A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

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.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What is Usenet



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 29th 10, 05:49 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default What is Usenet

On 05/29/2010 04:23 AM, Hot-text wrote:
LOOL Sunny @ mynews.ath.cx I setup my own
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion + More of the old
microsoft.public.OS's

with Binaries mix is 4mb so you not be able to put up illegal software
piracy on my just a littlie Pickers Img!




I already discussed that issue with you personally: you have no
authority to use Microsoft's property which includes these groups and
hierarchy, and presentation format. I even explained to *you* HOW you
could potentially avoid any issues.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
  #22  
Old May 29th 10, 05:49 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default What is Usenet

On 05/29/2010 04:23 AM, Hot-text wrote:
LOOL Sunny @ mynews.ath.cx I setup my own
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion + More of the old
microsoft.public.OS's

with Binaries mix is 4mb so you not be able to put up illegal software
piracy on my just a littlie Pickers Img!




I already discussed that issue with you personally: you have no
authority to use Microsoft's property which includes these groups and
hierarchy, and presentation format. I even explained to *you* HOW you
could potentially avoid any issues.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
  #23  
Old May 29th 10, 05:59 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default What is Usenet

On 05/29/2010 02:51 AM, Sunny wrote:
"MEB" wrote in message
...

On 05/28/2010 10:46 PM, Hot-text wrote:
True but IP# is block he need to get a new #
he have 3 days to do it in are he miss um hmm

snip
And you really didn't accomplish much, they are already apparently
working on these groups WITHOUT connection to Microsoft to keep them
alive, by using a different "maintainer"; illegal, snip


Illegal ? (only in your opinion. so far.)

Your shotgun approach of directing posters to every "Legal" reference you
can dream up, has not yet proven that posting on Usenet using the
microsoft*named newsgroups is illegal.

It has nothing to do with software piracy or copyright.
Are you claiming that any messages posted on those newsgroups, that the
Microsoft Server does not get are "illegal"?

(Are all messages, posted while the Microsoft Server was "down" have to be
rescinded?)




These two documents were posted to misc.legal.moderated. The
moderator(s) or other party is apparently bent upon deliberately
continuing public deception and has not posted the further response by
me [at least not yet]; these two supply the answers you apparently
ignorant people need.
Note this presentation here is also legally covered under my own site's
Notice, which is attached and directed to in every posting done in and
by me in this entity when discussing matters of potential or real
import, just as it has been included here.

Reproduced in relevant part from peoplescounsel.org under MY authority
as found in the *LEGAL AND LAWFUL NOTICES* [copyright applies]:

" *NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT*
*NOTICE:* Any and or all parties, organizations, entities, or otherwise,
grant right to publish without confinement and or further restraint any
and or all: responses, e-mails, proceedings, documents and other which
they might submit and or create and or author, concerning materials on
this site; and or, to or of the author of this site; and or, to or of
the ISP of this site; and or, to or of the parties mentioned upon the
documents contained within this site; and or, to or of the individuals
and or agents mentioned upon this page or elsewhere upon this site and
or web and its inclusions.""

You should note, of course, that all the usual worthless, baseless, and
merit-less "arguments" have been raised and answered ALREADY; the
Microsoft documents have been linked and/or posted; and other factors
have already been discussed; as has, not uniquely, also occurred in this
group previously. IOW, the same worthless arguments which refuse to
recognized the applicable Law, contract obligation and control, personal
liability, and other controlling factors and elements.


"
On 05/24/2010 01:53 PM, Seth wrote:
In article ,
MEB.peoplescounsel wrote:
On 05/21/2010 08:44 PM, Seth wrote:
In article ,
MEB.peoplescounsel wrote:
On 05/17/2010 02:11 AM, Seth wrote:
In article ,
MEB.peoplescounsel wrote:


What controls does any entity other than myself have over my server?
Who can force me to carry, or not carry, any particular newsgroup?
Who can force me to carry, or not carry, any particular article

or set
of articles?


