pcbutts!

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

pcbutts1 wrote:
> Does the name PA Bear sound familiar? he pissed me off, his actions
> was the cost of your job. He tried to use his status as an MVP to
> ruin me, and my job and in the long run all he did was costs others
> theirs and really pissed off Chris Butts. I saw all his emails. This
> goes way beyond you. He thought I was some smuck loser with too much
> time on my hands. You can rest assured he won't mess with me again or
> NASA.

I do not want what I am about to write to be misconstrued, so I am going
to separate out the three issues as carefully as I can.

The first issue is that I firmly believe anyone has the *right* to say
any goddammed annoying, obnoxious, offensive thing that person feels
like saying, regardless of how goddammed annoying, obnoxious and
offensive that person and his words might happen to be. Even a
sociopath--that means you, Chris--is entitled to a voice.

If you take away the right of anyone to speak, you have endangered the
right of everyone to speak. It's that simple.

For most of my adult life, David Goldberger has been my hero, because he
understood and honored this concept even when it was personally
abhorrent to him. To me, the owner of DataBasix is the David Goldberger
of usenet, because he too understands and honors the same ideal,
regardless of his personal feelings. I subscribe to DataBasix, and so
long as it is in business, I will continue to do so, for that reason
alone.

The second issue is that just because I believe with my whole heart what
I wrote above, I also believe that there are words that should not be
spoken and that individuals have the obligation to police themselves in
this regard (as opposed to policing each other). You have a corner on
the market of such words, Chris, and I find you reprehensible.

With that said, the third and final issue, which is also the point, is
this: it's not for nothin' that you subscribe to DataBasix, Chris. As
long as you do not violate the DataBasix AUP, you know you can do
whatever the **** you feel like, and you are teflon, because Gary's
commitment to freedom of speech on usenet is unequivocal. The only
reason you're able to get away with the **** you spew is that your
provider remains true to an ideal that other providers have allowed to
erode in the name of convenience.

In other words, you can only talk your bull**** because you're protected
from the consequences (up to the point you violate the AUP, and then
you're protected from nothing), but that protection is not an
endorsement of you or your words, it's just the same generic protection
that anyone with a DataBasix account would receive. Your claims of dire
consequences to those who mess with you is nothing but lame bull****,
except to the extent that anyone who messes with you in a way that
constitutes abuse of the net will pay the price for it, because Gary
doesn't tolerate that any more than he tolerates a violation of his AUP.

--
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

[pcbutts1]

How sweet, I'm "touched" no really that brought tears to my eyes.
Bwaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaahaaa! you're a funny troll.

--

Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell



"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhondalea@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5nfplrFi3v3oU1@mid.individual.net...
> pcbutts1 wrote:
>> Does the name PA Bear sound familiar? he pissed me off, his actions
>> was the cost of your job. He tried to use his status as an MVP to
>> ruin me, and my job and in the long run all he did was costs others
>> theirs and really pissed off Chris Butts. I saw all his emails. This
>> goes way beyond you. He thought I was some smuck loser with too much
>> time on my hands. You can rest assured he won't mess with me again or
>> NASA.
>
> I do not want what I am about to write to be misconstrued, so I am going
> to separate out the three issues as carefully as I can.
>
> The first issue is that I firmly believe anyone has the *right* to say any
> goddammed annoying, obnoxious, offensive thing that person feels like
> saying, regardless of how goddammed annoying, obnoxious and offensive that
> person and his words might happen to be. Even a sociopath--that means you,
> Chris--is entitled to a voice.
>
> If you take away the right of anyone to speak, you have endangered the
> right of everyone to speak. It's that simple.
>
> For most of my adult life, David Goldberger has been my hero, because he
> understood and honored this concept even when it was personally abhorrent
> to him. To me, the owner of DataBasix is the David Goldberger of usenet,
> because he too understands and honors the same ideal, regardless of his
> personal feelings. I subscribe to DataBasix, and so long as it is in
> business, I will continue to do so, for that reason alone.
>
> The second issue is that just because I believe with my whole heart what I
> wrote above, I also believe that there are words that should not be spoken
> and that individuals have the obligation to police themselves in this
> regard (as opposed to policing each other). You have a corner on the
> market of such words, Chris, and I find you reprehensible.
>
> With that said, the third and final issue, which is also the point, is
> this: it's not for nothin' that you subscribe to DataBasix, Chris. As long
> as you do not violate the DataBasix AUP, you know you can do whatever the
> **** you feel like, and you are teflon, because Gary's commitment to
> freedom of speech on usenet is unequivocal. The only reason you're able to
> get away with the **** you spew is that your provider remains true to an
> ideal that other providers have allowed to erode in the name of
> convenience.
>
> In other words, you can only talk your bull**** because you're protected
> from the consequences (up to the point you violate the AUP, and then
> you're protected from nothing), but that protection is not an endorsement
> of you or your words, it's just the same generic protection that anyone
> with a DataBasix account would receive. Your claims of dire consequences
> to those who mess with you is nothing but lame bull****, except to the
> extent that anyone who messes with you in a way that constitutes abuse of
> the net will pay the price for it, because Gary doesn't tolerate that any
> more than he tolerates a violation of his AUP.
>
> --
> 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
>

