Science > Abortion > Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina.
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"John D.Wentzky" |
| Date: |
03 Apr 2007 01:12:58 PM |
| Object: |
Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
"SECTION 22-5-550. Arrest and committal of witness on refusal to enter into
recognizance.
Upon information made of the materiality of any witness within the State to
support any accusation made or when
the materiality of such witness shall be within the knowledge of any
magistrate, he shall issue his warrant requiring
such witness to appear before him or the next magistrate to enter into
recognizance, with good security, if deemed
proper. Such warrant shall authorize the arrest and detention of any such
witness in any county in the State. On
being brought before such magistrate and refusing to enter into
recognizance, such witness may be committed by
the magistrate to the jail of the county, there to remain until he shall be
regularly discharged or shall enter into recognizance
as required by this chapter.
SECTION 22-5-560. Arrest of witness on behalf of accused.
The accused shall, in felonies and in no other case, have the like process
to compel the attendance of any witness
in his behalf as is granted or permitted on the part of the State.
SECTION 22-5-570. Amount of recognizance of witness.
The recognizance of any prosecutor or witness, in a case of misdemeanor,
shall not be for less than one hundred
dollars and, in case of a capital felony, shall not be for less than five
hundred dollars though in all cases the magistrate
shall cause it to be in such amount as the circumstances may seem to
require."
Don't you see now how you can be arrested, any person who sets foot in or
enters S.C. by car or airplane or boat or parachute or hangglider or any
other means of entry after you interfered with the proceedings of SC?
When you send communication to the State of South Carolina in such
proceedings, the presence of your words is noted along with your identity
and location, and it subjects you to the codes I just showed to you.
Are you really wanting to be arrested there in Texas and/or here in S.C. so
you can tell a judge about your illegal rantings?
The people of South Carolina approved an Amendment to our Constitution that
declares the marriage between one man and woman to be the only legally
recognized union in South Carolina by a 4-1 margin.
All you malcontents who like to attack the people of South Carolina so much
can be put on a wanted list.
You can be arrested, imprisoned and fined.
That much is certain.
Q.E.D.
.
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
03 Apr 2007 01:25:44 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"SECTION 22-5-550. Arrest and committal of witness on refusal to enter into
recognizance.
Upon information made of the materiality of any witness within the State to
support any accusation made or when the materiality of such witness shall be
within the knowledge of any magistrate, he shall issue his warrant requiring
such witness to appear before him or the next magistrate to enter into
recognizance, with good security, if deemed proper. Such warrant shall
authorize the arrest and detention of any such witness in any county in the
State. On being brought before such magistrate and refusing to enter into
recognizance, such witness may be committed by the magistrate to the jail of
the county, there to remain until he shall be regularly discharged or shall
enter into recognizance as required by this chapter.
Too bad I'm not "within the State". Maybe you should have someone who
actually understands what they read explain it to you.
SECTION 22-5-560. Arrest of witness on behalf of accused.
The accused shall, in felonies and in no other case, have the like process
to compel the attendance of any witness
in his behalf as is granted or permitted on the part of the State.
Of course, you'll have to mention that I'm only a witness to your incredible
behavior in Usenet newsgroups.
SECTION 22-5-570. Amount of recognizance of witness.
The recognizance of any prosecutor or witness, in a case of misdemeanor,
shall not be for less than one hundred dollars and, in case of a capital
felony, shall not be for less than five hundred dollars though in all cases
the magistrate shall cause it to be in such amount as the circumstances may
seem to require."
Don't you see now how you can be arrested, any person who sets foot in or
enters S.C. by car or airplane or boat or parachute or hangglider or any
other means of entry after you interfered with the proceedings of SC?
I didn't interfere with any proceedings. Take it up with your Solicitor.
When you send communication to the State of South Carolina in such
proceedings, the presence of your words is noted along with your identity
and location, and it subjects you to the codes I just showed to you.
Are you really wanting to be arrested there in Texas and/or here in S.C. so
you can tell a judge about your illegal rantings?
I doubt that's going to happen, for reasons obvious to anyone but yourself.
The people of South Carolina approved an Amendment to our Constitution that
declares the marriage between one man and woman to be the only legally
recognized union in South Carolina by a 4-1 margin.
....which has nothing to do with your continuing mental derangement.
All you malcontents who like to attack the people of South Carolina so much
can be put on a wanted list.
You can be arrested, imprisoned and fined.
That much is certain.
Just about like you will be paid millions of dollars by South Carolina after
they admit they violated your rights.
(This proclamation of yours is going to the Solicitor.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Worcester 7, Houston 3 (March 31)
NEXT GAME: Tuesday, April 3 vs. Peoria, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
03 Apr 2007 01:54:07 PM |
|
|
In news:szky7l9gvrr.fsf@eris.io.com,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@eris.io.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"SECTION 22-5-550. Arrest and committal of witness on refusal to
enter into recognizance.
Upon information made of the materiality of any witness within the
State to support any accusation made or when the materiality of such
witness shall be within the knowledge of any magistrate, he shall
issue his warrant requiring such witness to appear before him or the
next magistrate to enter into recognizance, with good security, if
deemed proper. Such warrant shall authorize the arrest and detention
of any such witness in any county in the State. On being brought
before such magistrate and refusing to enter into recognizance, such
witness may be committed by the magistrate to the jail of the
county, there to remain until he shall be regularly discharged or
shall enter into recognizance as required by this chapter.
Too bad I'm not "within the State".
That does nothing to keep you off a wanted list in our State or in your own
State.
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Maybe you should have someone who
actually understands what they read explain it to you.
Maybe you should start studying more so you won't step into such deep *****
so quick so often.
You ready for HPD to pick you up and take you before a judge and fine you
now?
SECTION 22-5-560. Arrest of witness on behalf of accused.
The accused shall, in felonies and in no other case, have the like
process to compel the attendance of any witness
in his behalf as is granted or permitted on the part of the State.
Of course, you'll have to mention that I'm only a witness to your
incredible behavior in Usenet newsgroups.
Of course you will have to be able to wiggle your way out of any legal
investigation brought upon yourself by your many ramblings you haev made
online.
You sure you aren't witnessing anything and not interferring with the
Anderson COunty prosecutors office?
Why did you put that link up , idiot?
I guess your chorts are at risk because of your ill advice.
Your malicious tactics are despised by law.
SECTION 22-5-570. Amount of recognizance of witness.
The recognizance of any prosecutor or witness, in a case of
misdemeanor, shall not be for less than one hundred dollars and, in
case of a capital felony, shall not be for less than five hundred
dollars though in all cases the magistrate shall cause it to be in
such amount as the circumstances may seem to require."
Don't you see now how you can be arrested, any person who sets foot
in or enters S.C. by car or airplane or boat or parachute or
hangglider or any other means of entry after you interfered with the
proceedings of SC?