Since you all have apparently deliberately IGNORED direction to the
actual linked and/or controlling elements [such as the actual

article of
creation posted in here]


How is anything "controlling"? It seems to me that it is controlling
for me only if either (1) there is a valid law with jurisdiction over
me saying so, or (2) I have agreed to a contract saying so. I have
not agreed to any such contracts, nor have I seen any actual laws
saying so. Referring to "UN agreements, WIPO, blah blah blah" is not
a reference to such a law. "US Code number this, section that" is
such a reference.


Microsoft has already done that for the world in its TOS, TOU, other
documentation and legal resource references readily available to all and
to which I directed you [by linked materials] and everyone else to, so
have the U.S. courts, U.S. government and State government. So you
attempt to "claim" ignorance, too bad, as you are well aware "ignorance
of the Law is no excuse". Refusing to abide by it is illegal.
USING Microsoft's property directly or indirectly WITHOUT written
direct authorization has placed all parties under direct violation of
the applicable Laws.
You want to argue the applicability to YOU, then there are the courts.
Good luck and take ALL your money and assets with you.
Right now, you are in direct violation of numerous Laws.


This was posted to a party within the
microsoft.public.win98.gen-discussion group on the ONLY *authorized*
point of access,


Authorized, presumably, by Microsoft; but why should I care?


Because you have no right to it.


Per Microsoft's own documents, you never had any authority to the
hierarchy in the first place, it is and was Microsoft's solely.


I never claimed any authority to the hierarchy, only the authority
over my own server.


And thereby, so are you bound BY LAW if you use Microsoft's hierarchy
WITHIN your server [which is YOUR supposed argument point]. You have no
right to it. It is essentially stolen property. Its not yours and never was.


Per Microsoft's own documents [such as the 1996 document our troll 98
Guy has repeatedly posted and provided to free servers, within

numerous
groups, and elsewhere] *only* Microsoft could serve those offerings.


Microsoft can publish whatever documents it wishes. That does not
make them binding on me.


Microsoft, as you do [if not you better get a legal eagle to write one
for you] has a TOU and TOS, and several other controlling aspects and
documents which BIND all parties regardless, mere usage brings those
forward. You didn't read them, so what, you were required to do so. Yes,
you had better have read the TOU, EULA, and ALL other applicable
attached to your Microsoft OS and products as well. You are bound SO
TIGHTLY to and under Law, its a wonder you can breath.

So your [and those without a clue here and elsewhere] ENTIRE purported
legal argument is that you received these and sent these via some other
party and that absolves you of all responsibility for that use, removes
all binding Laws, provides shelter EVEN though you know there are
property right, copyright, and other applicable on EVERYTHING, but not
when in *your* server.
That is the dumbest argument you can possibly raise and you are well
aware of it. If not then you are dumb as a box of rocks or have been
living in a "bubble" somewhere, you might want to look at the "real
world". But guess what, that does NOT relieve you from your illegal
activities. Not here in the U.S.A. or abroad.


** Now I will include the sent responses to the other ludicrous crap,
rejected by the clueless moderator(s).
TO the moderator(s): Hey, *There was NO worthwhile materials to quote
nor worthy of argument.* Why would I quote or include any of that trash.
And you MIGHT look at what I DID quote. Would you like me to make an
issue of this against this group, the moderators AND Robert... I would
have no problem doing so, if that's where you want to go with it. I'll
remind you this IS a moderated group, and SUPPOSEDLY deals with legal
activities and aspects.


*** On 05/23/2010 06:29 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
MEB.peoplescounsel wrote:
On 05/17/2010 08:46 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:

That website is a _hoot_!

Caveat: eliminate edibles from the vicinity before visiting, they

may end up
on the monitor, otherwise.


Guess what, so was I, all of your spouting of your "history" means
nothing to me, because I was there and involved.

Now, regardless of what you have said and would LOVE to claim, "you
have no Laws or other which control you", you do.

