Barton Brown: a cautionary tale

Think twice, folks, before joining a thread that this guy is blowing his mouth off in. I risked a post inferring that 'warez' D/Ls have a high risk of being infected by a trojan. For my pains this fellow has written to my ISP alleging that I engage in or support in some way hacking and other illegal activity, and that I publically support software piracy. It now transpires that Mr Brown has come to the latter belief by reading someone else's post and ascribing his opinions to me (message id <[email hidden]> if any one can be bothered). I mentioned back orifice (a pc remote control utility commonly used as a trojan) which he may have confused with back office, or he may assume that there is no legitimate use to which back orifice can be put. It _may_ be that bo can be legitimately used to control ones own PC across a net from other platforms; many linux users seem to use it. I don't know for sure, but experimenting with this on my own internal net is not in any way illegal or immoral. The lesson: this man is a menace and a loose cannon, so beware. There was a story in the press here recently about a paediatrician being run out of her home because the local intelligensia could not tell the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile. Sounds familiar? It is the sort of thing that the vigilante mentality leads to. It is possible that false accusations of illegal activity to an ISP constitute e-mail harrassment and therefore would be against earthlink's AUP. If other people are having similar problems then a steady stream of complaints to [email hidden] may have some effect. From a personal point of view a public apology and a letter of retraction to my ISP would be nice (dream on!). Michael

Michael, What a nightmare this has turned into. I'm not sure because I can't find it, but, having looked at the message ID, I think that Barton what's his face has taken a posting by myself and atttributed it to you (although I struggle to find something I've written that is illegal or anything else!) I apologise for indirectly causing trouble for you, that was certainly not my intention, I was simply debating the issue (along with plenty of others who were for and against.) If you would like me to email your ISP then I am quite happy to do so, if you think that might help 'get you off the hook' so to speak. :( Once again, I'm really sorry if I am partly to blame for your situation but I was only expressing an opinion in a Newsgroup!! It comes to something when you can't do that without some idiot running to your ISP everytime they disagree with you. Let me know if you want me to contact your ISP about this - I am more than happy to do so if it will help clear things up. Matt On 6 Sep 2000 08:49:54 GMT, [email hidden] (Michael Lapsley) wrote:

Quoted text (41 lines)

> >Think twice, folks, before joining a thread that this guy is blowing his mouth >off in. > >I risked a post inferring that 'warez' D/Ls have a high risk of being >infected by a trojan. For my pains this fellow has written to my ISP >alleging that I engage in or support in some way hacking and other >illegal activity, and that I publically support software piracy. > >It now transpires that Mr Brown has come to the latter belief by reading >someone else's post and ascribing his opinions to me >(message id <[email hidden]> if any one can be bothered). >I mentioned back orifice (a pc remote control utility commonly used as a trojan) >which he may have confused with back office, or he may assume that >there is no legitimate use to which back orifice can be put. It _may_ be >that bo can be legitimately used to control ones own PC across a net from >other platforms; many linux users seem to use it. I don't know for sure, >but experimenting with this on my own internal net is not in any way illegal >or immoral. > >The lesson: this man is a menace and a loose cannon, so beware. > >There was a story in the press here recently about a paediatrician being >run out of her home because the local intelligensia could not tell the >difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile. Sounds familiar? >It is the sort of thing that the vigilante mentality leads to. > >It is possible that false accusations of illegal activity to an ISP constitute >e-mail harrassment and therefore would be against earthlink's AUP. >If other people are having similar problems then a steady stream of complaints >to [email hidden] may have some effect. > >From a personal point of view a public apology and a letter of retraction >to my ISP would be nice (dream on!). > >Michael > > > > >

I belive that as this newsgroup is for discussion and argument (mostly the latter) people taking offence and firing of eMails to ISP's is pretty low behaviour. That the said complainer also admitted to downloading warez and clearly got the wrong poster then I feel you are due a public apology. Regards Mike On 6 Sep 2000 08:49:54 GMT, [email hidden] (Michael Lapsley) wrote:

Quoted text (40 lines)