I didn't interfere with any proceedings. Take it up with your
Solicitor.
I will if she mentions anything that will indicate that you had any
involvement whatsoever in these matters.
I have an attorney who can sue the hell out of them.
Neither of us are ashamed to expose corruption in government because we know
government is for the people, not for the government and the derelicts such
as you who think they know more than the people know.
I guess that Furman Univeristy education is really something that makes it
look like the Harvard of the South after all, huh?
When you send communication to the State of South Carolina in such
proceedings, the presence of your words is noted along with your
identity and location, and it subjects you to the codes I just
showed to you.
Are you really wanting to be arrested there in Texas and/or here in
S.C. so you can tell a judge about your illegal rantings?
I doubt that's going to happen, for reasons obvious to anyone but
yourself.
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
You best stay out of the affairs of SC and its people.
Your identity is easily put on a 'Chief Suspect' list in case you decide to
visit this state.
The people of South Carolina approved an Amendment to our
Constitution that declares the marriage between one man and woman to
be the only legally recognized union in South Carolina by a 4-1
margin.
...which has nothing to do with your continuing mental derangement.
Again, you resort to abject insult and slander to defend you.
They can't be distracted by your lies.
The law and your actions are what determine how you are to be treated.
All you malcontents who like to attack the people of South Carolina
so much can be put on a wanted list.
You can be arrested, imprisoned and fined.
That much is certain.
Just about like you will be paid millions of dollars by South
Carolina after they admit they violated your rights.
I never said the State of South Carolina was going to pay me the millions,
but you know what?
With 4 million people here, that should be no problem at all.
(This proclamation of yours is going to the Solicitor.)
By whose hand?
I am glad you are sending it.
Maybe you are glad you posted the link so stool pidgeons could take your
bait.
Now, see how unprotective you are to the people of the Uniteed States?
When will you realize that your illict con game is doomed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
03 Apr 2007 02:15:26 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
In news:szky7l9gvrr.fsf@eris.io.com,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@eris.io.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"SECTION 22-5-550. Arrest and committal of witness on refusal to enter
into recognizance. Upon information made of the materiality of any
witness within the State to support any accusation made or when the
materiality of such witness shall be within the knowledge of any
magistrate, he shall issue his warrant requiring such witness to appear
before him or the next magistrate to enter into recognizance, with good
security, if deemed proper. Such warrant shall authorize the arrest and
detention of any such witness in any county in the State. On being brought
before such magistrate and refusing to enter into recognizance, such
witness may be committed by the magistrate to the jail of the county,
there to remain until he shall be regularly discharged or shall enter into
recognizance as required by this chapter.
Too bad I'm not "within the State".
That does nothing to keep you off a wanted list in our State or in your own
State.
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Maybe you should have someone who actually understands what they read
explain it to you.
Maybe you should start studying more so you won't step into such deep *****
so quick so often.
You ready for HPD to pick you up and take you before a judge and fine you
now?
I wouldn't be betting on that, yet. (I'm in Texas, remember?)
SECTION 22-5-560. Arrest of witness on behalf of accused.
The accused shall, in felonies and in no other case, have the like
process to compel the attendance of any witness
in his behalf as is granted or permitted on the part of the State.
Of course, you'll have to mention that I'm only a witness to your
incredible behavior in Usenet newsgroups.
Of course you will have to be able to wiggle your way out of any legal
investigation brought upon yourself by your many ramblings you haev made
online.
You sure you aren't witnessing anything and not interferring with the
Anderson COunty prosecutors office?
Why did you put that link up , idiot?
I guess your chorts are at risk because of your ill advice.
Your malicious tactics are despised by law.
:s/law/one John D. Wentzky
Much more accurate.
SECTION 22-5-570. Amount of recognizance of witness.
The recognizance of any prosecutor or witness, in a case of
misdemeanor, shall not be for less than one hundred dollars and, in
case of a capital felony, shall not be for less than five hundred
dollars though in all cases the magistrate shall cause it to be in
such amount as the circumstances may seem to require."
Don't you see now how you can be arrested, any person who sets foot
in or enters S.C. by car or airplane or boat or parachute or
hangglider or any other means of entry after you interfered with the
proceedings of SC?
I didn't interfere with any proceedings. Take it up with your
Solicitor.
I will if she mentions anything that will indicate that you had any
involvement whatsoever in these matters.
I have an attorney who can sue the hell out of them.
Neither of us are ashamed to expose corruption in government because we know
government is for the people, not for the government and the derelicts such
as you who think they know more than the people know.
I guess that Furman Univeristy education is really something that makes it
look like the Harvard of the South after all, huh?
Not by your foaming at the mouth, it doesn't...but then, they couldn't have
known in 1983 that you'd turn into the raving whackjob you are today.
When you send communication to the State of South Carolina in such
proceedings, the presence of your words is noted along with your
identity and location, and it subjects you to the codes I just
showed to you.
Are you really wanting to be arrested there in Texas and/or here in
S.C. so you can tell a judge about your illegal rantings?
I doubt that's going to happen, for reasons obvious to anyone but
yourself.
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
You best stay out of the affairs of SC and its people.
Your identity is easily put on a 'Chief Suspect' list in case you decide to
visit this state.
Since I haven't been there in thirty years (if not longer), I'm not going to
worry about that.
The people of South Carolina approved an Amendment to our
Constitution that declares the marriage between one man and woman to
be the only legally recognized union in South Carolina by a 4-1
margin.
...which has nothing to do with your continuing mental derangement.
Again, you resort to abject insult and slander to defend you.
They can't be distracted by your lies.
The law and your actions are what determine how you are to be treated.
....and as you've spared no effort to demonstrate, you have very little (if
any) understanding of both.
All you malcontents who like to attack the people of South Carolina
so much can be put on a wanted list.
You can be arrested, imprisoned and fined.
That much is certain.
Just about like you will be paid millions of dollars by South
Carolina after they admit they violated your rights.
I never said the State of South Carolina was going to pay me the millions,
but you know what? With 4 million people here, that should be no problem at
all.
That might show up in the Solicitor's office, as well.
(This proclamation of yours is going to the Solicitor.)
By whose hand?
I am glad you are sending it.
Maybe you are glad you posted the link so stool pidgeons could take your
bait.
Now, see how unprotective you are to the people of the Uniteed States?
When will you realize that your illict con game is doomed?
I don't think that's a reasonable worry to waste my time on, at this time.
I hope you *don't* get any communications from her until such time as your
indictment is listed with a permanent number and can be scheduled on the court
docket.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Worcester 7, Houston 3 (March 31)
NEXT GAME: Tuesday, April 3 vs. Peoria, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
03 Apr 2007 02:01:10 PM |
|
|
Where is my original post?