So I would say that whatever YOU post or have available, should be
treated as clearly uninformed, baseless, and lacking in any needed
intellect that is required in circumstances as this.

ROTFLMAO

Now had you actually paid attention to the two Bush era Supreme Court
placements on something such as CSpan you would have found the relevance
of the site's materials and their impact. You might also want to
actually look at some of the response/impact in various courts,
congress, and elsewhere.

What can you indicate other than your failure to actually understand
all elements needed for a proper discourse of the actual controlling
facts and factors necessary to the discussions materials and parties
engaged in these activities. This purported response by you certainly
has nothing of actual value.

--MEB


*** On 05/24/2010 12:55 AM, Seth wrote:
In article ,


Since you are obviously a legal expert, perhaps you might wish to
provide the discussion on how these cases might impact or have bearing
on the issues the issues being discussed [I would suggest you actually
read them rather than the syllabus or similar so you understand what
these actually do discuss]:

Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 US 250 - 1819
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission No.08-205

You might also wish to include discussions on W.T.O., Free Trade
Agreements, E.U. agreements, U.N. Treaties and agreements, and other
similar and of impact on and to the issues of the discussion.

--MEB
"


Seth posted the normal garbage which you all spout, added a few
personal slights/attacks, and this was the response by me:

"
On 05/26/2010 03:09 PM, Seth wrote:
In article ,
MEB.peoplescounsel wrote:
On 05/24/2010 01:53 PM, Seth wrote:


How is anything "controlling"? It seems to me that it is

controlling
for me only if either (1) there is a valid law with jurisdiction

over
me saying so, or (2) I have agreed to a contract saying so. I have
not agreed to any such contracts, nor have I seen any actual laws
saying so. Referring to "UN agreements, WIPO, blah blah blah"

is not
a reference to such a law. "US Code number this, section that" is
such a reference.

Microsoft


Did they give you permission to use their name in your posting?


Microsoft did, and I used it in the allowed form. Had you read what is
authorized usage you would know that, or if you had the *least bit* of
useful legal knowledge applicable, which you clearly don't.


has already done that for the world in its TOS, TOU, other
documentation and legal resource references readily available to

all and
to which I directed you [by linked materials] and everyone else to,


In other words, you're not providing any specific pointers to laws. I
will therefore remain unaware of any such.


In other words and specifically, *I* don't need to do anything FOR YOU,
*you* are required by Law, to do so yourself.


But I'll help you to a point: Use it your own computer WITH NO ACCESS
to or by others, mostly/probably fair use.

Do anything else, then the ALL the linked materials apply, so do the
Laws to which you are directed by Microsoft, and so do the Laws which
you are required to know.


See TOU [also note that this part here is also allowed specifically
elsewhere in Microsoft's materials AND by following that and applicable
Law]:

http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal...t/Default.aspx

ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS.

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES.

PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION.
"Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and
non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit,
display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works
from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services
obtained from the Services."

You didn't read them, so what, you were required to do so. Yes,
you had better have read the TOU, EULA, and ALL other applicable
attached to your Microsoft OS and products as well.


You mean Microsoft attaches those to linux, xemacs, and OpenOffice?


Of course, if there applicable factors or elements within or otherwise
relating, then absolutely so. Such as, since you deliberately went to
"open source":

Patent Cooperation Agreement - Microsoft & Novell Interoperability
Collaboration
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msn...agreement.mspx

Joint Letter to the Open Source Community
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msn...en_letter.mspx



Per usual you didn't actually read the cases or missed what else is
contained in the statements of the justices per the applicable, but of
course you would since you argue nothing applies to you anyway, and no
one controls anything you do.

You continue to argue your baseless and worthless points, and you
deliberately ignore everything applicable as if that provides your
protection.