> >Think twice, folks, before joining a thread that this guy is blowing his mouth >off in. > >I risked a post inferring that 'warez' D/Ls have a high risk of being >infected by a trojan. For my pains this fellow has written to my ISP >alleging that I engage in or support in some way hacking and other >illegal activity, and that I publically support software piracy. > >It now transpires that Mr Brown has come to the latter belief by reading >someone else's post and ascribing his opinions to me >(message id <[email hidden]> if any one can be bothered). >I mentioned back orifice (a pc remote control utility commonly used as a trojan) >which he may have confused with back office, or he may assume that >there is no legitimate use to which back orifice can be put. It _may_ be >that bo can be legitimately used to control ones own PC across a net from >other platforms; many linux users seem to use it. I don't know for sure, >but experimenting with this on my own internal net is not in any way illegal >or immoral. > >The lesson: this man is a menace and a loose cannon, so beware. > >There was a story in the press here recently about a paediatrician being >run out of her home because the local intelligensia could not tell the >difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile. Sounds familiar? >It is the sort of thing that the vigilante mentality leads to. > >It is possible that false accusations of illegal activity to an ISP constitute >e-mail harrassment and therefore would be against earthlink's AUP. >If other people are having similar problems then a steady stream of complaints >to [email hidden] may have some effect. > >From a personal point of view a public apology and a letter of retraction >to my ISP would be nice (dream on!). > >Michael > > > >

You are sure it was Barton "SPENCER" Brown? Actually I would believe it. Also, there is no good use for BO. If you are someone that blindly downloaded from the main web site thinking that you are getting free remote control of a PC or something, you are mistaken. -- [email hidden] "Michael Lapsley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Think twice, folks, before joining a thread that this guy is blowing his mouth > off in.

On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 10:58:38 GMT, Matt <[email hidden]> wrote: >Michael, > >If you would like me to email your ISP then I am quite happy to do so, >if you think that might help 'get you off the hook' so to speak. :( Thanks, but I am not 'on the hook': tech support at ukshells are pretty experienced and told this guy to push off. As far as they are concerned there is no problem. They also thought I might have a case sueing for libel, and certainly thought a complaint to earthlink was in order. This I have done, Michael

Mike Blackmore wrote: > > That the said complainer also admitted to downloading warez... If you're referring to me as "said complainer", you are completely and utterly mistaken. I have never, and will never DL Warez or any other stolen, cracked, or illegal software. Bart Brown

You're absolutely right -- I had you confused with another poster, Matt Mr. NoSpam (ntlworld.com). Herewith is my public apology, and I've already dealt with your ISP on the matter. My absurd and utter mistake, no excuse, total brain fart. Embarrassing? You bet! Disheartening enough to let the real Warez propagators off the hook? No. My apologies also, of course, to the newsgroup for escalating this non-issue with respondents who simply don't understand the law ... or English. Bart Brown

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 07:53:01 -0500, "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >You are sure it was Barton "SPENCER" Brown? Actually I would >believe it. Ah, now that rings a bell. He's the same twat who threatened to contact my ISP a couple of years back for simply being involved in a few flame wars in here and he didn't like my "methods". What a ratbag. -- Nos

A little late huh? Isn't the damage done? A good reason to come of your high horse. If I was the person you slandered because you failed to get your facts straight, I believe I would pursue this as you have publicly damaged his reputation. Apology or not. On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 14:24:32 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>You're absolutely right -- I had you confused with another poster, Matt >Mr. NoSpam (ntlworld.com). Herewith is my public apology, and I've >already dealt with your ISP on the matter. My absurd and utter mistake, >no excuse, total brain fart. > >Embarrassing? You bet! Disheartening enough to let the real Warez >propagators off the hook? No. > >My apologies also, of course, to the newsgroup for escalating this >non-issue with respondents who simply don't understand the law ... or >English. > >Bart Brown

Nos wrote: > > Ah, now that rings a bell. He's the same twat who threatened to > contact my ISP a couple of years back for simply being involved in a > few flame wars in here and he didn't like my "methods". What a ratbag. > -- > Nos Yes, Barton Spencer Brown. And I still don't like your methods. And you're still a ratbag. BB

Snicker wrote: > > A little late huh? Isn't the damage done? A good reason to come of > your high horse. If I was the person you slandered because you failed > to get your facts straight, I believe I would pursue this as you have > publicly damaged his reputation. Apology or not. I thought you had BB kill filed....... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy

Snicker wrote: > > A little late huh? Isn't the damage done? A good reason to come of [sic] > your high horse. If I was the person you slandered because you failed > to get your facts straight, I believe I would pursue this as you have > publicly damaged his reputation. Apology or not. Go for it, Snickerboy. I await your solicitor's visit. BB