Looks like there are more criminal charges to file against the perpetrator
who violated my free speech rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
03 Apr 2007 02:20:18 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Where is my original post?
Probably in the Solicitor's inbox, I'd imagine.
Looks like there are more criminal charges to file against the perpetrator
who violated my free speech rights.
What violation? You posted it without any hindrance from me (or anyone
else).
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Worcester 7, Houston 3 (March 31)
NEXT GAME: Tuesday, April 3 vs. Peoria, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
03 Apr 2007 02:44:08 PM |
|
|
In news:szkr6r1uux9.fsf@eris.io.com,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@eris.io.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Where is my original post?
Probably in the Solicitor's inbox, I'd imagine.
Your imagination is fraugth with error too many times.
Looks like there are more criminal charges to file against the
perpetrator who violated my free speech rights.
What violation? You posted it without any hindrance from me (or
anyone else).
Without any hindrance? If my original message did not post to its intended
destination that is reason enough to indicate tampering occurred, and not by
me.
Interfering with private communications in violation of the Freedom of
Speech law is a crime.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
03 Apr 2007 03:11:59 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
In news:szkr6r1uux9.fsf@eris.io.com,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@eris.io.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Where is my original post?
Probably in the Solicitor's inbox, I'd imagine.
Your imagination is fraugth with error too many times.
I can easily access it from my ISP's news server...which means it's still
there.
Looks like there are more criminal charges to file against the
perpetrator who violated my free speech rights.
What violation? You posted it without any hindrance from me (or
anyone else).
Without any hindrance? If my original message did not post to its intended
destination that is reason enough to indicate tampering occurred, and not by
me.
I have nothing to do with that. I access one ISP, and that's it.
Interfering with private communications in violation of the Freedom of
Speech law is a crime.
Have fun annoying even more people, given your lack of detective skills.
(It's still there in the NNTP spool, at my ISP.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Worcester 7, Houston 3 (March 31)
NEXT GAME: Tuesday, April 3 vs. Peoria, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seth Breidbart" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
04 Apr 2007 12:19:34 PM |
|
|
In article <A4yQh.33273$5i7.15393@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:szkr6r1uux9.fsf@eris.io.com,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@eris.io.com> typed:
What violation? You posted it without any hindrance from me (or
anyone else).
Without any hindrance? If my original message did not post to its intended
destination that is reason enough to indicate tampering occurred, and not by
me.
You can pretend anything you want. Nobody is likely to be convicted
on an "indication" that doesn't say anything about _who_ did anything.
Interfering with private communications in violation of the Freedom of
Speech law is a crime.
What "Freedom of Speech law" are you talking about?
No law says I can't tell you to shut up.
No law says I can't delete your messages from my server.
Seth
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
04 Apr 2007 12:35:16 PM |
|
|
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ev0mn6$gi0$1@reader2.panix.com...
In article <A4yQh.33273$5i7.15393@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:szkr6r1uux9.fsf@eris.io.com,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@eris.io.com> typed:
What violation? You posted it without any hindrance from me (or
anyone else).
Without any hindrance? If my original message did not post to its intended
destination that is reason enough to indicate tampering occurred, and not
by
me.
You can pretend anything you want. Nobody is likely to be convicted
on an "indication" that doesn't say anything about _who_ did anything.
I looked into it already, and attempted to cancel the post.
Why is it you anti-liberty, anti-autonomy, unconstitutional USENET
hypocrites think you have any right whatsoever to not honor newsgroup users;
cancellation requests?
Everyone already knows you people to be losers who are pallied with those
who lay snares against people.
Everyone hates that sort of criminal behavior in the entire USA.
I really hate the computer head criminal lazy spyring idiots.
Interfering with private communications in violation of the Freedom of
Speech law is a crime.
What "Freedom of Speech law" are you talking about?
Read the First Amendment.
No law says I can't tell you to shut up.
Who cares?
No law says I can't delete your messages from my server.
You can delete any message you want to delete from your system, except for
messages you post that you want to cancel.
If USENET servers do not honor my message cancellation requests, then they
are fobidden from cancelling their own posts.
Do you really want to be a hypocrite who is hated by everyone other than
yourself?
Seth
I thought that name was a lot better than what you show me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the wharf rat" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
04 Apr 2007 01:26:01 PM |
|
|
In article <CmRQh.44899$sC.4096@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Why is it you anti-liberty, anti-autonomy, unconstitutional USENET
hypocrites think you have any right whatsoever to not honor newsgroup users;
cancellation requests?
Lol. You remind me of that guy with no arms from Boston...
Server operators used to be happy to honor cancels (and supersedes
and etc.) but nasty spammers and hackers used them to make trouble so now
no one in his right mind would honor a cancel message that wasn't
accompanied by 9 kinds of strong authentication.
Feel free to write that part and submit it to the INN project :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seth Breidbart" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
04 Apr 2007 09:19:00 PM |
|
|
In article <CmRQh.44899$sC.4096@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ev0mn6$gi0$1@reader2.panix.com...
You can pretend anything you want. Nobody is likely to be convicted
on an "indication" that doesn't say anything about _who_ did anything.
I looked into it already, and attempted to cancel the post.
So? Nobody else is required to act on your cancel message.
Why is it you anti-liberty, anti-autonomy, unconstitutional USENET
hypocrites
What makes you use self-description to refer to others?
think you have any right whatsoever to not honor newsgroup users;
cancellation requests?
Federal Law specifies the form a deletion notice must follow. Usenet
cancels are not of that form; hence even in the US they need not be
followed. If you send a DMCA takedown notice (to the operator of
_each_ server) you'll have a better chance to get the posting removed.
Everyone already knows you people to be losers who are pallied with those
who lay snares against people.
Who are "you people"? Those with clues (to distinguish us [tinu] from you?)
Everyone hates that sort of criminal behavior in the entire USA.
I really hate the computer head criminal lazy spyring idiots.
If you hate everything about Usenet why do you post on it?
Interfering with private communications in violation of the Freedom of
Speech law is a crime.
What "Freedom of Speech law" are you talking about?
Read the First Amendment.
That's the one that puts limits on Congress, right? It says so, right
at the beginning. I'm not Congress, therefore the First Amendment
puts no limits on me.
You can delete any message you want to delete from your system, except for
messages you post that you want to cancel.
It's my system, I can delete any messages I want, period.
If USENET servers do not honor my message cancellation requests, then they
are fobidden from cancelling their own posts.
Go ahead and forbid me to do something on my system. I don't have to
care, much less obey you.
Do you really want to be a hypocrite who is hated by everyone other than
yourself?
No, and I'm not. Just widely hated by spammers and other fools.
Seth
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
04 Apr 2007 11:19:14 PM |
|
|
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ev1mak$5av$1@reader2.panix.com...