The rest of your trash has been sent where it belongs, to null/nothingness.
"
-----

Now if you can't understand the *illegality* of the usage unless done
under Microsoft's allowances, and the *personal liability* attached with
usage of ANY of Microsoft's property regardless the method which YOU
received it, then you have no ability to complain when/if Microsoft,
individual, class and/or group, or any prosecutor [all of which can do
so] files any action against your illegal usage, whether in the U.S.A.
or abroad.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
  #24  
Old May 29th 10, 05:59 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default What is Usenet

On 05/29/2010 02:51 AM, Sunny wrote:
"MEB" wrote in message
...

On 05/28/2010 10:46 PM, Hot-text wrote:
True but IP# is block he need to get a new #
he have 3 days to do it in are he miss um hmm

snip
And you really didn't accomplish much, they are already apparently
working on these groups WITHOUT connection to Microsoft to keep them
alive, by using a different "maintainer"; illegal, snip


Illegal ? (only in your opinion. so far.)

Your shotgun approach of directing posters to every "Legal" reference you
can dream up, has not yet proven that posting on Usenet using the
microsoft*named newsgroups is illegal.

It has nothing to do with software piracy or copyright.
Are you claiming that any messages posted on those newsgroups, that the
Microsoft Server does not get are "illegal"?

(Are all messages, posted while the Microsoft Server was "down" have to be
rescinded?)




These two documents were posted to misc.legal.moderated. The
moderator(s) or other party is apparently bent upon deliberately
continuing public deception and has not posted the further response by
me [at least not yet]; these two supply the answers you apparently
ignorant people need.
Note this presentation here is also legally covered under my own site's
Notice, which is attached and directed to in every posting done in and
by me in this entity when discussing matters of potential or real
import, just as it has been included here.

Reproduced in relevant part from peoplescounsel.org under MY authority
as found in the *LEGAL AND LAWFUL NOTICES* [copyright applies]:

" *NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT*
*NOTICE:* Any and or all parties, organizations, entities, or otherwise,
grant right to publish without confinement and or further restraint any
and or all: responses, e-mails, proceedings, documents and other which
they might submit and or create and or author, concerning materials on
this site; and or, to or of the author of this site; and or, to or of
the ISP of this site; and or, to or of the parties mentioned upon the
documents contained within this site; and or, to or of the individuals
and or agents mentioned upon this page or elsewhere upon this site and
or web and its inclusions.""

You should note, of course, that all the usual worthless, baseless, and
merit-less "arguments" have been raised and answered ALREADY; the
Microsoft documents have been linked and/or posted; and other factors
have already been discussed; as has, not uniquely, also occurred in this
group previously. IOW, the same worthless arguments which refuse to
recognized the applicable Law, contract obligation and control, personal
liability, and other controlling factors and elements.


"
On 05/24/2010 01:53 PM, Seth wrote:
In article ,
MEB.peoplescounsel wrote:
On 05/21/2010 08:44 PM, Seth wrote:
In article ,
MEB.peoplescounsel wrote:
On 05/17/2010 02:11 AM, Seth wrote:
In article ,
MEB.peoplescounsel wrote:


What controls does any entity other than myself have over my server?
Who can force me to carry, or not carry, any particular newsgroup?
Who can force me to carry, or not carry, any particular article

or set
of articles?


Since you all have apparently deliberately IGNORED direction to the
actual linked and/or controlling elements [such as the actual

article of
creation posted in here]


How is anything "controlling"? It seems to me that it is controlling
for me only if either (1) there is a valid law with jurisdiction over
me saying so, or (2) I have agreed to a contract saying so. I have
not agreed to any such contracts, nor have I seen any actual laws
saying so. Referring to "UN agreements, WIPO, blah blah blah" is not
a reference to such a law. "US Code number this, section that" is
such a reference.


Microsoft has already done that for the world in its TOS, TOU, other
documentation and legal resource references readily available to all and
to which I directed you [by linked materials] and everyone else to, so
have the U.S. courts, U.S. government and State government. So you
attempt to "claim" ignorance, too bad, as you are well aware "ignorance
of the Law is no excuse". Refusing to abide by it is illegal.
USING Microsoft's property directly or indirectly WITHOUT written
direct authorization has placed all parties under direct violation of
the applicable Laws.
You want to argue the applicability to YOU, then there are the courts.
Good luck and take ALL your money and assets with you.
Right now, you are in direct violation of numerous Laws.


