Leythos wrote:
> In article <5neh1nFhc695U1@mid.individual.net>, rhondalea@gmail.com
> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <fercbj$bqa$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, pcbutts1
>>> @leythosthestalker.com says...
>>>> You can't find it because Pcbutts1 is not my real name. I use my
>>>> real name in the MS groups complete with my MVP sig.
>>>
>>> And yet all of your posts as PCBUTTS1 were banned because of your
>>> unethical actions.
>>
>> IIRC, he was banned because he refused to comply with the Microsoft
>> TOS, not because of "unethical actions."
>
> Failing to comply with a TOS would be unethical.

I envision you wearing a red coat, holding a musket, standing over
Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin while they bleed to death at your
feet. But not to worry: King George is very proud of you.

Seriously, did you think about that unequivocal statement at all before
you wrote it? Are you aware of how many unethical rules and laws there
have been in the world that would still be in place were it not for
those who stand against them?

More to the point, it is especially ridiculous in light of the fact that
it is the respective Terms of Service agreements of Butts' providers
that insulates him each time you try to take him down. Given that, do
you really want to put forth (by implication) the premise that a TOS
agreement should be inviolable?

Butts is an indefensible, bottom-feeding, scumsucker, but that doesn't
make your argument any less absurd.

>> The only server from which his posts
>> are filtered are the Microsoft server. If he posts using a different
>> NNTP provider (as I do), those posts will be available on all usenet
>> servers but the Microsoft server.
>
> Yes, but they filtered on two key words, so, he could change his reply
> or a body part and it would go through - fact still remains that he
> was banned for his actions.

So what?

So was I (along with others)--for protesting a WGA that phoned home.

He wasn't banned for his ethics or lack thereof, Leythos. Why don't you
let John carry this part of the argument? He's got firsthand knowledge
and his position, unlike yours, is sound.

>> Microsoft has a dubious history when it comes to banning and
>> censorship, so if I were you, I would not use butts' banning from
>> its server as a data point in support of the case against him.
>
> It's just another nail in his history.

People recognize hyperbole for what it is, Leythos. When you try to make
a mountain out of a molehill, there are those who will wonder how many
more mountains have been so constructed.

I know what Butts is. There's no doubt in my mind that the blow to the
head he took in the accident knocked something akilter, and the boy
ain't right (to the point of being dangerous, I would hazard to say),
but if you're going to argue against him to the public at large, you
need to muster a worthy argument, and it ain't "he's unethical because
he violated Microsoft's TOS" or "PORN, PORN, PORN."

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

AUK Galactic Killfile, 15 May 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.u...766545e259d53c
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