Await what? Is your reading comprehension really this bad? No wonder you got confused. I said "if I was the person you slandered..". What part of that didn't you understand? On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 14:41:56 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Snicker wrote: >> >> A little late huh? Isn't the damage done? A good reason to come of [sic] >> your high horse. If I was the person you slandered because you failed >> to get your facts straight, I believe I would pursue this as you have >> publicly damaged his reputation. Apology or not. > >Go for it, Snickerboy. I await your solicitor's visit. > >BB

My apologies. Regards Mike On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 14:19:22 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Mike Blackmore wrote: >> >> That the said complainer also admitted to downloading warez... > >If you're referring to me as "said complainer", you are completely and >utterly mistaken. I have never, and will never DL Warez or any other >stolen, cracked, or illegal software. > >Bart Brown

I did till I read about him making a "mistake". On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 16:41:23 +0200, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > >Snicker wrote: >> >> A little late huh? Isn't the damage done? A good reason to come of >> your high horse. If I was the person you slandered because you failed >> to get your facts straight, I believe I would pursue this as you have >> publicly damaged his reputation. Apology or not. > >I thought you had BB kill filed....... > > >Beers and cheers >(uncle) Goy

On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 14:40:01 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Yes, Barton Spencer Brown. And I still don't like your methods. And >you're still a ratbag. > >BB So contact my ISP and complain then. They will just politely tell you to piss off. And rightly so. -- Nos

On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 14:24:32 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>You're absolutely right -- I had you confused with another poster, Matt >Mr. NoSpam (ntlworld.com). Herewith is my public apology, and I've >already dealt with your ISP on the matter. My absurd and utter mistake, >no excuse, total brain fart. > >Embarrassing? You bet! Disheartening enough to let the real Warez >propagators off the hook? No. > >My apologies also, of course, to the newsgroup for escalating this >non-issue with respondents who simply don't understand the law ... or >English. > >Bart Brown

Normally my response to an apology is to shuffle my toes and mutter something like 'forget it, chum: let's put it down to experience and start again' as I dislike holding grudges. As apologies go, however, this one leaves a lot to be desired. A couple of lines of rather showy self-excoriation than back into rant mode on the hobby horse again. No sense of being chastened by the experience and actually altering behaviour: now _that_ is what would make an apology meaningful. (Note the same old tone in the remainder of this thread). So what is going to happen? When the sweat of fanaticism gets in his eyes and blinds his judgement again exactly the same is going to happen to some other unfortunate. I think this confirms my earlier view that this man has the mindset of a vigilante. He has just lynched the wrong person by mistake. "AWFULLY sorry, old chap. ENTIRELY my fault. NO exuse whatsoever. Now, let's go get those bastards and lynch them!". Anyway, I've got what I wanted: an admission that this libellous nonsense was a complete fabrication and I suppose I can view it as lucky that I do not have to share physical space with this creature in real life. Michael

I have never seen an episode of "Law and Order" better than all this warez/mistaken identity/holier than thou bullshit. Keep it going! Sarge "Jesus Saves...Gretzky gets the rebound, he shoots, he SCORES!"

Quoted text (20 lines)

>>Embarrassing? You bet! Disheartening enough to let the real Warez >>propagators off the hook? No. >> >>My apologies also, of course, to the newsgroup for escalating this >>non-issue with respondents who simply don't understand the law ... or >>English. >> >>Bart Brown > >Normally my response to an apology is to shuffle my toes >and mutter something like 'forget it, chum: let's put >it down to experience and start again' as I dislike holding grudges. > >Anyway, I've got what I wanted: an admission that this libellous nonsense >was a complete fabrication and I suppose I can view it as lucky that I do >not have to share physical space with this creature in real life. > >Michael >

> I think this confirms my earlier view that this man has the mindset > of a vigilante. He has just lynched the wrong person by mistake. > "AWFULLY sorry, old chap. ENTIRELY my fault. NO exuse whatsoever. > Now, let's go get those bastards and lynch them!". You know this reminds me of something I read in another n/g. In deep dark South before the American civil war a innocent black man was lynched by the local sheriffs. Later it was proved that the black man was completely innocent. So what was written on the sheriffs reports to the US Marshalls? 'sorry, wrong nigger' > was a complete fabrication and I suppose I can view it as lucky > that I do not have to share physical space with this creature in > real life. You would think that being the only Don Quixote tilting against the windmills would make an indelible impression on just how offensive Mr. Brown actually is. You are a crackpot and a dangerous one at that. Your continued and unrepentant behaviour the epitome of what is abhorrent about this medium. Internet crackpots come out of the woodwork all the time. They're no different from ordinary crackpots you meet in your own city - just more visible. Be glad he's a continent away. I wish to invite Mr. Brown to my home n/g where people of your character are more than welcome. Come on over - alt.tasteless awaits you. T. -- OFLC: "The following movie contains adult situations, adult language, nudity, strong sexual content, drug usage and frequent graphic violence." The old lady: "Yes! A perfect 10!" Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On 6 Sep 2000 16:21:51 GMT, [email hidden] (Michael Lapsley) thus spoke:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Anyway, I've got what I wanted: an admission that this libellous nonsense >was a complete fabrication and I suppose I can view it as lucky that I do >not have to share physical space with this creature in real life. > >Michael > >