This was posted to a party within the
microsoft.public.win98.gen-discussion group on the ONLY *authorized*
point of access,


Authorized, presumably, by Microsoft; but why should I care?


Because you have no right to it.


Per Microsoft's own documents, you never had any authority to the
hierarchy in the first place, it is and was Microsoft's solely.


I never claimed any authority to the hierarchy, only the authority
over my own server.


And thereby, so are you bound BY LAW if you use Microsoft's hierarchy
WITHIN your server [which is YOUR supposed argument point]. You have no
right to it. It is essentially stolen property. Its not yours and never was.


Per Microsoft's own documents [such as the 1996 document our troll 98
Guy has repeatedly posted and provided to free servers, within

numerous
groups, and elsewhere] *only* Microsoft could serve those offerings.


Microsoft can publish whatever documents it wishes. That does not
make them binding on me.


Microsoft, as you do [if not you better get a legal eagle to write one
for you] has a TOU and TOS, and several other controlling aspects and
documents which BIND all parties regardless, mere usage brings those
forward. You didn't read them, so what, you were required to do so. Yes,
you had better have read the TOU, EULA, and ALL other applicable
attached to your Microsoft OS and products as well. You are bound SO
TIGHTLY to and under Law, its a wonder you can breath.

So your [and those without a clue here and elsewhere] ENTIRE purported
legal argument is that you received these and sent these via some other
party and that absolves you of all responsibility for that use, removes
all binding Laws, provides shelter EVEN though you know there are
property right, copyright, and other applicable on EVERYTHING, but not
when in *your* server.
That is the dumbest argument you can possibly raise and you are well
aware of it. If not then you are dumb as a box of rocks or have been
living in a "bubble" somewhere, you might want to look at the "real
world". But guess what, that does NOT relieve you from your illegal
activities. Not here in the U.S.A. or abroad.


** Now I will include the sent responses to the other ludicrous crap,
rejected by the clueless moderator(s).
TO the moderator(s): Hey, *There was NO worthwhile materials to quote
nor worthy of argument.* Why would I quote or include any of that trash.
And you MIGHT look at what I DID quote. Would you like me to make an
issue of this against this group, the moderators AND Robert... I would
have no problem doing so, if that's where you want to go with it. I'll
remind you this IS a moderated group, and SUPPOSEDLY deals with legal
activities and aspects.


*** On 05/23/2010 06:29 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
MEB.peoplescounsel wrote:
On 05/17/2010 08:46 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:

That website is a _hoot_!

Caveat: eliminate edibles from the vicinity before visiting, they

may end up
on the monitor, otherwise.


Guess what, so was I, all of your spouting of your "history" means
nothing to me, because I was there and involved.

Now, regardless of what you have said and would LOVE to claim, "you
have no Laws or other which control you", you do.

So I would say that whatever YOU post or have available, should be
treated as clearly uninformed, baseless, and lacking in any needed
intellect that is required in circumstances as this.

ROTFLMAO

Now had you actually paid attention to the two Bush era Supreme Court
placements on something such as CSpan you would have found the relevance
of the site's materials and their impact. You might also want to
actually look at some of the response/impact in various courts,
congress, and elsewhere.

What can you indicate other than your failure to actually understand
all elements needed for a proper discourse of the actual controlling
facts and factors necessary to the discussions materials and parties
engaged in these activities. This purported response by you certainly
has nothing of actual value.

--MEB


*** On 05/24/2010 12:55 AM, Seth wrote:
In article ,


Since you are obviously a legal expert, perhaps you might wish to
provide the discussion on how these cases might impact or have bearing
on the issues the issues being discussed [I would suggest you actually
read them rather than the syllabus or similar so you understand what
these actually do discuss]:

Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 US 250 - 1819
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission No.08-205

You might also wish to include discussions on W.T.O., Free Trade
Agreements, E.U. agreements, U.N. Treaties and agreements, and other
similar and of impact on and to the issues of the discussion.

