Haynes manual instructions

Lawrence Glickman wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 09:02:09 -0500, Bill Putney >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm also reluctant to sully myself with this, but there's such a thing
>>as being your own ISP, which it appears those other sites have done and
>>would explain their continuing existence. That's how terrorist groups,
>>spammers, and other scum get around the normal rules of decency (or they
>>just find ISP's with sub-human standards).
>>
>>I don't think Comcast is an anything-goes ISP (with or without their
>>TOS). You'll probably find out soon enough.
>>
>>Bill Putney
>
>
> Bill Putney, Net Cop
>
> Let me tell you something. Not 1 minute goes by on UselessNet when
> someone doesn't say something that offends somebody else.
>
> So that's the way the game is played here. And that is why killfile
> filters are built into Newsreaders.
>
> I will consider any attempt to violate my First Ammendment Rights as
> grounds to involve the constitutent parties in a Federal Lawsuit. I
> hope you have _deep_ pockets.
>
> Now, you are harassing me, and throwing veiled threats in my
> direction, so I advise you to cease and desist immediately.

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. 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"?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:59:56 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>> As far as *trouble*/terrorism is concerned, this does happen to be a
>> bit of a rowdy town, but so is Scranton Pennsylvania. Anywhere you
>> find a lot of blue collar beer-swilling people around, you're going to
>> find a bit of mischief. For the most part, the worst you end up with
>> is a bloody nose. The only people I know of that _deliberately_ go
>> looking for trouble are , eh......
>
>I don't worry about the blue collar folks, it is the politician
>terrorists that I despise. The one's that rip up airports in the middle
>of the night. Chicago has long been one of the most corrupt cities in
>the US and the current mayor is adding to that reputation.
>
>Matt

Operation Graylord proved that this city is infested with corruption,
and since then, things have not gotten any bettery. Even former
Governer Ryan is under indictment for taking bribes for Truck Driver's
Licenses.

The political / legal part of this place stinks to high heavens. True
enough. Not enough space to describe all the corruption. But then, I
try to stay as far away from that end of the spectrum as I can, and
just live a life for whatever it is worth, while I have a few years
left to me.

I'm 60 now, have at best +/-15 more years, maybe a lot less,
considering some *conditions* and infirmities I have, and don't want
to spend them in anything other than peace and tranquility, in my own
little piece of the burbs. I live on a relatively quiet street, most
neighbors get along, good enough for me. I like it here. It's home.

Lg

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:59:56 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>> As far as *trouble*/terrorism is concerned, this does happen to be a
>> bit of a rowdy town, but so is Scranton Pennsylvania. Anywhere you
>> find a lot of blue collar beer-swilling people around, you're going to
>> find a bit of mischief. For the most part, the worst you end up with
>> is a bloody nose. The only people I know of that _deliberately_ go
>> looking for trouble are , eh......
>
>I don't worry about the blue collar folks, it is the politician
>terrorists that I despise. The one's that rip up airports in the middle
>of the night. Chicago has long been one of the most corrupt cities in
>the US and the current mayor is adding to that reputation.
>
>Matt

Operation Graylord proved that this city is infested with corruption,
and since then, things have not gotten any bettery. Even former
Governer Ryan is under indictment for taking bribes for Truck Driver's
Licenses.

The political / legal part of this place stinks to high heavens. True
enough. Not enough space to describe all the corruption. But then, I
try to stay as far away from that end of the spectrum as I can, and
just live a life for whatever it is worth, while I have a few years
left to me.

I'm 60 now, have at best +/-15 more years, maybe a lot less,
considering some *conditions* and infirmities I have, and don't want
to spend them in anything other than peace and tranquility, in my own
little piece of the burbs. I live on a relatively quiet street, most
neighbors get along, good enough for me. I like it here. It's home.

Lg

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:39:24 -0500, Bill Putney >
wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 09:02:09 -0500, Bill Putney >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm also reluctant to sully myself with this, but there's such a thing
>>>as being your own ISP, which it appears those other sites have done and
>>>would explain their continuing existence. That's how terrorist groups,
>>>spammers, and other scum get around the normal rules of decency (or they
>>>just find ISP's with sub-human standards).
>>>
>>>I don't think Comcast is an anything-goes ISP (with or without their
>>>TOS). You'll probably find out soon enough.
>>>
>>>Bill Putney
>>
>>
>> Bill Putney, Net Cop
>>
>> Let me tell you something. Not 1 minute goes by on UselessNet when
>> someone doesn't say something that offends somebody else.
>>
>> So that's the way the game is played here. And that is why killfile
>> filters are built into Newsreaders.
>>
>> I will consider any attempt to violate my First Ammendment Rights as
>> grounds to involve the constitutent parties in a Federal Lawsuit. I
>> hope you have _deep_ pockets.
>>
>> Now, you are harassing me, and throwing veiled threats in my
>> direction, so I advise you to cease and desist immediately.

