Re: The Real Netiquette

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by oj, Oct 21, 2005.

  1. oj

    oj Guest

    > > > > : 2. Archiving usenet messages violates civil rights.
    > > > >
    > > > > Irrelevent, even if it were somehow true.
    > > > >
    > > > > All usenet messages are inherently archived, that's how usenet works - a
    > > > > message must be assigned to some form of permanent storage so others can
    > > > > read it later.
    > > >
    > > > Police records are archived too. But there are laws that people who were
    > > > behaving fine for a long time, their records may be dropped.
    > > >
    > > > > Postings are communicated to uncountable numbers of computers, each of
    > > > > which then saves its own copies the messages so the users of that system
    > > > > can read them later at their convenience. Each computer keeps the
    > > > > messages for whatever period of time the computer owner finds most
    > > > > appropriate for the convenience of the people using that computer to
    > > > > access and read the messages.
    > > >
    > > > That's perfectly fine. I agree. That's how it was designed. There is nothing
    > > > wrong with that.
    > > >
    > > > > If you don't like that then don't post anything.
    > > >
    > > > That, I like. I have no problem with what you are saying here.

    > >
    > > (Ok, it starts from here, and... ends with millions of crimes, as severe as crimes against humanity.)

    > Info:
    > 1. Law. Google Groups Beta is already an illegal product by law, and easily can be proven as
    > an illegal product in California, and Google is a Californian based company. Groups Beta
    > violates civil rights. Archiving by law is not allowed. This is not a court, but I can prove
    > it as illegal. I am not going to go to court, but Groups Beta's archiving proves illegal.
    > Archiving discussion forums wasn't illegal last year, but its illegal today.

    2. What kind of usenet archiving style is illegal? Can Universities archive? Yes, as long as they
    don't provide a full public access to their archive. You may think, that's strange, why couldn't they
    do that? Full public access to the usenet usenet does prove to be a "corrupt" idea. Why? Its
    something megalomaniacal, but hard to explain. The point is we can find very specific laws, which can
    prove this and that and that, and we could find that "what Groups Beta does is really illegal",
    and not only they shouldn't do what they do, but they really cannot do it. So what kind
    of archiving is illegal? Am I mumbling like a professor? The answer is: Specific purpose
    archiving is allowed, but general purpose and granting full access to usenet (historic archiving)
    is not allowed, by law, or at least not by a business entity.
    oj, Oct 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Trent SC

    The new 'real' netiquette (draft)

    Trent SC, Oct 20, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
  2. Rich Wilson

    The Real Netiquette

    Rich Wilson, Oct 20, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Lick my Decals off, Baby! uh Clem...
    Oct 22, 2005
  3. oj

    Re: The Real Netiquette

    oj, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
  4. oj

    Re: The Real Netiquette

    oj, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
  5. oj

    Re: The Real Netiquette

    oj, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Computer Support

Share This Page