In article <CmRQh.44899$sC.4096@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ev0mn6$gi0$1@reader2.panix.com...
You can pretend anything you want. Nobody is likely to be convicted
on an "indication" that doesn't say anything about _who_ did anything.
I looked into it already, and attempted to cancel the post.
So? Nobody else is required to act on your cancel message.
*****.
MY posts are MY posts.
USENET does not have copyright to my effects.
It is not my fault that you can be blamed for failing to honor cancellation
requests sent by the original effector of a message.
Why is it you anti-liberty, anti-autonomy, unconstitutional USENET
hypocrites
What makes you use self-description to refer to others?
I'm not describing myself.
I am describing people such as you who are so dishonorable that no one
really likes you.
think you have any right whatsoever to not honor newsgroup users;
cancellation requests?
Federal Law specifies the form a deletion notice must follow. Usenet
cancels are not of that form; hence even in the US they need not be
followed. If you send a DMCA takedown notice (to the operator of
_each_ server) you'll have a better chance to get the posting removed.
Everyone already knows you people to be losers who are pallied with those
who lay snares against people.
Who are "you people"? Those with clues (to distinguish us [tinu] from
you?)
Everyone hates that sort of criminal behavior in the entire USA.
I really hate the computer head criminal lazy spyring idiots.
If you hate everything about Usenet why do you post on it?
So, you are saying that USENET is nothing more than a traitorous spyring?
Interfering with private communications in violation of the Freedom of
Speech law is a crime.
What "Freedom of Speech law" are you talking about?
Read the First Amendment.
That's the one that puts limits on Congress, right? It says so, right
at the beginning. I'm not Congress, therefore the First Amendment
puts no limits on me.
Nah. The First Amendment applies to you.
If you operate a public newsserver, you have zero right to hold posters'
message hostage.
You can delete any message you want to delete from your system, except for
messages you post that you want to cancel.
It's my system, I can delete any messages I want, period.
You mean you are a hypocrite who cancels messages he posts and does not
allow people to cancel the messages they post on the part of usenet you
operate?
If USENET servers do not honor my message cancellation requests, then they
are fobidden from cancelling their own posts.
Go ahead and forbid me to do something on my system. I don't have to
care, much less obey you.
You should learn not to be a hypocrite.
Your hypocritically rebellious attitude is condemnable.
Do you really want to be a hypocrite who is hated by everyone other than
yourself?
No, and I'm not.
Not if you are a usenet server operator and are not honoring posters'
cancellation requests while you pick and choose what messages of your own
you delete/cancel.
Just widely hated by spammers and other fools.
I am not a spammer, hypocritical usenet idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seth Breidbart" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
05 Apr 2007 12:52:28 PM |
|
|
In article <iO_Qh.31128$Wc.30142@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ev1mak$5av$1@reader2.panix.com...
So? Nobody else is required to act on your cancel message.
*****.
MY posts are MY posts.
Nobody said that they aren't.
My server is my server.
My time is my time.
If you want my time spent doing things on my server, you might try to
negotiate an appropriate agreement with me (hint: pay me). In the
absence of a contract, I have no obligation to spend my time as you
wish.
USENET does not have copyright to my effects.
Nobody said it did, which is fortunate, because there's no such
entity.
It is not my fault that you can be blamed for failing to honor cancellation
requests sent by the original effector of a message.
Blaming is a state of mind. Anybody can blame anybody else for
anything. Anybody else doesn't have to care.
think you have any right whatsoever to not honor newsgroup users;
cancellation requests?
Federal Law specifies the form a deletion notice must follow. Usenet
cancels are not of that form; hence even in the US they need not be
followed. If you send a DMCA takedown notice (to the operator of
_each_ server) you'll have a better chance to get the posting removed.
No answer to that, huh? Why not?
Everyone hates that sort of criminal behavior in the entire USA.
I really hate the computer head criminal lazy spyring idiots.
If you hate everything about Usenet why do you post on it?
So, you are saying that USENET is nothing more than a traitorous spyring?
No, apparently you are. Why do you spend so much time and effort on
something you hate?
Read the First Amendment.
That's the one that puts limits on Congress, right? It says so, right
at the beginning. I'm not Congress, therefore the First Amendment
puts no limits on me.
Nah. The First Amendment applies to you.
It says that Congress can't make certain laws. I suppose it applies
to me in that if I were elected to Congress, I couldn't make those
laws. But I don't make any laws, I just play with my toys.
If you operate a public newsserver,
What is a "public newsserver"? My server isn't public, it's _mine_.
Private property. I own it. I have a bill and receipt for it.
Can I force you to write what I want by claiming you have a "public
pen"?
you have zero right to hold posters'
message hostage.
On my server, I have all the rights. But your message, which appears
on many servers all over the world, certainly isn't being held hostage
on my one machine.
You can delete any message you want to delete from your system, except for
messages you post that you want to cancel.
It's my system, I can delete any messages I want, period.
You mean you are a hypocrite who cancels messages he posts and does not
allow people to cancel the messages they post on the part of usenet you
operate?
No, I mean that on my system, I can do what I want. On your system,
you can do what you want. No hypocrisy there; everybody has the right
to treat _his_ property as _he_ wishes. Nobody has the obligation to
treat _his_ property as _somebody else_ wishes.
If USENET servers do not honor my message cancellation requests, then they
are fobidden from cancelling their own posts.
Go ahead and forbid me to do something on my system. I don't have to
care, much less obey you.
You should learn not to be a hypocrite.
I forbid you to post any more.
Are you now a hypocrite for not obeying me?
Your hypocritically rebellious attitude is condemnable.
Go ahead and condemn anything you want. Nobody cares.
Do you really want to be a hypocrite who is hated by everyone other than
yourself?
No, and I'm not.
Not if you are a usenet server operator and are not honoring posters'
cancellation requests while you pick and choose what messages of your own
you delete/cancel.
Whine some more, maybe somebody will care. I won't.
Just widely hated by spammers and other fools.
I am not a spammer
I guess that leaves "other fools".
hypocritical usenet idiot.
Nice self-descriptive sig.
Seth
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
05 Apr 2007 07:20:29 PM |
|
|
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ev3d0s$8kl$1@reader2.panix.com...
In article <iO_Qh.31128$Wc.30142@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ev1mak$5av$1@reader2.panix.com...
So? Nobody else is required to act on your cancel message.
*****.
MY posts are MY posts.
Nobody said that they aren't.
My server is my server.
My time is my time.
If you want my time spent doing things on my server, you might try to
negotiate an appropriate agreement with me (hint: pay me). In the
absence of a contract, I have no obligation to spend my time as you
wish.
I pay my isp for newsgroup access. Why is it you think you have a right to
demand payment from me for my ips to honor my cancellation commands?