>Huh! Since when is simply giving you information a violation of anything?

Since I said so, about 20 minutes ago.

>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. 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"?
>
>Bill Putney
>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>adddress with the letter 'x')

I have no intention of shooting anybody. Why don't you get off my
ass, and go back to wherever you were. Unless you want to fight.

And if you want to fight -me-, I will rape you poor with the Legal
System, so I suggest you quit while you are ahead.

Lg

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:39:24 -0500, Bill Putney >
wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 09:02:09 -0500, Bill Putney >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm also reluctant to sully myself with this, but there's such a thing
>>>as being your own ISP, which it appears those other sites have done and
>>>would explain their continuing existence. That's how terrorist groups,
>>>spammers, and other scum get around the normal rules of decency (or they
>>>just find ISP's with sub-human standards).
>>>
>>>I don't think Comcast is an anything-goes ISP (with or without their
>>>TOS). You'll probably find out soon enough.
>>>
>>>Bill Putney
>>
>>
>> Bill Putney, Net Cop
>>
>> Let me tell you something. Not 1 minute goes by on UselessNet when
>> someone doesn't say something that offends somebody else.
>>
>> So that's the way the game is played here. And that is why killfile
>> filters are built into Newsreaders.
>>
>> I will consider any attempt to violate my First Ammendment Rights as
>> grounds to involve the constitutent parties in a Federal Lawsuit. I
>> hope you have _deep_ pockets.
>>
>> Now, you are harassing me, and throwing veiled threats in my
>> direction, so I advise you to cease and desist immediately.

>Huh! Since when is simply giving you information a violation of anything?

Since I said so, about 20 minutes ago.

>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. 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"?
>
>Bill Putney
>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>adddress with the letter 'x')

I have no intention of shooting anybody. Why don't you get off my
ass, and go back to wherever you were. Unless you want to fight.

And if you want to fight -me-, I will rape you poor with the Legal
System, so I suggest you quit while you are ahead.

Lg

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:39:24 -0500, Bill Putney >
wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 09:02:09 -0500, Bill Putney >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm also reluctant to sully myself with this, but there's such a thing
>>>as being your own ISP, which it appears those other sites have done and
>>>would explain their continuing existence. That's how terrorist groups,
>>>spammers, and other scum get around the normal rules of decency (or they
>>>just find ISP's with sub-human standards).
>>>
>>>I don't think Comcast is an anything-goes ISP (with or without their
>>>TOS). You'll probably find out soon enough.
>>>
>>>Bill Putney
>>
>>
>> Bill Putney, Net Cop
>>
>> Let me tell you something. Not 1 minute goes by on UselessNet when
>> someone doesn't say something that offends somebody else.
>>
>> So that's the way the game is played here. And that is why killfile
>> filters are built into Newsreaders.
>>
>> I will consider any attempt to violate my First Ammendment Rights as
>> grounds to involve the constitutent parties in a Federal Lawsuit. I
>> hope you have _deep_ pockets.
>>
>> Now, you are harassing me, and throwing veiled threats in my
>> direction, so I advise you to cease and desist immediately.
>
>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.
>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.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:39:24 -0500, Bill Putney >
wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 09:02:09 -0500, Bill Putney >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm also reluctant to sully myself with this, but there's such a thing
>>>as being your own ISP, which it appears those other sites have done and
>>>would explain their continuing existence. That's how terrorist groups,
>>>spammers, and other scum get around the normal rules of decency (or they
>>>just find ISP's with sub-human standards).
>>>
>>>I don't think Comcast is an anything-goes ISP (with or without their
>>>TOS). You'll probably find out soon enough.
>>>
>>>Bill Putney
>>
>>
>> Bill Putney, Net Cop
>>
>> Let me tell you something. Not 1 minute goes by on UselessNet when
>> someone doesn't say something that offends somebody else.
>>
>> So that's the way the game is played here. And that is why killfile
>> filters are built into Newsreaders.
>>
>> I will consider any attempt to violate my First Ammendment Rights as
>> grounds to involve the constitutent parties in a Federal Lawsuit. I
>> hope you have _deep_ pockets.
>>
>> Now, you are harassing me, and throwing veiled threats in my
>> direction, so I advise you to cease and desist immediately.
>
>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.
>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.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:48:56 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:

I invokle my First Ammendment Right to
tell you to FOAD.

Lg

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:48:56 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:

I invokle my First Ammendment Right to
tell you to FOAD.

Lg

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.

>>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.

To reiterate, if he violates the contract, they can terminate his
service. The contract itself says so.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')