On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 07:57:37 -0500, Mark K. Bilbo wrote (in article
<pan.2007.04.05.12.57.36.992448@com.mkbilbo>):

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:33:59 -0500, Harry F. Leopold wrote:

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:50:38 -0500, Mark K. Bilbo wrote (in article
<pan.2007.04.02.17.50.37.858807@com.mkbilbo>):

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:41:41 -0500, Harry F. Leopold wrote:

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:11:48 -0500, Mark K. Bilbo wrote (in article
<pan.2007.04.02.14.11.47.841130@com.mkbilbo>):

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:06:15 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 10:52:31 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:

Over here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/7ed788c024aa676a?hl=en&

Stump Broke the Stumbling whines:

"Even though I am not sure how it works yet, 'moderators' of
alt.atheism complained to my ISP so much as to make them worry
about losing their Usenet access. So they want me to stop posting
to alt.atheism. I am forced to oblige for now for practical
reasons. I will be looking into the matter at my
websitehttp://stumper.newvessel.com/"


I tell you, the part about "...I am not sure how it works..." is
true in spades. There are no "moderators" here and he's trying to
say his ISP was worrying *they would lose *their Usenet access.
Completely missing the point that he was engaging in Usenet abuse,
was in violation of his provider's AUP, and it was *his Usenet
access that was at risk.

This one is completely unable to learn. Threatening to harrass
people at home and at work not to mention making veiled comments
about "guns" is just not going to make your ISP happy with you.
Yet he still doesn't get it...

They think their freedom of religious speech trumps everything
else, and their First Amendment rights are under attack when this
doesn't happen.

He just replied to me over in alt.abortion and mentioned the ACLU
and his freedom of speech.

If that ain't troll sign, I don't know what is...

As a former assistent moderator with the ACLU message boards for
better then 6 years (I quit once they went to the web version, I
didn't have the time to do the work anymore and I hate web boards of
any type), I can state categorically that he won't get anywhere with
that argument. Threats of taking it to real life are not protected
speech. Threats of violence in real life are also not protected
speech.

Of course calling him a "doody-head" is protected speech.
("Doody-head" is any word that he does not like being called. It was
our short hand word for lots of bad words, it also pointed out just
how seriously we took their complaints of being called a
"doody-head.")

<snirk>

The Constitutional right to call doody-head!

Damned right! I truly do miss working on the ACLU message boards, but
it was time to move on. (I still hear about plenty of crap that they,
the ACLU itself, not their message board, have to deal with through
Diane.

But I bet it could be *really entertaining at times to read the crap
that comes in...

Actually it was a lot like here. In many cases it was the same morons.