XPost: alt.usenet.kooks, alt.fan.art-bell, alt.fucknozzles   
   XPost: rec.arts.poems, alt.fluff-girl.pinku-sensei   
   From: thisemail@isamunge.com   
      
   On 3/13/09 4:18 PM, in article   
   gqCdnet0Q8jpLCfUnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@centurytel.net, "John "C"" wrote:   
      
   >   
   > "MillerT"  wrote in message   
   > news:gpe9u2$giq$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...   
   >> On 3/13/09 3:23 PM, in article   
   >> ONWdnRiqXa4FOSfUnZ2dnUVZ_j-WnZ2d@centurytel.net, "John "C"" wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> "MillerT"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:gpdq7t$kcq$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...   
   >>>> On 3/13/09 11:02 AM, in article   
   >>>> eIOdnWC7Ep3E-ifUnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@centurytel.net, "John "C"" wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> "Marcia"  wrote in message   
   >>>>> news:C5DFCCE0.16BC6%what@wherever.com...   
   >>>>>> in article 2l91pv.igb.17.3@news.alt.net, Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries at   
   >>>>>> nimue@databasix.com wrote on 3/12/09 9:01 PM:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Marcia wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> in article 2l8vtm.ac0.17.2@news.alt.net, Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries   
   > at   
   >>>>>>>> nimue@databasix.com wrote on 3/12/09 8:18 PM:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> marcia wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 7:52 pm, Dead Kitten   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> marcia wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, Dead Kitten   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> marcia wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 6:38 pm, Dead Kitten   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> marcia wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 6:27 pm, Dead Kitten   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Marcia wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> I thought the copy & paste issue was resolved in Barrett   
   >>>>> v.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Rosenthal, as an application of Section 230 of The   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Communications Decency Act. * Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40   
   >>>>> Cal.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> 4th 33 (2006)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Immunity was upheld for an individual internet user from   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> liability for republication of defamatory statement on a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> listserv. The court found the defendant to be a "user of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> interactive computer services" and thus immune from   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> liability for posting information passed to her by the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> author.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> And here we have ANOTHER e-attorney.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> My, my.  Who would have guessed that AUK had so many law   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> experts.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Disprove what I've written   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't an attorney, therefore all your legal "advice"   
   >>> is   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> pure shit. Hope that helps!   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> I researched it   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'm sure your Wikipedia and Google skills are very   
   >>>>> powerful,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> but that doesn't make you an attorney.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> I researched it   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Repeating yourself isn't going to help.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Prove me wrong, dumbass.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Prove that you're an attorney.  Until you do, you are wrong   
   > by   
   >>>>>>>>>>> default.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> False assumption, retard. Can you prove the facts wrong?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> He'll do this as long as you keep arguing with him.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> If you stop, he'll do something else.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> IOW, you are being trolled. It's meaningless.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I was just copying spooge. :)   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I've   
   >>> noticed   
   >>>>> that   
   >>>>>>> Aratzio doesn't like it when Mike imitates him.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I really wish everyone would just kiss and make up. Or get along,   
   >>> at   
   >>>>> least.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> ISTM all the parties involved in this particular *ahem* "problem"   
   >>> are   
   >>>>> really   
   >>>>>> decent people who hold a lot of the same values and philosophies,   
   >>> but   
   >>>>> can't   
   >>>>>> seem to get past some nasty incidents.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That's the goal of the "New AUK" ...a Nice place to post...free of   
   >>>>> back-biting and other such behavior...I'm glad that you're   
   >>> "On-Board" !!   
   >>>>> --   
   >>>>> King John I of AUK   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Pffft. The goal of the self-appointed New AUK committee is to   
   >>> undermine our   
   >>>> First Amendment rights and try to act as a dictatorship. Good luck   
   >>> with   
   >>>> that. If you want to control people, you'll have to start a   
   > moderated   
   >>>> newsgroup.   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't recall making fun of "nerds and newbies" for their ignorance   
   > as   
   >>> to how Usenet operates...   
   >>>   
   >>> I do recall telling "haters & Pokers" to take their krap on down the   
   >>> road......   
   >>   
   >> I've seen you poke people who weren't bothering anyone, just because   
   > they   
   >> were aligned with the wrong AUKers, or misaligned with your little   
   > crew. You   
   >> may have different standards for harassing people, but they're no   
   > better   
   >> than what you claim the AUK regs do.   
   >   
   >   
   > Kali did play "dog-pile" with the other "Jackals" about 3 years ago when   
   > I was the center of attention of AUK's Wrath....and I've been trying to   
   > issue the proper amout of "Pay-back" and that amount (with some   
   > interest) hasn't been fully paid yet.   But the payments have   
   > tapered-off since the "coup de grace" has occurred.   
      
   IIRC, you inserted yourself into the middle of that fight (has it really   
   been three years?) that was originally between miguel and Kali over TWO   
   separate issues that merged into one. One was that Kali was rl'd to her   
   department head at school, I believe; the other was the canine fornication   
   issue being connected with miguel's real name. I understand both of them   
   being upset about it, and I hope miguel knows *no one* with half a brain   
   cell would seriously believe he's into bestiality.   
      
   Also, as I remember, sides were chosen and a huge battle ensued in which no   
   one was particularly innocent. I split at that point because I didn't want   
   to be in the middle of it, but I imagine I can reconstruct the particulars   
   by searching the archives (although I'm not planning to).   
      
   A lot of people appeared to feel hurt, angry, and/or betrayed. Some people   
   took vindictive action they may now regret (or not, I don't know). Two of   
   the people who were heavily involved (again, IIRC) are no longer here,   
   having been disenfranchised for other reasons.   
      
   I may not have all the details completely right, but I do know the whole   
   episode was a complete cluster fuck. I don't think it's particularly   
   productive for people to continue acting on their anger three years later.   
      
      
   >> For example, I haven't seen Kali bother anyone, yet you harass her   
   > EVERY   
   >> DAY. Not that she cares, I'm sure, but it's still an undeserved   
   > attempt at   
   >> bullying on your part.   
   >   
   > Answered above !!   
      
   Same here !!   
   >   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)