[Leythos]

In article <5nfplrFi3v3oU1@mid.individual.net>, rhondalea@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.


--
Leythos - spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like pcbutts1 that
create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a look
at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive.../t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <5nfplrFi3v3oU1@mid.individual.net>, rhondalea@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.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

[Leythos]

In article <5nin5kFib67gU2@mid.individual.net>, rhondalea@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 - spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like pcbutts1 that
create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a look
at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive.../t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <5nin5kFib67gU2@mid.individual.net>, rhondalea@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.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

[Leythos]

In article <5niq30Ficri3U1@mid.individual.net>, rhondalea@gmail.com
says...
> 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.

I agree, legal and ethical are not always in sync with each other.

> 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.

Nope, not at all - Butts's pages are hosted on a site he doesn't own,
it's a business that owns the servers and connection - he leases space
from them and has to abide by their rules. He also has to abide by the
law.

There is no LAW governing what MS can do on their Usenet servers.

>
> Are you one of those situational ethics kind of people?

Nope, I'm strictly B/W, I don't play those games - but it looks like you
are.


--
Leythos - spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PCBUTTS1.COM that
create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a look
at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive.../t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <5niq30Ficri3U1@mid.individual.net>, rhondalea@gmail.com
> says...
>> 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.
>
> I agree, legal and ethical are not always in sync with each other.
>
>> 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.
>
> Nope, not at all - Butts's pages are hosted on a site he doesn't own,
> it's a business that owns the servers and connection - he leases space
> from them and has to abide by their rules. He also has to abide by the
> law.

And he still has an account, so what he's doing isn't illegal?

Or perhaps it's legal, but it's not especially moral?

> There is no LAW governing what MS can do on their Usenet servers.

The same laws that apply to the business hosting butts' pages apply to
Microsoft, Leythos. That doesn't have anything to do with the argument,
though. I wasn't arguing about Microsoft's legal rights.

Legal and ethical do not equate. Sometimes they coincide, but they are
not cognates. There's plenty that's legal that probably isn't ethical;
moreover, there's no shortage of that which is ethical that is either
contrary to or not addressed at all by the law.

>> Are you one of those situational ethics kind of people?
>
> Nope, I'm strictly B/W, I don't play those games - but it looks like
> you are.

I'm not playing games at all. I'm arguing--lazily--against the use of
specious logic and the lapse into fallacy. Your logic is flawed and
filled with fallacies, and you're attempting to make a special case
against butts that you probably wouldn't want made against everyone else
if you were to think it through.

There's no question that butts is a force for something akin to evil,
but when you paint with such a broad brush, you go too far.

BTW, here's the latest on porn. I found it in my mail this morning:

http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175743/

--
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

[pcbutts1]

You trolls are a trip. I swear all of you are obsessed with me. Do you think
I just pick any name and put it in my sig? or make a web page? You guys were
so used to people just running away when you attack then you all got
obsessed with me when I didn't. You've been at it so long you truly believe
that **** you say about me. At lease David had enough sense to stop after he
realized there was nothing he can do. Leythos you win the Troll Stalker of
the year award congratulations!

--

Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell



"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhondalea@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5nin5kFib67gU2@mid.individual.net...
> Leythos wrote:
>> In article <5nfplrFi3v3oU1@mid.individual.net>, rhondalea@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.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
>
>
>

[George Orwell]

pcbutts1 wrote:

> You trolls are a trip. I swear all of you are obsessed with me.

<prune drivel>

You're suffering from delusions of significance. Some sort of bizarre
narcissism disorder makes you believe people see you as something other
than a Usenet village idiot, worthy of a spanking when we're so bored
it amuses us.


Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it