On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:39:39 -0400, Robibnikoff wrote:

"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message

Not by choice. He was informed by his ISP that if he didn't stop
bothering us, he'd be shopping for a new service provider.

Ah hah. Did he state this on his blog somewhere?

It was in his .sig in some alt.abortion posts. Funny thing about it being
he claims his ISP was worried *it would lose it's Usenet access so they
told him to get out of alt.atheism.

I've thought for a while the man has serious trouble with English (not his
first language) comprehension.

Anyway, he's now launched into the typical troll rant about his freedom of
speech being oppressed ("See the violence inherent in the system!")
by--get this--a cabal of moderators in alt.atheism.

get his ISP. And he doesn't wanna talk to us anymore anyway!

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:39:39 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:8dq213h9tcbcrluang455lfvcqq479f900@4ax.com...

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 16:10:15 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.02.13.34.21.576525@com.mkbilbo...

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 09:58:41 -0700,

On 1 apr, 17:52, "Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@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...

I missed those posts about guns and homes So I have no idea why he
would
loose access. But I did see he suddenly stopped making his multitude
of
posts.

I'll miss him though,
he was mostly nice to me
(but then I didn't flame him)

But as you said, you missed his initial volley. He flat out stated he
intended to drive the "hate mongers" (people of which he did not
approve)
out of the group. He said he was "not above" forwarding messages to
employers and family members and asked--repeatedly--weird questions
about
family members, phone numbers, and employers. Also asking, many times,
"do
you have a gun?"

Then, mind you, when we pulled up his ISP contact information and his
domain registration information, he had an absolute fit and accused
people
of threatening to harm his family. Seems it was okay in his mind to
make thinly veiled threats of harrassing alt.atheism regulars at home
and
work but the idea somebody knew anything about him made him squeal
like
a
pig at slaughter.

Which to me says much about his mindset. He was quite comfortable
making
not-so-veiled (and even overt) threats to harrass and stalk newsgroup
regulars but the idea that he's not nearly so anonymous as he thought
he
was put a brick in his shorts. To my mind, that all adds up to
"bully".
And a cowardly one at that as he wants to hide behind an anonymous
Usenet
handle, not risk being face to face with his chosen targets.

You ran into him after he'd been exposed. Seems making threats wasn't
as
fun once he knew he could be reported for them and held accountable...

It seems like he's flown the coop now though, no?

Not by choice. He was informed by his ISP that if he didn't stop
bothering us, he'd be shopping for a new service provider.

Ah hah. Did he state this on his blog somewhere?

He may have, but I couldn't say, since I have no interest in reading
his blog. I confess I was one of the folks who complained about him.
His ISP sent me an e-mail telling me that the problem had been
resolved.

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:52:02 +0930, Michael Gray wrote:

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:39:14 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
- Refer: <8dq213h9tcbcrluang455lfvcqq479f900@4ax.com>

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 16:10:15 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.02.13.34.21.576525@com.mkbilbo...

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 09:58:41 -0700,

On 1 apr, 17:52, "Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@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...

I missed those posts about guns and homes So I have no idea why he
would loose access. But I did see he suddenly stopped making his
multitude of posts.

I'll miss him though,
he was mostly nice to me
(but then I didn't flame him)

But as you said, you missed his initial volley. He flat out stated he
intended to drive the "hate mongers" (people of which he did not
approve) out of the group. He said he was "not above" forwarding
messages to employers and family members and asked--repeatedly--weird
questions about family members, phone numbers, and employers. Also
asking, many times, "do you have a gun?"

Then, mind you, when we pulled up his ISP contact information and his
domain registration information, he had an absolute fit and accused
people of threatening to harm his family. Seems it was okay in his
mind to make thinly veiled threats of harrassing alt.atheism regulars
at home and work but the idea somebody knew anything about him made
him squeal like a pig at slaughter.

Which to me says much about his mindset. He was quite comfortable
making not-so-veiled (and even overt) threats to harrass and stalk
newsgroup regulars but the idea that he's not nearly so anonymous as
he thought he was put a brick in his shorts. To my mind, that all adds
up to "bully". And a cowardly one at that as he wants to hide behind
an anonymous Usenet handle, not risk being face to face with his
chosen targets.

You ran into him after he'd been exposed. Seems making threats wasn't
as fun once he knew he could be reported for them and held
accountable...

It seems like he's flown the coop now though, no?

Not by choice. He was informed by his ISP that if he didn't stop
bothering us, he'd be shopping for a new service provider.

Has anyone here thanked them?

Should we send flowers?

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:52:02 +0930, Michael Gray wrote:

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:39:14 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
- Refer: <8dq213h9tcbcrluang455lfvcqq479f900@4ax.com>

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 16:10:15 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.02.13.34.21.576525@com.mkbilbo...

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 09:58:41 -0700,

On 1 apr, 17:52, "Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@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...

I missed those posts about guns and homes So I have no idea why he
would loose access. But I did see he suddenly stopped making his
multitude of posts.

I'll miss him though,
he was mostly nice to me
(but then I didn't flame him)

But as you said, you missed his initial volley. He flat out stated he
intended to drive the "hate mongers" (people of which he did not
approve) out of the group. He said he was "not above" forwarding
messages to employers and family members and asked--repeatedly--weird
questions about family members, phone numbers, and employers. Also
asking, many times, "do you have a gun?"

Then, mind you, when we pulled up his ISP contact information and his
domain registration information, he had an absolute fit and accused
people of threatening to harm his family. Seems it was okay in his
mind to make thinly veiled threats of harrassing alt.atheism regulars
at home and work but the idea somebody knew anything about him made
him squeal like a pig at slaughter.

Which to me says much about his mindset. He was quite comfortable
making not-so-veiled (and even overt) threats to harrass and stalk
newsgroup regulars but the idea that he's not nearly so anonymous as
he thought he was put a brick in his shorts. To my mind, that all adds
up to "bully". And a cowardly one at that as he wants to hide behind
an anonymous Usenet handle, not risk being face to face with his
chosen targets.

You ran into him after he'd been exposed. Seems making threats wasn't
as fun once he knew he could be reported for them and held
accountable...

It seems like he's flown the coop now though, no?

Not by choice. He was informed by his ISP that if he didn't stop
bothering us, he'd be shopping for a new service provider.

Has anyone here thanked them?

Should we send flowers?

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:40:12 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:47:41 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
- Refer: <lhc3131ivknie6fuit05ia7u7bjgm7imeu@4ax.com>

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:39:17 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

1 thousand loons, or 1 thousand potentially violent mentally unstable
stalkers?

Yes.

Do you want them rapt, sir?
Or are they OK just loose like that?

I'll take them rapt ... ured, please.