old gay lover", and his animated pedo fest. Your whining
clearly shows that you are just as abnormal as Toad.

Dloyd

www.kb9rqz.blogspot.com

On May 28, 6:44 pm, "Chris" wrote:

Your attempts at censorship have resulted in an ongoing spew in
this group, and if you had any pride, you would be ashamed of yourself.

what effort at censorship is merely saying that the topic of Kiddy
porn is unrelated to HGam radio censorship now?

On May 28, 6:44 pm, "Chris" wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:33:26 -0400, wrote:

As to objecting to an amateur (N9OGL) posting cartoon pornography,
that's pretty much on topic,

how does that make related to Radio Policy?

On May 28, 6:44 pm, "Chris" wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:33:26 -0400, wrote:

Judging by Todd's vile cartoons, posted both to his Google blog and
shared by him from his own server

since when did cartoon become Ham radio?

On May 28, 6:44 pm, "Chris" wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:33:26 -0400, wrote:

Todd isn't disruptive.

You, on the other hand, are.

disruptive how ?

why is asking you and your cabal to post on toic so disruptive?

yes I break up your constan efforts to enage in character assignation

you have responded massively by attacking me and then find I am not
vulnerable to your tactics and then you get ****ed


if you want RRAP to work you need to post something vaugely on radio a

We only need one major thing for RRAP to start to work: Your absence
from the group.

funny I was gone for 5 YEARS and RRAP was just going down hill

On 28 May 2007 16:05:22 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:
On May 28, 6:44 pm, "Chris" wrote:

Your attempts at censorship have resulted in an ongoing spew in
this group, and if you had any pride, you would be ashamed of yourself.

whatSTOMP!

STFU, fake Markie. Your forgeries are very badly done.