Haynes manual instructions

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"

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 =-----

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

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

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')

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')

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:34:29 -0500, Bill Putney >
wrote:

>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!

I've been down this road before. It is paved, and has lane lines.
This is nothing new to me, you should be forewarned. I've sued at the
Federal Level and WON

I've sued at the Civil Level and WON

So, take your best shot.

Now here is some interesting statistics for you to mull over while you
figure out at $300/hour how much 1.5 years of legal representation is
going to cost you.

alt.flame.jews has 3,492 posts archived, complete with headers

alt.flame.******s has 46,968 posts archived, complete with headers

rec.autos.tech has 48,898 posts archived, complete with headers.

NOW

How many of these posts originated from Comcast.net? My computer
knows, you have to do your own research.

The first two n/g's I mentioned are allowed on Usenet under the TOS
according to Giganews, which is a subcontractor Usenet server for
Comcast.net

Here is what Giganews has to say about this situation:

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


http://www.giganews.com/tos_personal.html

Controversial and Explicit Material

We cannot be and are not responsible for the contents of any of your
communications through Giganews. The Internet and Usenet are large
communities that regard censorship as worse than obscenity. Through
our service, you will have access to and you will at some time or
another become exposed to materials that you find offensive. Such
materials include sexually explicit text and (encoded) images,
pro-religious and anti-religious debate, questionable political views,
and hateful speech. Giganews expressly disclaims liability for any
harm resulting from encountering such material.

http://www.giganews.com/tos_personal.html

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Giganews wishes to offer a flexible service that will meet the needs
of our customers. We do not wish to regulate or censor our customers
in any way.

http://www.giganews.com/aup.html

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


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

I think, William, that when I produce EVIDENCE that Comcast has
allowed tens of thousands of defamatory posts to go through their
system without interference in any way, they are going to have a god
damn hard time singling me out as a specific offender, considering
their lack of action concerning these *other* tens of thousands of
defamatory posts they did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT !

Now, it's your move.
And, I will tell you in a cordial way, you will be bankrupt by the
time I get through with you.

Lg
Exercising my First Ammendment Rights
as explained to me by an
Attorney at Law
Homewood, Illinois

IOW, I can stand in the middle of the street and shout epithets all
day long and there isn't squat anybody can legally do about it, under
Consititional Law, which Trumps State Law, so long as I am not
presenting an impediment to the flow of traffic.

I think it is time for you to retain an attorney. Your ignorance of
this issue is alarming, and I always feel a bit guilty about shooting
at ducks in a barrel.

Lg

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:40:20 -0500, Bill Putney >
wrote:

>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')

I've been down this road before. It is paved, and has lane lines.
This is nothing new to me, you should be forewarned. I've sued at the
Federal Level and WON

I've sued at the Civil Level and WON

So, take your best shot.

Now here is some interesting statistics for you to mull over while you
figure out at $300/hour how much 1.5 years of legal representation is
going to cost you.

alt.flame.jews has 3,492 posts archived, complete with headers

alt.flame.******s has 46,968 posts archived, complete with headers

rec.autos.tech has 48,898 posts archived, complete with headers.

NOW

How many of these posts originated from Comcast.net? My computer
knows, you have to do your own research.

The first two n/g's I mentioned are allowed on Usenet under the TOS
according to Giganews, which is a subcontractor Usenet server for
Comcast.net

Here is what Giganews has to say about this situation:

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


http://www.giganews.com/tos_personal.html

Controversial and Explicit Material

We cannot be and are not responsible for the contents of any of your
communications through Giganews. The Internet and Usenet are large
communities that regard censorship as worse than obscenity. Through
our service, you will have access to and you will at some time or
another become exposed to materials that you find offensive. Such
materials include sexually explicit text and (encoded) images,
pro-religious and anti-religious debate, questionable political views,
and hateful speech. Giganews expressly disclaims liability for any
harm resulting from encountering such material.

http://www.giganews.com/tos_personal.html

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Giganews wishes to offer a flexible service that will meet the needs
of our customers. We do not wish to regulate or censor our customers
in any way.

http://www.giganews.com/aup.html

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


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

I think, William, that when I produce EVIDENCE that Comcast has
allowed tens of thousands of defamatory posts to go through their
system without interference in any way, they are going to have a god
damn hard time singling me out as a specific offender, considering
their lack of action concerning these *other* tens of thousands of
defamatory posts they did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT !

Now, it's your move.
And, I will tell you in a cordial way, you will be bankrupt by the
time I get through with you.

Lg
Exercising my First Ammendment Rights
as explained to me by an
Attorney at Law
Homewood, Illinois

IOW, I can stand in the middle of the street and shout epithets all
day long and there isn't squat anybody can legally do about it, under
Consititional Law, which Trumps State Law, so long as I am not
presenting an impediment to the flow of traffic.

I think it is time for you to retain an attorney. Your ignorance of
this issue is alarming, and I always feel a bit guilty about shooting
at ducks in a barrel.

Lg

"Lawrence Glickman" > wrote in message
...
>> I think, William, that when I produce EVIDENCE that Comcast has
> allowed tens of thousands of defamatory posts to go through their
> system without interference in any way, they are going to have a god
> damn hard time singling me out as a specific offender, considering
> their lack of action concerning these *other* tens of thousands of
> defamatory posts they did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT !
>
> Now, it's your move.
> And, I will tell you in a cordial way, you will be bankrupt by the
> time I get through with you.
>
> Lg
>
Now there you go acting like a dumbass again. It seems to come easy for you.
I guess you think your lawyer will work for free.
Bob

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:12:39 -0600, "Bob" > wrote:

>
>"Lawrence Glickman" > wrote in message
.. .
>>> I think, William, that when I produce EVIDENCE that Comcast has
>> allowed tens of thousands of defamatory posts to go through their
>> system without interference in any way, they are going to have a god
>> damn hard time singling me out as a specific offender, considering
>> their lack of action concerning these *other* tens of thousands of
>> defamatory posts they did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT !
>>
>> Now, it's your move.
>> And, I will tell you in a cordial way, you will be bankrupt by the
>> time I get through with you.
>>
>> Lg
>>
>Now there you go acting like a dumbass again. It seems to come easy for you.
>I guess you think your lawyer will work for free.
> Bob
>

My Attorney will be a Federal Magistrate, defending my First Amendment
Rights. And YES, it will cost -me- zero dollars and zero cents.

You are so goddamned stupid, you should have a leash around your neck,
and not be let out of the house without adult supervision.

THE US GOVERNMENT will sue you, on MY behalf.

Lg