--MEB
"


Seth posted the normal garbage which you all spout, added a few
personal slights/attacks, and this was the response by me:

"
On 05/26/2010 03:09 PM, Seth wrote:
In article ,
MEB.peoplescounsel wrote:
On 05/24/2010 01:53 PM, Seth wrote:


How is anything "controlling"? It seems to me that it is

controlling
for me only if either (1) there is a valid law with jurisdiction

over
me saying so, or (2) I have agreed to a contract saying so. I have
not agreed to any such contracts, nor have I seen any actual laws
saying so. Referring to "UN agreements, WIPO, blah blah blah"

is not
a reference to such a law. "US Code number this, section that" is
such a reference.

Microsoft


Did they give you permission to use their name in your posting?


Microsoft did, and I used it in the allowed form. Had you read what is
authorized usage you would know that, or if you had the *least bit* of
useful legal knowledge applicable, which you clearly don't.


has already done that for the world in its TOS, TOU, other
documentation and legal resource references readily available to

all and
to which I directed you [by linked materials] and everyone else to,


In other words, you're not providing any specific pointers to laws. I
will therefore remain unaware of any such.


In other words and specifically, *I* don't need to do anything FOR YOU,
*you* are required by Law, to do so yourself.


But I'll help you to a point: Use it your own computer WITH NO ACCESS
to or by others, mostly/probably fair use.

Do anything else, then the ALL the linked materials apply, so do the
Laws to which you are directed by Microsoft, and so do the Laws which
you are required to know.


See TOU [also note that this part here is also allowed specifically
elsewhere in Microsoft's materials AND by following that and applicable
Law]:

http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal...t/Default.aspx

ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS.

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES.

PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION.
"Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and
non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit,
display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works
from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services
obtained from the Services."

You didn't read them, so what, you were required to do so. Yes,
you had better have read the TOU, EULA, and ALL other applicable
attached to your Microsoft OS and products as well.


You mean Microsoft attaches those to linux, xemacs, and OpenOffice?


Of course, if there applicable factors or elements within or otherwise
relating, then absolutely so. Such as, since you deliberately went to
"open source":

Patent Cooperation Agreement - Microsoft & Novell Interoperability
Collaboration
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msn...agreement.mspx

Joint Letter to the Open Source Community
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msn...en_letter.mspx



Per usual you didn't actually read the cases or missed what else is
contained in the statements of the justices per the applicable, but of
course you would since you argue nothing applies to you anyway, and no
one controls anything you do.

You continue to argue your baseless and worthless points, and you
deliberately ignore everything applicable as if that provides your
protection.

The rest of your trash has been sent where it belongs, to null/nothingness.
"
-----

Now if you can't understand the *illegality* of the usage unless done
under Microsoft's allowances, and the *personal liability* attached with
usage of ANY of Microsoft's property regardless the method which YOU
received it, then you have no ability to complain when/if Microsoft,
individual, class and/or group, or any prosecutor [all of which can do
so] files any action against your illegal usage, whether in the U.S.A.
or abroad.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
  #25  
Old May 30th 10, 12:52 AM posted to alt.free.newsservers,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Sunny
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 502
Default What is Usenet


"MEB" wrote in message
...
On 05/29/2010 02:51 AM, Sunny wrote:
Your shotgun approach of directing posters to every "Legal" reference
you
can dream up, has not yet proven that posting on Usenet using the
microsoft*named newsgroups is illegal.

It has nothing to do with software piracy or copyright.
Are you claiming that any messages posted on those newsgroups, that the
Microsoft Server does not get are "illegal"?

(Are all messages, posted while the Microsoft Server was "down" have to
be
rescinded?)


These two documents were posted to misc.legal.moderated. The
moderator(s) or other party is apparently bent upon deliberately
continuing public deception and has not posted the further response by
me [at least not yet]; these two supply the answers you apparently
ignorant people need.


