The Real Netiquette

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Rich Wilson, Oct 20, 2005.

  1. Rich Wilson

    Rich Wilson Guest

    "oj" <> wrote in message
    news:84U5f.1257$...
    > Humanity leaves... So, I don't recognize a human online any more, I leave,
    > right? So maybe
    > its better to leave the 'real netiquette' behind as I leave. Let's just
    > say its not human taste
    > any more what online is like, and what Google does.
    >
    > The real netiquette:
    >
    > 1. Impersonation is a federal crime, punishable by law.
    > 2. Archiving usenet messages violates civil rights.


    WTF?! If you write a message here, you KNOW it's going to be visible to
    anyone who wants to read it, for an unspecified length of time. If you don't
    want people to read stuff, don't put it on Usenet! How can you possibly have
    a problem with that?!
    Rich Wilson, Oct 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich Wilson

    oj Guest

    > > Humanity leaves... So, I don't recognize a human online any more, I leave,
    > > right? So maybe
    > > its better to leave the 'real netiquette' behind as I leave. Let's just
    > > say its not human taste
    > > any more what online is like, and what Google does.
    > >
    > > The real netiquette:
    > >
    > > 1. Impersonation is a federal crime, punishable by law.
    > > 2. Archiving usenet messages violates civil rights.

    >
    > WTF?! If you write a message here, you KNOW it's going to be visible to
    > anyone who wants to read it, for an unspecified length of time. If you don't
    > want people to read stuff, don't put it on Usenet! How can you possibly have
    > a problem with that?!


    That's the original netiquette. Times change.
    oj, Oct 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich Wilson

    Rich Wilson Guest

    "oj" <> wrote in message
    news:DYU5f.1258$...
    >> > Humanity leaves... So, I don't recognize a human online any more, I
    >> > leave,
    >> > right? So maybe
    >> > its better to leave the 'real netiquette' behind as I leave. Let's just
    >> > say its not human taste
    >> > any more what online is like, and what Google does.
    >> >
    >> > The real netiquette:
    >> >
    >> > 1. Impersonation is a federal crime, punishable by law.
    >> > 2. Archiving usenet messages violates civil rights.

    >>
    >> WTF?! If you write a message here, you KNOW it's going to be visible to
    >> anyone who wants to read it, for an unspecified length of time. If you
    >> don't
    >> want people to read stuff, don't put it on Usenet! How can you possibly
    >> have
    >> a problem with that?!

    >
    > That's the original netiquette. Times change.


    Rubbish. That's not the "original" anything. That's just what Usenet does.
    Rich Wilson, Oct 20, 2005
    #3
  4. oj () wrote:

    : 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.

    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.

    If you don't like that then don't post anything.
    Malcolm Dew-Jones, Oct 20, 2005
    #4
  5. Writing in news:24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.www.webmaster,soc.culture.magyar
    From the safety of the NTL cafeteria
    Rich Wilson <> said:

    > ...
    > That's just what Usenet does.


    indeed.

    Rich, please stop replying to this fool. Alternatively if you find the
    sport amusing, the folk at AWW would be pleased if you would kindly drop
    their group.

    --
    William Tasso

    virtue is its own punishment
    William Tasso, Oct 20, 2005
    #5
  6. Rich Wilson

    Rich Wilson Guest

    "William Tasso" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > Writing in
    > news:24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.www.webmaster,soc.culture.magyar
    > From the safety of the NTL cafeteria
    > Rich Wilson <> said:
    >
    >> ...
    >> That's just what Usenet does.

    >
    > indeed.
    >
    > Rich, please stop replying to this fool. Alternatively if you find the
    > sport amusing, the folk at AWW would be pleased if you would kindly drop
    > their group.