You didn't pay me anything for my writings, so I have no obligation to pay
you anything when I post or when I effect a cancellation message.
USENET does not have copyright to my effects.
Nobody said it did, which is fortunate, because there's no such
entity.
It is not my fault that you can be blamed for failing to honor
cancellation
requests sent by the original effector of a message.
Blaming is a state of mind. Anybody can blame anybody else for
anything. Anybody else doesn't have to care.
think you have any right whatsoever to not honor newsgroup users;
cancellation requests?
Federal Law specifies the form a deletion notice must follow. Usenet
cancels are not of that form; hence even in the US they need not be
followed. If you send a DMCA takedown notice (to the operator of
_each_ server) you'll have a better chance to get the posting removed.
No answer to that, huh? Why not?
I saw no reason to answer that when I have an SIP who sends my cancellation
messages.
Propagating a cancellation command is not harder than propagasting a post.
[snip]
You mean you are a hypocrite who cancels messages he posts and does not
allow people to cancel the messages they post on the part of usenet you
operate?
No, I mean that on my system, I can do what I want. On your system,
you can do what you want.
Of course I can, but if I decide to remove my post from the usenet domain
why are you not content with me or anyone else exercising their right to do
such?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom S" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
06 Apr 2007 06:13:39 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 20:20:29 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ev3d0s$8kl$1@reader2.panix.com...
In article <iO_Qh.31128$Wc.30142@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ev1mak$5av$1@reader2.panix.com...
So? Nobody else is required to act on your cancel message.
*****.
MY posts are MY posts.
Nobody said that they aren't.
My server is my server.
My time is my time.
If you want my time spent doing things on my server, you might try to
negotiate an appropriate agreement with me (hint: pay me). In the
absence of a contract, I have no obligation to spend my time as you
wish.
I pay my isp for newsgroup access. Why is it you think you have a right to
demand payment from me for my ips to honor my cancellation commands?
You really are ignorant of the operation of the Internet and Usenet ,
aren't you. You pay your ISP for the privilege of accessing their
computer to propagate your postings across all servers that carry this
newsgroup. Your ISP TOS may require them to honor your cancel
request. But all that requires them to do is (maybe) remove the
posting from their computer and notify other servers that a
cancellation has been requested. The other ISPs have no obligation to
do anything for you.
You didn't pay me anything for my writings, so I have no obligation to pay
you anything when I post or when I effect a cancellation message.
USENET does not have copyright to my effects.
Nobody said it did, which is fortunate, because there's no such
entity.
It is not my fault that you can be blamed for failing to honor
cancellation
requests sent by the original effector of a message.
Blaming is a state of mind. Anybody can blame anybody else for
anything. Anybody else doesn't have to care.
think you have any right whatsoever to not honor newsgroup users;
cancellation requests?
Federal Law specifies the form a deletion notice must follow. Usenet
cancels are not of that form; hence even in the US they need not be
followed. If you send a DMCA takedown notice (to the operator of
_each_ server) you'll have a better chance to get the posting removed.
No answer to that, huh? Why not?
I saw no reason to answer that when I have an SIP who sends my cancellation
messages.
Propagating a cancellation command is not harder than propagasting a post.
But, it is an added workload.
You mean you are a hypocrite who cancels messages he posts and does not
allow people to cancel the messages they post on the part of usenet you
operate?
No, I mean that on my system, I can do what I want. On your system,
you can do what you want.
Of course I can, but if I decide to remove my post from the usenet domain
why are you not content with me or anyone else exercising their right to do
such?
Because there is no such right. Once your post reaches the "Usenet
domain", you no longer have any control over it. Each of the servers,
ISPs, etc. on Usenet has the right - individually- to decide what they
do with that post.
Tom S.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
06 Apr 2007 08:15:06 AM |
|
|
"Tom S" <tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ppac1317t5lkiqt86rdbsagep0v6maqgp3@4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 20:20:29 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ev3d0s$8kl$1@reader2.panix.com...
In article <iO_Qh.31128$Wc.30142@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ev1mak$5av$1@reader2.panix.com...
So? Nobody else is required to act on your cancel message.
*****.
MY posts are MY posts.
Nobody said that they aren't.
My server is my server.
My time is my time.
If you want my time spent doing things on my server, you might try to
negotiate an appropriate agreement with me (hint: pay me). In the
absence of a contract, I have no obligation to spend my time as you
wish.
I pay my isp for newsgroup access. Why is it you think you have a right to
demand payment from me for my ips to honor my cancellation commands?
You really are ignorant of the operation of the Internet and Usenet ,
aren't you.
Probably not as much as you or as much as you think.
You pay your ISP for the privilege of accessing their
computer to propagate your postings across all servers that carry this
newsgroup. Your ISP TOS may require them to honor your cancel
request. But all that requires them to do is (maybe) remove the
posting from their computer and notify other servers that a
cancellation has been requested. The other ISPs have no obligation to
do anything for you.
Nah. Read the 4th Amendment and understand it.
You didn't pay me anything for my writings, so I have no obligation to pay
you anything when I post or when I effect a cancellation message.
USENET does not have copyright to my effects.
Nobody said it did, which is fortunate, because there's no such
entity.
It is not my fault that you can be blamed for failing to honor
cancellation
requests sent by the original effector of a message.
Blaming is a state of mind. Anybody can blame anybody else for
anything. Anybody else doesn't have to care.
think you have any right whatsoever to not honor newsgroup users;
cancellation requests?
Federal Law specifies the form a deletion notice must follow. Usenet
cancels are not of that form; hence even in the US they need not be
followed. If you send a DMCA takedown notice (to the operator of
_each_ server) you'll have a better chance to get the posting removed.
No answer to that, huh? Why not?
I saw no reason to answer that when I have an ISP who sends my
cancellation
messages.
Propagating a cancellation command is not harder than propagasting a post.
But, it is an added workload.
It is no harder than propagating posts.
You mean you are a hypocrite who cancels messages he posts and does not
allow people to cancel the messages they post on the part of usenet you
operate?
No, I mean that on my system, I can do what I want. On your system,
you can do what you want.
Of course I can, but if I decide to remove my post from the usenet domain
why are you not content with me or anyone else exercising their right to
do
such?
Because there is no such right.
Why do you want to lie in this area?
Once your post reaches the "Usenet domain", you no longer have any
control over it.
Error. You mean once it reaches usenet the hypocritical anti-4th amendment
loons are not honoring the peoples' right to be safe and SECURE in their
effects.
Each of the servers, ISPs, etc. on Usenet has the right - individually-
to decide what they
do with that post.
Not in fact, you anti-4th amendment usury pervert.
The cancellation command is built into the newsreader software.