You claim Microsoft has "control" then bleat when a moderator uses their
"control"?
snip your verbose rants
Only because you still have not produced proof that Microsoft has stated
that:
"Microsoft Usenet news groups cannot be used when their server closes
down"
Discussion is not "piracy" no matter how much of your verbose spin you put
on it.


  #26  
Old May 30th 10, 12:52 AM posted to alt.free.newsservers,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Sunny
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 502
Default What is Usenet


"MEB" wrote in message
...
On 05/29/2010 02:51 AM, Sunny wrote:
Your shotgun approach of directing posters to every "Legal" reference
you
can dream up, has not yet proven that posting on Usenet using the
microsoft*named newsgroups is illegal.

It has nothing to do with software piracy or copyright.
Are you claiming that any messages posted on those newsgroups, that the
Microsoft Server does not get are "illegal"?

(Are all messages, posted while the Microsoft Server was "down" have to
be
rescinded?)


These two documents were posted to misc.legal.moderated. The
moderator(s) or other party is apparently bent upon deliberately
continuing public deception and has not posted the further response by
me [at least not yet]; these two supply the answers you apparently
ignorant people need.


You claim Microsoft has "control" then bleat when a moderator uses their
"control"?
snip your verbose rants
Only because you still have not produced proof that Microsoft has stated
that:
"Microsoft Usenet news groups cannot be used when their server closes
down"
Discussion is not "piracy" no matter how much of your verbose spin you put
on it.


  #27  
Old May 30th 10, 04:17 AM posted to alt.free.newsservers,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
VanguardLH
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 25
Default What is Usenet

Sunny wrote:

You claim Microsoft has "control" then bleat when a moderator uses
their "control"? snip your verbose rants Only because you still
have not produced proof that Microsoft has stated that: "Microsoft
Usenet news groups cannot be used when their server closes down"
Discussion is not "piracy" no matter how much of your verbose spin
you put on it.


I figure MEB will quietly scamper away after Microsoft kills their NNTP
server while Giganews (already confirmed), Google Groups, and other NSPs
(like mine that have confirmed) will continue to carry the microsoft.*
newsgroups. MEB wants us to believe that everyone needs permission to
use Microsoft's company or product names when writing books, naming
forums, or in any discussion about Microsoft.

There's no point in arguing with MEB anymore. Just wait and see what
really happens. After all, we're not the ones operating the NNTP
servers so we users don't get a choice as to what they will or won't
carry. Verification already exists from major (commercial) and minor
NSPs they they don't have a nose-ring tied to Microsoft. MEB is trying
to confuse the issue with claims of legality that don't apply other than
Microsoft-operated services.

Of course, if MEB continues to only Microsoft's free NNTP server to
participate in Usenet then he will disappear from these newsgroups while
the rest of us go on by using other free or paid NSPs where microsoft.*
groups continue to exist.

Probably best is to ignore MEB and just see what really happens. It's
not like we can do anything what does happen. The NSP admins already
know what they plan to do.
  #28  
Old May 30th 10, 04:17 AM posted to alt.free.newsservers,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
VanguardLH
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 25
Default What is Usenet

Sunny wrote:

You claim Microsoft has "control" then bleat when a moderator uses
their "control"? snip your verbose rants Only because you still
have not produced proof that Microsoft has stated that: "Microsoft
Usenet news groups cannot be used when their server closes down"
Discussion is not "piracy" no matter how much of your verbose spin
you put on it.


I figure MEB will quietly scamper away after Microsoft kills their NNTP
server while Giganews (already confirmed), Google Groups, and other NSPs
(like mine that have confirmed) will continue to carry the microsoft.*
newsgroups. MEB wants us to believe that everyone needs permission to
use Microsoft's company or product names when writing books, naming
forums, or in any discussion about Microsoft.