    OK, done. You've got to admit, it's kinda entertaining though!
    Rich Wilson, Oct 21, 2005
    #6
  7. Rich Wilson

    oj Guest

    > >> > Humanity leaves... So, I don't recognize a human online any more, I
    > >> > leave,
    > >> > right? So maybe
    > >> > its better to leave the 'real netiquette' behind as I leave. Let's just
    > >> > say its not human taste
    > >> > any more what online is like, and what Google does.
    > >> >
    > >> > The real netiquette:
    > >> >
    > >> > 1. Impersonation is a federal crime, punishable by law.
    > >> > 2. Archiving usenet messages violates civil rights.
    > >>
    > >> WTF?! If you write a message here, you KNOW it's going to be visible to
    > >> anyone who wants to read it, for an unspecified length of time. If you
    > >> don't
    > >> want people to read stuff, don't put it on Usenet! How can you possibly
    > >> have
    > >> a problem with that?!

    > >
    > > That's the original netiquette. Times change.

    >
    > Rubbish. That's not the "original" anything. That's just what Usenet does.


    Unfortunately I was doing thinking about what usenet does. And changes are needed,
    not only that, new laws in the USA are already in conflict with the current usenet.
    In California, Google's services are practically illegal already from its more than
    obvious civil rights violations. Things change, I am telling you.
    oj, Oct 21, 2005
    #7
  8. Rich Wilson

    oj Guest

    > oj () wrote:
    >
    > : 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.
    oj, Oct 21, 2005
    #8
  9. Rich Wilson

    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.)
    oj, Oct 21, 2005
    #9
  10. Rich Wilson

    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.
    oj, Oct 21, 2005
    #10
  11. Rich Wilson

    Dan Guest

    oj wrote:

    > 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.


    What law, exactly, is it supposedly violating? And why do you feel
    compelled to reply to yourself endlessly making such claims without
    ever providing such specifics?

    --
    Dan
    Dan, Oct 21, 2005
    #11
  12. On 21 Oct 2005, Dan wrote:

    > oj wrote:
    >
    > > 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.

    >
    > What law, exactly, is it supposedly violating? And why do you feel
    > compelled to reply to yourself endlessly making such claims without
    > ever providing such specifics?


    Didn't you see the sign?

    +----------+
    | PLEASE |
    | DO NOT |
    | FEED THE |
    | KOOK |
    +----------+
    | | *
    o * | | |
    \|/,.|.\|.||/,.\|/.,

    --
    ``Why don't you find a more appropiate newsgroup to post this tripe into?
    This is a meeting place for a totally differnt kind of "vision impairment".
    Catch my drift?'' -- "jim" in alt.disability.blind.social regarding an
    off-topic religious/political post, March 28, 2005
    Norman L. DeForest, Oct 21, 2005
    #12
  13. Rich Wilson

    oj Guest

    > oj wrote:
    >
    > > 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.

    >
    > What law, exactly, is it supposedly violating? And why do you feel
    > compelled to reply to yourself endlessly making such claims without
    > ever providing such specifics?
    >
    > --
    > Dan


    At use!
    oj, Oct 21, 2005
    #13
  14. Rich Wilson

    oj Guest

    > > > 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.

    > >
    > > What law, exactly, is it supposedly violating? And why do you feel
    > > compelled to reply to yourself endlessly making such claims without
    > > ever providing such specifics?

    >
    > Didn't you see the sign?
    >
    > +----------+
    > | PLEASE |
    > | DO NOT |
    > | FEED THE |
    > | KOOK |
    > +----------+
    > | | *
    > o * | | |
    > \|/,.|.\|.||/,.\|/.,


    At use!
    oj, Oct 21, 2005
    #14
  15. What trick, what device, what starting-hole on Thu, 20 Oct 2005
    15:35:00 -0600, canst thou now find out, to hide "oj" <>
    from this open and apparent shame?:

    Don't feed the trolls
    Lick my Decals off, Baby! uh Clem..., Oct 22, 2005
    #15
    1. Advertising

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
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    465
  2. oj

    Re: The Real Netiquette

    oj, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    368
  3. oj

    Re: The Real Netiquette

    oj, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    575
  4. oj

    Re: The Real Netiquette

    oj, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    509
  5. oj

    Re: The Real Netiquette

    oj, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    616
Loading...

Share This Page