Denying such commands is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Usenet server operators have no right to ownership of any posts other than
their own posts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom S" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
06 Apr 2007 06:18:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:15:06 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Tom S" <tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ppac1317t5lkiqt86rdbsagep0v6maqgp3@4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 20:20:29 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ev3d0s$8kl$1@reader2.panix.com...
In article <iO_Qh.31128$Wc.30142@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ev1mak$5av$1@reader2.panix.com...
So? Nobody else is required to act on your cancel message.
*****.
MY posts are MY posts.
Nobody said that they aren't.
My server is my server.
My time is my time.
If you want my time spent doing things on my server, you might try to
negotiate an appropriate agreement with me (hint: pay me). In the
absence of a contract, I have no obligation to spend my time as you
wish.
I pay my isp for newsgroup access. Why is it you think you have a right to
demand payment from me for my ips to honor my cancellation commands?
You really are ignorant of the operation of the Internet and Usenet ,
aren't you.
Probably not as much as you or as much as you think.
Since I am having to explain how Usenet operates, it is intuitively
obvious that I know and understand more about it than you do.
You pay your ISP for the privilege of accessing their
computer to propagate your postings across all servers that carry this
newsgroup. Your ISP TOS may require them to honor your cancel
request. But all that requires them to do is (maybe) remove the
posting from their computer and notify other servers that a
cancellation has been requested. The other ISPs have no obligation to
do anything for you.
Nah. Read the 4th Amendment and understand it.
I have and do and nothing there applies to your "case".
You didn't pay me anything for my writings, so I have no obligation to pay
you anything when I post or when I effect a cancellation message.
USENET does not have copyright to my effects.
Nobody said it did, which is fortunate, because there's no such
entity.
It is not my fault that you can be blamed for failing to honor
cancellation
requests sent by the original effector of a message.
Blaming is a state of mind. Anybody can blame anybody else for
anything. Anybody else doesn't have to care.
think you have any right whatsoever to not honor newsgroup users;
cancellation requests?
Federal Law specifies the form a deletion notice must follow. Usenet
cancels are not of that form; hence even in the US they need not be
followed. If you send a DMCA takedown notice (to the operator of
_each_ server) you'll have a better chance to get the posting removed.
No answer to that, huh? Why not?
I saw no reason to answer that when I have an ISP who sends my
cancellation
messages.
Propagating a cancellation command is not harder than propagasting a post.
But, it is an added workload.
It is no harder than propagating posts.
I didn't say it was harder, only that it is an added workload.
You mean you are a hypocrite who cancels messages he posts and does not
allow people to cancel the messages they post on the part of usenet you
operate?
No, I mean that on my system, I can do what I want. On your system,
you can do what you want.
Of course I can, but if I decide to remove my post from the usenet domain
why are you not content with me or anyone else exercising their right to
do
such?
Because there is no such right.
Why do you want to lie in this area?
I am not lying and you know it. You have the right to REQUEST that a
post be cancelled, just the same as you have the right to REQUEST a
message be posted. On the other hand, the ISPs and server operators
have the right to refuse to honor your request to cancel - and many
refuse to honor all cancellation requests. They also have the right
to refuse to honor a request to post a message - usually on a case by
case basis.
Once your post reaches the "Usenet domain", you no longer have any
control over it.
Error. You mean once it reaches usenet the hypocritical anti-4th amendment
loons are not honoring the peoples' right to be safe and SECURE in their
effects.
No, John Boy. I said it right the first time.
Each of the servers, ISPs, etc. on Usenet has the right - individually-
to decide what they
do with that post.
Not in fact, you anti-4th amendment usury pervert.
The cancellation command is built into the newsreader software.
And you can use it as much as you like. But the ISPs and server
operators have the right to ignore your cancel requests.
Denying such commands is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
It is a request, John Boy. And they are well within their rights to
ignore or deny your request.
Usenet server operators have no right to ownership of any posts other than
their own posts.
They are not claiming the right to ownership of your post or your
cancel request. They are simply exercising their right to ignore you.
Tom S.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
06 Apr 2007 08:51:50 PM |
|
|
"Tom S" <tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:s8kd13demail7s8s00jlb843lrni8pf7lb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:15:06 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Not in fact, you anti-4th amendment usury advocate.
The cancellation command is built into the newsreader software.
And you can use it as much as you like. But the ISPs and server
operators have the right to ignore your cancel requests.
Again, you are thinking that persons other than the person who effected a
post has some sort of right to it.
Denying such commands is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
It is a request, John Boy.
It is a command.
And they are well within their rights to
ignore or deny your request.
They have no right to deny the cancellation command.
Usenet server operators have no right to ownership of any posts other than
their own posts.
They are not claiming the right to ownership of your post or your
cancel request.
Ffailing to honor a cancellation is equivalent to taking a post without the
permission of the effector of the post.
They are simply exercising their right to ignore you.
They have no such right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
06 Apr 2007 09:08:17 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Tom S" <tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:s8kd13demail7s8s00jlb843lrni8pf7lb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:15:06 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Not in fact, you anti-4th amendment usury advocate.
The cancellation command is built into the newsreader software.
And you can use it as much as you like. But the ISPs and server
operators have the right to ignore your cancel requests.
Again, you are thinking that persons other than the person who effected a
post has some sort of right to it.
Again, you're not bothering to think in the first place.
Denying such commands is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
It is a request, John Boy.
It is a command.
....which will be duly ignored by your ISP.
And they are well within their rights to
ignore or deny your request.
They have no right to deny the cancellation command.
They do, despite your delusions to the contrary.
Usenet server operators have no right to ownership of any posts other than
their own posts.
They are not claiming the right to ownership of your post or your
cancel request.
Ffailing to honor a cancellation is equivalent to taking a post without the
permission of the effector of the post.
Take it to court, then, if you're so sure.
They are simply exercising their right to ignore you.
They have no such right.
Maybe you should ask your "public defender" about that - then again, he's
already in a hopeless position of having to either defend you in a public
trial or try and find some way to plea-bargain you out of a long prison stay.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Peoria 8, Houston 2 (April 3)
NEXT GAME: Friday, April 6 at Peoria, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom S" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
07 Apr 2007 07:17:31 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 21:51:50 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Tom S" <tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:s8kd13demail7s8s00jlb843lrni8pf7lb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:15:06 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Not in fact, you anti-4th amendment usury advocate.
The cancellation command is built into the newsreader software.
And you can use it as much as you like. But the ISPs and server
operators have the right to ignore your cancel requests.
Again, you are thinking that persons other than the person who effected a
post has some sort of right to it.
No. I know that when you post material to a Usenet server the
owner-operator of that server has the right to do with it as they
wish. They can keep it; they can delete it; they can propagate it to
Usenet; or they can refuse to propagate it to the Usenet, if you have
been thrown off the Usenet. The only constraint on them (and this is
voluntary) is that they treat all posts equally.