There's no point in arguing with MEB anymore. Just wait and see what
really happens. After all, we're not the ones operating the NNTP
servers so we users don't get a choice as to what they will or won't
carry. Verification already exists from major (commercial) and minor
NSPs they they don't have a nose-ring tied to Microsoft. MEB is trying
to confuse the issue with claims of legality that don't apply other than
Microsoft-operated services.

Of course, if MEB continues to only Microsoft's free NNTP server to
participate in Usenet then he will disappear from these newsgroups while
the rest of us go on by using other free or paid NSPs where microsoft.*
groups continue to exist.

Probably best is to ignore MEB and just see what really happens. It's
not like we can do anything what does happen. The NSP admins already
know what they plan to do.
  #29  
Old May 30th 10, 05:36 AM posted to alt.free.newsservers,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default What is Usenet

On 05/29/2010 07:52 PM, Sunny wrote:
"MEB" wrote in message
...
On 05/29/2010 02:51 AM, Sunny wrote:
Your shotgun approach of directing posters to every "Legal" reference
you
can dream up, has not yet proven that posting on Usenet using the
microsoft*named newsgroups is illegal.

It has nothing to do with software piracy or copyright.
Are you claiming that any messages posted on those newsgroups, that the
Microsoft Server does not get are "illegal"?

(Are all messages, posted while the Microsoft Server was "down" have to
be
rescinded?)


These two documents were posted to misc.legal.moderated. The
moderator(s) or other party is apparently bent upon deliberately
continuing public deception and has not posted the further response by
me [at least not yet]; these two supply the answers you apparently
ignorant people need.


You claim Microsoft has "control" then bleat when a moderator uses their
"control"?
snip your verbose rants
Only because you still have not produced proof that Microsoft has stated
that:
"Microsoft Usenet news groups cannot be used when their server closes
down"
Discussion is not "piracy" no matter how much of your verbose spin you put
on it.



Just as an FYI to you and all others, Microsoft provided proof of
control per the request of Leythos *for proof* [immediately] via two
groups and via message comparison. Microsoft did that at 10:45 P.M. May
29, 2010. security.virus .msnewsservers

So move on. Go post your ignorance somewhere else.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
  #30  
Old May 30th 10, 05:36 AM posted to alt.free.newsservers,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default What is Usenet

On 05/29/2010 07:52 PM, Sunny wrote:
"MEB" wrote in message
...
On 05/29/2010 02:51 AM, Sunny wrote:
Your shotgun approach of directing posters to every "Legal" reference
you
can dream up, has not yet proven that posting on Usenet using the
microsoft*named newsgroups is illegal.

It has nothing to do with software piracy or copyright.
Are you claiming that any messages posted on those newsgroups, that the
Microsoft Server does not get are "illegal"?

(Are all messages, posted while the Microsoft Server was "down" have to
be
rescinded?)


These two documents were posted to misc.legal.moderated. The
moderator(s) or other party is apparently bent upon deliberately
continuing public deception and has not posted the further response by
me [at least not yet]; these two supply the answers you apparently
ignorant people need.


You claim Microsoft has "control" then bleat when a moderator uses their
"control"?
snip your verbose rants
Only because you still have not produced proof that Microsoft has stated
that:
"Microsoft Usenet news groups cannot be used when their server closes
down"
Discussion is not "piracy" no matter how much of your verbose spin you put
on it.



Just as an FYI to you and all others, Microsoft provided proof of
control per the request of Leythos *for proof* [immediately] via two
groups and via message comparison. Microsoft did that at 10:45 P.M. May
29, 2010. security.virus .msnewsservers

So move on. Go post your ignorance somewhere else.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Since this forum is now completely Usenet - What Usenet is MEB[_18_] General 13 October 1st 09 08:15 AM
OT but Important: Usenet Abuse and Impersonation by a sick individual using IP address 34.4.88.47 Radium Disk Drives 0 September 6th 07 03:32 AM
OT 20 Year Usenet Timeline Hugh Candlin General 3 February 7th 05 02:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.