Well, if you're going to let him get off that easily I can only commend you for being a better man than he. :-) -- Nos

Yep... Now maybe it makes sense when I call him "spence" :-) I know you really flamed him for putting his middle name in his posts. -- [email hidden] "Nos" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 07:53:01 -0500, "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> > thus spoke: > > >You are sure it was Barton "SPENCER" Brown? Actually I would > >believe it. > > Ah, now that rings a bell. He's the same twat who threatened to > contact my ISP a couple of years back for simply being involved in a > few flame wars in here and he didn't like my "methods". What a ratbag. > -- > Nos

well writ. --DK "Rev. Tony Lai" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8p5vb3$c7$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (47 lines)

> > > I think this confirms my earlier view that this man has the mindset > > of a vigilante. He has just lynched the wrong person by mistake. > > "AWFULLY sorry, old chap. ENTIRELY my fault. NO exuse whatsoever. > > Now, let's go get those bastards and lynch them!". > > You know this reminds me of something I read in another n/g. > > In deep dark South before the American civil war a innocent > black man was lynched by the local sheriffs. Later it was > proved that the black man was completely innocent. > > So what was written on the sheriffs reports to the US Marshalls? > > 'sorry, wrong nigger' > > > was a complete fabrication and I suppose I can view it as lucky > > that I do not have to share physical space with this creature in > > real life. > > You would think that being the only Don Quixote tilting against > the windmills would make an indelible impression on just how > offensive Mr. Brown actually is. You are a crackpot and a dangerous > one at that. Your continued and unrepentant behaviour the epitome > of what is abhorrent about this medium. Internet crackpots come out > of the woodwork all the time. They're no different from ordinary > crackpots you meet in your own city - just more visible. > > Be glad he's a continent away. > > I wish to invite Mr. Brown to my home n/g where people of > your character are more than welcome. > > Come on over - alt.tasteless awaits you. > > T. > > -- > OFLC: "The following movie contains adult situations, adult language, > nudity, strong sexual content, drug usage and frequent graphic > violence." > > The old lady: "Yes! A perfect 10!" > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

In article <[email hidden]>, Here's someone with little or no mind on their nothing. Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote: > Nos wrote: > > > > Ah, now that rings a bell. He's the same twat who threatened to > > contact my ISP a couple of years back for simply being involved in a > > few flame wars in here and he didn't like my "methods". What aratbag.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > -- > > Nos > > Yes, Barton Spencer Brown. And I still don't like your methods. And > you're still a ratbag. > > BB >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:24:30 -0500, "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Yep... Now maybe it makes sense when I call him "spence" :-) > >I know you really flamed him for putting his middle name in >his posts. I thought Barton Brown was familiar, but without that "Spencer" in the middle it just doesn't have quite the same sound of pussy pompousness to it. I guess that's why he took it out. :-) -- Nos

"Nos" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:24:30 -0500, "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> > thus spoke: > > >Yep... Now maybe it makes sense when I call him "spence" :-) > > > >I know you really flamed him for putting his middle name in > >his posts. > > I thought Barton Brown was familiar, but without that "Spencer" in the > middle it just doesn't have quite the same sound of pussy pompousness > to it. I guess that's why he took it out. :-)

Well I remembered. Now you have remembered and lastly everyone knows :-) -- [email hidden]

Nos wrote: > > So contact my ISP and complain then. They will just politely tell you > to piss off. And rightly so. I'd never contact somebody's ISP if I simply didn't like their online behavior -- who has the time? BB

Nos wrote: >I guess that's why he took it out. :-) Nope. Took it out when I re-upped with my ISP. It was shorter, I was in a hurry, and once it was in, it was in. "Pussy pompousness"? I may use that on my business card, unless you plan on copyrighting it. BB