Denying such commands is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
It is a request, John Boy.
It is a command.
Learn to read, John Boy. The reason it is called a Request for
Cancellation is because it is a REQUEST.
And they are well within their rights to
ignore or deny your request.
They have no right to deny the cancellation command.
Of course they have that right. And many of them exercise that right.
Usenet server operators have no right to ownership of any posts other than
their own posts.
They are not claiming the right to ownership of your post or your
cancel request.
Ffailing to honor a cancellation is equivalent to taking a post without the
permission of the effector of the post.
No. You posted an article. They accepted the post and sent it on its
way. Case closed.
It you later decide you didn't want the material posted, you submit a
cancellation REQUEST. If they place your cancellation REQUEST in the
circular file, because that is their policy, there is nothing you can
do about it.
They are simply exercising their right to ignore you.
They have no such right.
Of course they do. Just the same as any of use on Usenet have the
right to ignore you and you have the right to ignore us.
Tom S.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
08 Apr 2007 08:04:18 AM |
|
|
"Tom S" <tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ot1f13l8t7eu3luc7qmd8ct86lu9lrvd93@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 21:51:50 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Tom S" <tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:s8kd13demail7s8s00jlb843lrni8pf7lb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:15:06 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Not in fact, you anti-4th amendment usury advocate.
The cancellation command is built into the newsreader software.
And you can use it as much as you like. But the ISPs and server
operators have the right to ignore your cancel requests.
Again, you are thinking that persons other than the person who effected a
post has some sort of right to it.
No.
Contradicting yourself there.
I know that when you post material to a Usenet server the
owner-operator of that server has the right to do with it as they
wish.
Another idiotic anti-4th amendment statement.
They can keep it; they can delete it; they can propagate it to
Usenet; or they can refuse to propagate it to the Usenet, if you have
been thrown off the Usenet.
Which of those things preserve the 1st and 4th amendment rights of the
people of the USA?
The only constraint on them (and this is
voluntary) is that they treat all posts equally.
Denying such commands is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
It is a request, John Boy.
It is a command.
Learn to read, John Boy.
It is written as a command.
The reason it is called a Request for
Cancellation is because it is a REQUEST.
Nah, idiot.
It is written as a command, and it says, "Cancel Message".
And, guess what?
The "New Post" and "Reply Group" and "Reply" commands aren't requests
either, you censorship fool.
And they are well within their rights to
ignore or deny your request.
They have no right to deny the cancellation command.
Of course they have that right.
Again, you have made yourself into an idiotic anti-USA loon.
And many of them exercise that right.
All of those persons are currently regarded as traitors to the US and its
people.
Usenet server operators have no right to ownership of any posts other
than
their own posts.
They are not claiming the right to ownership of your post or your
cancel request.
Failing to honor a cancellation is equivalent to taking a post without the
permission of the effector of the post.
No.
Your rebellious attitude toward the constitution and the people of the USA
is criminal.
You posted an article.
You got that part right.
They accepted the post and sent it on its
way. Case closed.
Case is not closed, you idiot.
It you later decide you didn't want the material posted, you submit a
cancellation REQUEST.
Nah, you anti-constitutionalist pig.
When I send a CANCELLATION COMMAND I am elgally entitled to my post being
cancelled.
Any USENET operator who does not obey my CANCELLATION COMMAND is violating
my constitutional rights.
All your dogshitforbrains idiotic anti-constitutionalist tripe is criminal.
If they place your cancellation REQUEST in the circular file, because that
is their policy, there is nothing you can
do about it.
Your traitorous ideas are criminal.
They are simply exercising their right to ignore you.
They have no such right.
Of course they do.
Actually, you dogshitforbeains idiot, they don't.
Just the same as any of use on Usenet have the
right to ignore you and you have the right to ignore us.
Not even close, you idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the State of South Carolina. |
08 Apr 2007 09:59:20 AM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Tom S" <tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ot1f13l8t7eu3luc7qmd8ct86lu9lrvd93@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 21:51:50 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Tom S" <tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:s8kd13demail7s8s00jlb843lrni8pf7lb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:15:06 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Not in fact, you anti-4th amendment usury advocate.
The cancellation command is built into the newsreader software.
And you can use it as much as you like. But the ISPs and server
operators have the right to ignore your cancel requests.
Again, you are thinking that persons other than the person who effected a
post has some sort of right to it.
No.
Contradicting yourself there.
You're talking to yourself in a public newsgroup again.
I know that when you post material to a Usenet server the owner-operator
of that server has the right to do with it as they wish.
Another idiotic anti-4th amendment statement.
You're against everything in the Constitution that doesn't let you get your
way.
They can keep it; they can delete it; they can propagate it to
Usenet; or they can refuse to propagate it to the Usenet, if you have
been thrown off the Usenet.
Which of those things preserve the 1st and 4th amendment rights of the
people of the USA?
What part of "ISPs aren't usually governments" are you too insane to
understand?
The only constraint on them (and this is
voluntary) is that they treat all posts equally.
Denying such commands is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
It is a request, John Boy.
It is a command.
Learn to read, John Boy.
It is written as a command.
....in your less than credible "understanding" of written English, at least.
The reason it is called a Request for
Cancellation is because it is a REQUEST.
Nah, idiot.
It is written as a command, and it says, "Cancel Message".
And, guess what?
The "New Post" and "Reply Group" and "Reply" commands aren't requests
either, you censorship fool.
....says the little circus freak of Anderson who has been trying to drag
white-supremacist kooks in from other newsgroups to support his "cause".
And they are well within their rights to
ignore or deny your request.
They have no right to deny the cancellation command.
Of course they have that right.
Again, you have made yourself into an idiotic anti-USA loon.
Again, you're showing how you're going to babble yourself into a long stay at
a state hospital.
And many of them exercise that right.
All of those persons are currently regarded as traitors to the US and its
people.
....by a future inmate of the South Carolina penal system.
Usenet server operators have no right to ownership of any posts other
than their own posts.
They are not claiming the right to ownership of your post or your
cancel request.
Failing to honor a cancellation is equivalent to taking a post without the
permission of the effector of the post.
No.
Your rebellious attitude toward the constitution and the people of the USA
is criminal.
Be sure to keep hammering that point when you're standing trial. Usenet will
be a better place for your absence.
You posted an article.
You got that part right.
You probably had to have someone else point that out.
They accepted the post and sent it on its way. Case closed.
Case is not closed, you idiot.
Your case definitely isn't.
It you later decide you didn't want the material posted, you submit a
cancellation REQUEST.
Nah, you anti-constitutionalist pig.
When I send a CANCELLATION COMMAND I am elgally entitled to my post being
cancelled.
