If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 20:41:56 -0500, Bill Putney >
wrote: >Big Bill wrote: >> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:39:24 -0500, Bill Putney > >> wrote: > >>>Huh! Since when is simply giving you information a violation of anything? >>> >>>You can't force an ISP to use their resources to provide you the means >>>to express yourself any more than you can force yourself onto my >>>property to say or do anything that you want. >> >> >> Sur e he can - he has a contract with the ISP. > >His "contract" with the ISP says they can terminate the "contract" if he >violates the TOS - that's part of the "contract" that he agreed to when >he signed up. So - no - he can't force an ISP to provide the service, >especially if he is in violation of the agreement, which includes the TOS. If one stays within the TOS, the ISP is required to continue to provide a forum. Remember what I responded to; it's just above, there. "You can't force an ISP to use their resources to provide you the means to express yourself any more than you can force yourself onto my property to say or do anything that you want. " I said that's wrong, and I stand by what I said. > >>>But - yes - you have the >>>right to freedom of speech - but I (that's the generic "I" - I am not an >>>ISP) am not required to provide you the tools to do it. Get mad at me >>>if you want. Ever heard the expression "Don't shoot the messenger"? >> >> >> The right to freedom of speech has to do with governments in the US, >> not ISPs. >> It's rather amazing how many people invoke or try to explain the >> Freedom of Speech thing while knowing so little about it. >> ISPs are *not* required to provide a forum for anyone. > >How is that different than what I said? Read what I wrote again. I >essentially said that, although, yes, he has freedom of speech, ISP's >are not required to provide the tools/resources for him to excercise it. And I said (rightly) that if they contract to do so (and the TOS is part of the contract), you *can* force them to do so. > >To reiterate, if he violates the contract, they can terminate his >service. The contract itself says so. Ah, "if he violates the contract." Indeed, but that wasn't in what you said earlier. > >Bill Putney >(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >adddress with the letter 'x') -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
Ads |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
That's OK Comcast is already looking at Mr. Glickman. I have already
sent them header info and postings from him to their abuse personnel. After reading their TOS he is in violation of at least 3 sections, any of which allow them to terminate his contract, And one could actually be used in a civil rights lawsuit against him. -- Steve Williams "Bill Putney" > wrote in message ... > Lawrence Glickman wrote: > > > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 20:41:56 -0500, Bill Putney > > > wrote: > > > > PLONK > > Well thanks! But I wish I knew what I said that caused that - I'd have > said it sooner if I'd known. But I'm like Nate - you're still reading. > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') -----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =----- |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
That's OK Comcast is already looking at Mr. Glickman. I have already
sent them header info and postings from him to their abuse personnel. After reading their TOS he is in violation of at least 3 sections, any of which allow them to terminate his contract, And one could actually be used in a civil rights lawsuit against him. -- Steve Williams "Bill Putney" > wrote in message ... > Lawrence Glickman wrote: > > > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 20:41:56 -0500, Bill Putney > > > wrote: > > > > PLONK > > Well thanks! But I wish I knew what I said that caused that - I'd have > said it sooner if I'd known. But I'm like Nate - you're still reading. > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') -----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =----- |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:07:13 -0500, "Steve W." > wrote:
>That's OK Comcast is already looking at Mr. Glickman. I have already >sent them header info and postings from him to their abuse personnel. >After reading their TOS he is in violation of at least 3 sections, any >of which allow them to terminate his contract, And one could actually be >used in a civil rights lawsuit against him. You want to go to court, nitwit? Fine with me. I hope you have deeeeeep pockets, cause this is going to cost you bigtime. I will be sure to name you as the Primary Instigator in this lawsuit, and sue you for damages that the Court deems appropriate. Make your move. Lg |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:07:13 -0500, "Steve W." > wrote:
>That's OK Comcast is already looking at Mr. Glickman. I have already >sent them header info and postings from him to their abuse personnel. >After reading their TOS he is in violation of at least 3 sections, any >of which allow them to terminate his contract, And one could actually be >used in a civil rights lawsuit against him. You want to go to court, nitwit? Fine with me. I hope you have deeeeeep pockets, cause this is going to cost you bigtime. I will be sure to name you as the Primary Instigator in this lawsuit, and sue you for damages that the Court deems appropriate. Make your move. Lg |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:07:13 -0500, "Steve W." > wrote:
>That's OK Comcast is already looking at Mr. Glickman. I have already >sent them header info and postings from him to their abuse personnel. >After reading their TOS he is in violation of at least 3 sections, any >of which allow them to terminate his contract, And one could actually be >used in a civil rights lawsuit against him. You want to go to court, nitwit? Fine with me. I hope you have deeeeeep pockets, cause this is going to cost you bigtime. I will be sure to name you as the Primary Instigator in this lawsuit, and sue you for damages that the Court deems appropriate. Make your move. BTW Steve W ( ) I'm making a special arcive of every one of your posts to use as evidence against you in a Court of Law. I've started a Special File on you, and you will need to report to Markham, Illinois District 7 Courthouse, because that is where I will be filing a Federal Lawsuit against YOU. Nobody else, just YOU. You, or a Legal Representative will need to appear before the bench to represent your case, which, I expect, is going to last a year or more. Lg |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:07:13 -0500, "Steve W." > wrote:
>That's OK Comcast is already looking at Mr. Glickman. I have already >sent them header info and postings from him to their abuse personnel. >After reading their TOS he is in violation of at least 3 sections, any >of which allow them to terminate his contract, And one could actually be >used in a civil rights lawsuit against him. You want to go to court, nitwit? Fine with me. I hope you have deeeeeep pockets, cause this is going to cost you bigtime. I will be sure to name you as the Primary Instigator in this lawsuit, and sue you for damages that the Court deems appropriate. Make your move. BTW Steve W ( ) I'm making a special arcive of every one of your posts to use as evidence against you in a Court of Law. I've started a Special File on you, and you will need to report to Markham, Illinois District 7 Courthouse, because that is where I will be filing a Federal Lawsuit against YOU. Nobody else, just YOU. You, or a Legal Representative will need to appear before the bench to represent your case, which, I expect, is going to last a year or more. Lg |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Lawrence Glickman wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:07:13 -0500, "Steve W." > wrote: > > >>That's OK Comcast is already looking at Mr. Glickman. I have already >>sent them header info and postings from him to their abuse personnel. >>After reading their TOS he is in violation of at least 3 sections, any >>of which allow them to terminate his contract, And one could actually be >>used in a civil rights lawsuit against him. > > > You want to go to court, nitwit? Fine with me. I hope you have > deeeeeep pockets, cause this is going to cost you bigtime. > > I will be sure to name you as the Primary Instigator in this lawsuit, > and sue you for damages that the Court deems appropriate. > > Make your move. > > BTW Steve W ( ) I'm making a special arcive of every one > of your posts to use as evidence against you in a Court of Law. > > I've started a Special File on you, and you will need to report to > Markham, Illinois District 7 Courthouse, because that is where I will > be filing a Federal Lawsuit against YOU. Nobody else, just YOU. > > You, or a Legal Representative will need to appear before the bench to > represent your case, which, I expect, is going to last a year or more. > > Lg LOL! I know you're shaking in your boots, Steve! Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Lawrence Glickman wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:07:13 -0500, "Steve W." > wrote: > > >>That's OK Comcast is already looking at Mr. Glickman. I have already >>sent them header info and postings from him to their abuse personnel. >>After reading their TOS he is in violation of at least 3 sections, any >>of which allow them to terminate his contract, And one could actually be >>used in a civil rights lawsuit against him. > > > You want to go to court, nitwit? Fine with me. I hope you have > deeeeeep pockets, cause this is going to cost you bigtime. > > I will be sure to name you as the Primary Instigator in this lawsuit, > and sue you for damages that the Court deems appropriate. > > Make your move. > > BTW Steve W ( ) I'm making a special arcive of every one > of your posts to use as evidence against you in a Court of Law. > > I've started a Special File on you, and you will need to report to > Markham, Illinois District 7 Courthouse, because that is where I will > be filing a Federal Lawsuit against YOU. Nobody else, just YOU. > > You, or a Legal Representative will need to appear before the bench to > represent your case, which, I expect, is going to last a year or more. > > Lg LOL! I know you're shaking in your boots, Steve! Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bill wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 20:41:56 -0500, Bill Putney > > wrote: > > >>Big Bill wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:39:24 -0500, Bill Putney > >>>wrote: >> >>>>Huh! Since when is simply giving you information a violation of anything? >>>> >>>>You can't force an ISP to use their resources to provide you the means >>>>to express yourself any more than you can force yourself onto my >>>>property to say or do anything that you want. >>> >>> >>>Sur e he can - he has a contract with the ISP. >> >>His "contract" with the ISP says they can terminate the "contract" if he >>violates the TOS - that's part of the "contract" that he agreed to when >>he signed up. So - no - he can't force an ISP to provide the service, >>especially if he is in violation of the agreement, which includes the TOS. > > > If one stays within the TOS, the ISP is required to continue to > provide a forum. > Remember what I responded to; it's just above, there. > "You can't force an ISP to use their resources to provide you the > means to express yourself any more than you can force yourself onto my > property to say or do anything that you want. " > I said that's wrong, and I stand by what I said. > >>>>But - yes - you have the >>>>right to freedom of speech - but I (that's the generic "I" - I am not an >>>>ISP) am not required to provide you the tools to do it. Get mad at me >>>>if you want. Ever heard the expression "Don't shoot the messenger"? >>> >>> >>>The right to freedom of speech has to do with governments in the US, >>>not ISPs. >>>It's rather amazing how many people invoke or try to explain the >>>Freedom of Speech thing while knowing so little about it. >>>ISPs are *not* required to provide a forum for anyone. >> >>How is that different than what I said? Read what I wrote again. I >>essentially said that, although, yes, he has freedom of speech, ISP's >>are not required to provide the tools/resources for him to excercise it. > > > And I said (rightly) that if they contract to do so (and the TOS is > part of the contract), you *can* force them to do so. > >>To reiterate, if he violates the contract, they can terminate his >>service. The contract itself says so. > > > Ah, "if he violates the contract." Indeed, but that wasn't in what you > said earlier. I guess my response is "context", i.e., the context of his already being in violation of the posted TOS, of which I didn't think there was any doubt. I didn't think I needed to state the obvious, but you're right - I wasn't explicit. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
need haynes manual | Tanya | Dodge | 56 | November 23rd 04 04:28 PM |
For Sale: Haynes manual for 89-95 Dodge Spirit and Plymouth Acclaim | Tony H | Dodge | 0 | August 26th 04 02:32 PM |
F.S in UK. Audi 100 & A6 Haynes Manual 1991-1997 Models Petrol & Diesel | joe landy | Audi | 0 | June 14th 04 06:33 PM |