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:05:24 -0500, "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Well I remembered. Now you have remembered and lastly everyone >knows :-) Thx for the tip off. I'll put it to good use. :-) -- Nos

On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:04:04 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >I'd never contact somebody's ISP if I simply didn't like their online >behavior -- who has the time? > >BB Maybe you didn't. But, I do remember you threatening to do so if I didn't tone down my flames. -- Nos

On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:23:38 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> thus spoke:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Nos wrote: >>I guess that's why he took it out. :-) > >Nope. Took it out when I re-upped with my ISP. It was shorter, I was in >a hurry, and once it was in, it was in. "Pussy pompousness"? I may use >that on my business card, unless you plan on copyrighting it. > >BB

You can use it, but I want 10% of all profits from the increased business it will bring you. -- Nos

Why would you contact anyone's ISP? Nobody likes a tattle-tale. -- Todd S. "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Nos wrote: > > > > So contact my ISP and complain then. They will just politely tell you > > to piss off. And rightly so. > > > I'd never contact somebody's ISP if I simply didn't like their online > behavior -- who has the time? > > BB

How about BS Brown, since BS is brown and you are so full of it! Just a suggestion. -- Todd S. "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Nos wrote: > >I guess that's why he took it out. :-) > > Nope. Took it out when I re-upped with my ISP. It was shorter, I was in > a hurry, and once it was in, it was in. "Pussy pompousness"? I may use > that on my business card, unless you plan on copyrighting it. > > BB

"Todd Sorensen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:BVKt5.128205$[email hidden]... > Why would you contact anyone's ISP? Nobody likes a tattle-tale. Because he is Barton Spencer Brown. Any questions? :-) -- [email hidden] > -- > Todd S. > > "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Nos wrote: > > > > > > So contact my ISP and complain then. They will just politely tell you > > > to piss off. And rightly so. > > > > > > I'd never contact somebody's ISP if I simply didn't like their online > > behavior -- who has the time? > > > > BB > >

Nos wrote: >> > You can use it, but I want 10% of all profits from the increased > business it will bring you. Only if you agree to pay me 10% of the loss if it works out the other way.

Are they handing out business cards for burger flippers at McDonalds now!??? In article <[email hidden]>, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote: > Nos wrote: > >I guess that's why he took it out. :-) > > Nope. Took it out when I re-upped with my ISP. It was shorter, I wasin > a hurry, and once it was in, it was in. "Pussy pompousness"? I may use > that on my business card, unless you plan on copyrighting it. > > BB > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Barton Brown wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > John Fusciante wrote: > > > > ROFL. > > There's something so simple and refreshing about a boy who can laugh at > his own jokes... > > sphincter...glove... you're not an amateur proctologist, are you?

Seems like everyone is crawling out of the woodworks and out from beneath every rock to take a shot at you BB, funny how things work out some times Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

"Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> John Fusciante wrote: > > > > ROFL. > > There's something so simple and refreshing about a boy who can laugh at > his own jokes... > > sphincter...glove... you're not an amateur proctologist, are you?

Huh... To the casual observer, this seems like some action starting up :-) -- [email hidden]

I think you should put solicitor on the toe of your boot and let it visit his nether region. We should all take note: Do Not F**k With MR. B.S.B. he is one bad mutha! In article <[email hidden]>, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote: > Snicker wrote: > > > > A little late huh? Isn't the damage done? A good reason to come of[sic] > > your high horse. If I was the person you slandered because youfailed > > to get your facts straight, I believe I would pursue this as youhave > > publicly damaged his reputation. Apology or not. > > Go for it, Snickerboy. I await your solicitor's visit. > > BB > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Goy Larsen wrote: > > Seems like everyone is crawling out of the woodworks and out from > beneath every rock to take a shot at you BB, funny how things work out > some times Yeah, it *is* kinda funny that many of these Warez Defenderz and testicle twiddlers have zero history of posting here previously. It's OK if they pick on me (sniff, sniff), they'll be sorry when I'm DEAD! (Well, maybe not!) BB

[email hidden] wrote: > >...he is one bad mutha... Hush yo' mouf'! But I'm talkin' 'bout Shaft!

Barton Brown wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Goy Larsen wrote: > > > > Seems like everyone is crawling out of the woodworks and out from > > beneath every rock to take a shot at you BB, funny how things work out > > some times > > Yeah, it *is* kinda funny that many of these Warez Defenderz and > testicle twiddlers have zero history of posting here previously.

