pcbutts!

[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
>

[Peter van der Goes]

"pcbutts1" <pcbutts1@leythosthestalker.com> wrote in message
news:ferhec$mp2$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> No for obvious reasons.
>
Ah, yes, that obvious reason being that your assertion is false, and/or that
you can't stand up and simply say who you are because your activities under
this pcbutts1 persona would damage you if the association were to become
public knowledge.

I guess the notion that behaving honestly and honorably would relieve you of
having to hide behind a pseudonym is completely lost on you, eh?

[jaydeflix@gmail.com]

On Oct 14, 3:02 pm, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >> To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to the contrary.
> >> Moreover, it was not my intention to take a swipe at you. In
> >> addition to the memory detailed above, I have another recollection
> >> that you were a hands-on and responsive administrator in maintaining
> >> the Microsoft groups.
>
> > I tried to be. And I didn't feel swiped at personally. It's a
> > generic swipe at a company without a face, something I have no
> > problems with people doing. I figured if I could field any questions
> > now that I'm no longer working there, I'd do it. =)
>
> If there had been any doubt in my mind that you're John Eddy, there
> would be none now.

I could make some really bad puns.

> As for taking a swipe at a company without a face, I guess that's the
> same as saying I took a swipe at corporate policy. I'd like to add,
> however, that I do think it is sometimes the case that individuals go
> above and beyond (in a bad way), and I'm also taking a swipe at them,
> whoever they might be. It just so happens that they're not you (as
> evidenced by the timeline).

I hope they aren't me. I'm me. They're them.

> >> I do, however, stand by the assertion that being banned by a
> >> newsgroup administrator is not sufficient evidence to establish the
> >> state of one's ethical compass. (Not that I think Butts' has an
> >> ethical compass--given some of his antics, it's a pretty obvious he
> >> does not.)
>
> > Hmmmm. To establish? No. To provide a bit of evidence, yes.
>
> Below is a link that is NSFW (or anywhere else, for that matter). I post
> it so you will have no doubt that I, personally, have all the evidence
> about Butts' character that I will ever need.
>
> http://www.pcbutts1.com/rlk/rlk.htm
>
> My point, however, is that people get banned for a lot of different
> reasons, and while it may be a data point, it's not a conclusion. For
> example, I was briefly banned from the MS server over the WGA debacle
> (along with several others), until someone realized that disagreement
> with policy is not TOS abuse (by the terms of the TOS). I have also been
> banned in other places for similar reasons. In addition, I've had
> several posts to the MS server selectively censored because of naughty
> word use or because I quoted a post (from a non-MS server) that
> contained a naughty word.

People hated that word filter. I was happy for its existence. I made
a very firm point not to remove articles solely because they were
negative against Microsoft. In fact, the OS newsgroups were pretty
rife with Linux fans. But, at least one person said I was removing
their posts because they were anti-MS.

But, again, not everyone is me.

<snipped>
> >> "After your time" was the "dubious history" to which I was
> >> specifically referring above. If it will make you more comfortable,
> >> I'll say "dubious recent history."
>
> > I've been sad about what's become of the server. Some of the
> > newsgroups that have been rubber stamped for creation have left me
> > ill.
>
> I'm sorry. But that's pretty much the story all over usenet, so most of
> us who have been around for more than a few years are ill right along
> with you.

Well, true. But I'm more thinking of the names of the groups. Things
I'd never have approved. The spam is secondary, especially since I
always knew that was an unwinnable battle.

<snipped>
> >> You can rest assured that if Butts says it, I will assume it's untrue
> >> until I'm provided with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
>
> > Unfortunately, he's managed to besmirch my name by implying that he
> > got me fired. And since I don't avoid having my name out there (if I
> > could remember how to get Google Groups to put my name on the From
> > line, I'd go fix it), but he does, it's sort of a one way street.
> > C'est la vie. I stand by everything I've ever done.
>
> No one who is not a rank newbie believes anything that Butts says.
> (That's one of the reasons I wish Leythos would stop replying to him,
> because it gives him unwarranted attention. The sig is a perfectly
> adequate way to get the message across without addressing Butts
> directly.)

True. I just get irked at times and, unlike his 'blog', I can say
whatever I want here and get it published.

> As for Google, go here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/mysubs?hl=en

Interesting, it looks like I'd have to subscribe to the group in order
to set it. Bleh. I don't care that much. =) I do like the ease of
which I can set settings for each individual group I'd subscribe to.

[pcbutts1]

Wrong on both counts. Why is it so important to you that you know I am? What
are you gonna try and do? Nothing you can do will hurt me. What's your
****ing problem? Do you always just pop up and start asking questions about
people? Are you trying to troll me? Should I add your name to my sig? Should
I put up another web page dedicated to you? I see from here you are a newbie
http://netscan.research.microsoft.co...u&sd=10/5/2007
do you really want to mess with me?



--

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



"Peter van der Goes" <pvdg@toadstool.edu> wrote in message
news:r%zQi.15368$5b2.7943@newsfe19.lga...
> "pcbutts1" <pcbutts1@leythosthestalker.com> wrote in message
> news:ferhec$mp2$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>> No for obvious reasons.
>>
> Ah, yes, that obvious reason being that your assertion is false, and/or
> that you can't stand up and simply say who you are because your activities
> under this pcbutts1 persona would damage you if the association were to
> become public knowledge.
>
> I guess the notion that behaving honestly and honorably would relieve you
> of having to hide behind a pseudonym is completely lost on you, eh?
>
>

[Leythos]

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> I reported the Sharon Franks ID the first time I saw it (June 2006, when
> he posted one of his infamous links), but nothing was done then and
> nothing has been done since.


--
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'.

[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'.

[Leythos]

Hey John - I just wanted to say "Thanks" for all that you did in those
days to try and keep the groups nice and worth visiting.


--
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'.

[Peter van der Goes]

"pcbutts1" <pcbutts1@leythosthestalker.com> wrote in message
news:fevfjk$s9j$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> Wrong on both counts. Why is it so important to you that you know I am?
> What are you gonna try and do? Nothing you can do will hurt me. What's
> your ****ing problem? Do you always just pop up and start asking questions
> about people? Are you trying to troll me? Should I add your name to my
> sig? Should I put up another web page dedicated to you? I see from here
> you are a newbie
> http://netscan.research.microsoft.co...u&sd=10/5/2007
> do you really want to mess with me?
>
Thank you for reinforcing my point.

[Anonymous]

pcbutts1 wrote:

> I see from here you are a newbie

> http://netscan.research.microsoft.com...

You truly are one clueless rube yourself. Should I spank you now with
the why of it now, or amuse myself for a time by watching you make an
ass of yourself with a practiced ease only someone like you can manage?

[kurt wismer]

pcbutts1 wrote:
> Wrong on both counts. Why is it so important to you that you know I am? What
> are you gonna try and do? Nothing you can do will hurt me.

if that were true you wouldn't be posting under a pseudonym....

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"