Any USENET operator who does not obey my CANCELLATION COMMAND is violating
my constitutional rights.
All your dogshitforbrains idiotic anti-constitutionalist tripe is criminal.
I pity the poor public defender who will have to state your case to the
court. Something tells me s/he will wind up taking anything the state offers,
just to get it over with.
If they place your cancellation REQUEST in the circular file, because that
is their policy, there is nothing you can
do about it.
Your traitorous ideas are criminal.
....and there is precisely nothing you can do about his opinions.
They are simply exercising their right to ignore you.
They have no such right.
Of course they do.
Actually, you dogshitforbeains idiot, they don't.
Expect that proclamation to show up in the trial.
Just the same as any of use on Usenet have the
right to ignore you and you have the right to ignore us.
Not even close, you idiot.
You're not very close to sanity, indeed. You continue to spare no effort to
prove that.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 1, Omaha 0 (OT) (April 7)
NEXT GAME: Tuesday, April 10 at Milwaukee, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom S" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
08 Apr 2007 05:44:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:04:18 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Tom S" <tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ot1f13l8t7eu3luc7qmd8ct86lu9lrvd93@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 21:51:50 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Tom S" <tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:s8kd13demail7s8s00jlb843lrni8pf7lb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:15:06 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Not in fact, you anti-4th amendment usury advocate.
The cancellation command is built into the newsreader software.
And you can use it as much as you like. But the ISPs and server
operators have the right to ignore your cancel requests.
Again, you are thinking that persons other than the person who effected a
post has some sort of right to it.
No.
Contradicting yourself there.
No.
I know that when you post material to a Usenet server the
owner-operator of that server has the right to do with it as they
wish.
Another idiotic anti-4th amendment statement.
No, John Boy. When you give the material to UseNet, i.e., post it,
then you are give up all control over that copy of the material. The
original material is still yours, but the copy you gave to UseNet is
now theirs to do with as they please.
Reading and understanding the 4th amendment was the remedial 5th grade
civics lesson for last month, John Boy. You obviously failed that
lesson. This month's lesson is the 5th amendment. You know, the one
you would be smart to invoke when you go to court
They can keep it; they can delete it; they can propagate it to
Usenet; or they can refuse to propagate it to the Usenet, if you have
been thrown off the Usenet.
Which of those things preserve the 1st and 4th amendment rights of the
people of the USA?
All of them.
The only constraint on them (and this is
voluntary) is that they treat all posts equally.
Denying such commands is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
It is a request, John Boy.
It is a command.
Learn to read, John Boy.
It is written as a command.
It could be written as a Happy Valentine's Day card. It is still a
request.
The reason it is called a Request for
Cancellation is because it is a REQUEST.
Nah, idiot.
It is written as a command, and it says, "Cancel Message".
It is posted as a request. A request to the Usenet server operator
for them to issue a cancellation command.
And, guess what?
The "New Post" and "Reply Group" and "Reply" commands aren't requests
either, you censorship fool.
True. They are directions about how a post is to be handled, if it is
accepted by the UseNet server.
And they are well within their rights to
ignore or deny your request.
They have no right to deny the cancellation command.
Of course they have that right.
Again, you have made yourself into an idiotic anti-USA loon.
Wrong, as usual.
And many of them exercise that right.
All of those persons are currently regarded as traitors to the US and its
people.
Only by you. and that hardly matters.
Usenet server operators have no right to ownership of any posts other
than
their own posts.
They are not claiming the right to ownership of your post or your
cancel request.
Failing to honor a cancellation is equivalent to taking a post without the
permission of the effector of the post.
No.
Your rebellious attitude toward the constitution and the people of the USA
is criminal.
Wrong again, John Boy.
You posted an article.
You got that part right.
They accepted the post and sent it on its
way. Case closed.
Case is not closed, you idiot.
Of course, it's closed. You submitted an article to be posted. They
posted it as you requested. End of Story. Anything happening after
that is a new story.
It you later decide you didn't want the material posted, you submit a
cancellation REQUEST.
Nah, you anti-constitutionalist pig.
When I send a CANCELLATION COMMAND I am elgally entitled to my post being
cancelled.
'Fraid not, John Boy. When you submit a Cancellation Request, you are
asking the Usenet server operator to execute a command on their server
AND forward your request to all other servers who received your
original post. They have the right to accept and execute your
request, execute the cancel only on their server, or deny your
request.
You cannot execute a command on someone else's computer system, unless
they give you that authority. Wisely, they have not.....and probably
never will.
Any USENET operator who does not obey my CANCELLATION COMMAND is violating
my constitutional rights.
No. They are exercising their constitutional rights. Your rights to
the material you post ends as soon as you push the "Send" button.
All your dogshitforbrains idiotic anti-constitutionalist tripe is criminal.
If they place your cancellation REQUEST in the circular file, because that
is their policy, there is nothing you can
do about it.
Your traitorous ideas are criminal.
They are simply exercising their right to ignore you.
They have no such right.
Of course they do.
Actually, you dogshitforbeains idiot, they don't.
Just the same as any of use on Usenet have the
right to ignore you and you have the right to ignore us.
Not even close, you idiot.
You are right. Not close. It is a square on, dead center bullseye.
Everyone on UseNet has the right to ignore you and you have the right
to ignore us.
Tom S.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Notice to PLH.............. You and all your cohorts are advised to stay out of the personal affaris of the Sate of South Carolina. |
05 Apr 2007 12:06:57 AM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
You can pretend anything you want. Nobody is likely to be convicted
on an "indication" that doesn't say anything about _who_ did anything.
I looked into it already, and attempted to cancel the post.
So? Nobody else is required to act on your cancel message.
*****.
Nope. Sorry. You're not the king.
MY posts are MY posts.
And? Nobody's taking them from you.
USENET does not have copyright to my effects.
Nobody said that they do.
It is not my fault that you can be blamed for failing to honor cancellation
requests sent by the original effector of a message.
For much the same reason that authors do not get to demand the people
return books, you don't get to demand that everybody in the world
delete your raivngs.
Why is it you anti-liberty, anti-autonomy, unconstitutional USENET
hypocrites
What makes you use self-description to refer to others?
I'm not describing myself.
Yes, you are.
Interfering with private communications in violation of the Freedom of
Speech law is a crime.
What "Freedom of Speech law" are you talking about?
Read the First Amendment.
That's the one that puts limits on Congress, right? It says so, right
at the beginning. I'm not Congress, therefore the First Amendment
puts no limits on me.
Nah. The First Amendment applies to you.
Just because that's what you want?
If you operate a public newsserver,
There aren't any. All of them are operated by privately owned
corporations and individuals.
You can delete any message you want to delete from your system, except for
messages you post that you want to cancel.
It's my system, I can delete any messages I want, period.
You mean | | | | | | | | | |