My thoughts exactly, some people don't dare to have an opinion unless they can share it with others it seems, and right now it seems kinda popular not to like you, so.... > It's OK if they pick on me (sniff, sniff), they'll be sorry when I'm > DEAD! (Well, maybe not!) LOL, somehow I think not.... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 12:41:59 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Goy Larsen wrote: >> >> Seems like everyone is crawling out of the woodworks and out from >> beneath every rock to take a shot at you BB, funny how things work out >> some times > >Yeah, it *is* kinda funny that many of these Warez Defenderz and >testicle twiddlers have zero history of posting here previously.

What is also funny is that you are afraid to respond to any half-decent argument against your extremist position. You simply pretend that they don't exist. I can see feathers growing out of your bottom, sticking in the air: ostrich avant-la-lettre? :-) >It's OK if they pick Do ostriches have a picking-order? :-) >on me (sniff, sniff), they'll be sorry when I'm >DEAD! (Well, maybe not!) Well, you're close to dead as far as engaging in the debate instead of just repeating your simplistic "The Law is The Law" and "Theft is Theft" rhetoric. And that's a pity, rather. JoH

Jo Helsen wrote: > >Sorry, Jo: The Law is The Law (ask a lawyer) and Theft is Theft (askyour Priest). As far as I'm concerned, there *is* no "half-decent argument" against either one of those statements; so why should I debate the questions(s) just because you don't like my position? I'm not asking you or anyone else to like it, I'm asking people to look at the history, application, and enforcement of Copyright Law and understand that being "a little illegal" is like being "a little pregnant". The law is very specific, and you've either broken it or you haven't. Whatever justifications, mitigations, or self-hallucinated "shadings" anyone comes up with, (last time I'm gonna say it, so let it sink in) has no impact whatsoever on the Law AS IT IS ON THE BOOKS. Severity of punishment may be mitigated in the trial and sentencing phase, but the ... Law ... is ... the ... Law. If you get arrested for speeding over there in Transylvania, and the cop's got a good radar hook and you're 60kph over the limit, do you say to him: "Oh, that's a stupid law," and expect him to pat you on the head, apologize, and send you on your merry way? BB

And it *is* kinda funny how you assume that anyone who takes offense to your childish and extreme actions *must* be a defender of warez... The fact is, I believe the vast majority of people on RAS (whether posting or silent) are anti-warez, yet it is clear that those same vast majority (I would go as far as to say 100%) are against your methods, Barton. You are worse than the people you glorify yourself as policing. And I'm pretty sure I speak for pretty much everyone out here in saying: no... we will not be sorry when you are dead. PS

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Yeah, it *is* kinda funny that many of these Warez Defenderz and > testicle twiddlers have zero history of posting here previously. > > It's OK if they pick on me (sniff, sniff), they'll be sorry when I'm > DEAD! (Well, maybe not!) > > BB >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

-- Colin Harris Bomber Racing: Http://fullspeed.to/Bomber ICQ 25485061 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8pbesn$erg$[email hidden]... . And I'm pretty sure I speak for pretty much everyone out here > in saying: no... we will not be sorry when you are dead. > > PS You don't speak for me, not with that line.

Wrong. You'd better adjust that figure downwards to 99.9999% because here's another who agrees with Mr. Brown's sentiments. The "methods" that you refer to are no different to reporting an apparent or observed crime to the authorities no matter what or where the situation. If you are aware that a theft has occurred in a retail store would you ignore it or report it? If you observed a citizen being robbed in broad daylight (or the dead of night, for that matter) would you do something about it? If you came home and found that your home had been broken into, would you let thge matter pass? By your line of reasoning, the person responsible for taping the Rodney King bashing some years ago was a low-life for making the tape available so that the law could be prosecuted. The law may be an ass, but you, sir, are a complete imbecile. [email hidden] wrote: > yet it is clear that those same vast > majority (I would go as far as to say 100%) are against your methods, > Barton.

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 07:48:04 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Wrong. >You'd better adjust that figure downwards to 99.9999% because here's >another who agrees with Mr. Brown's sentiments. > >The "methods" that you refer to are no different to reporting an apparent >or observed crime to the authorities no matter what or where the situation. > >If you are aware that a theft has occurred in a retail store would you >ignore it or report it? >If you observed a citizen being robbed in broad daylight (or the dead of >night, for that matter) would you do something about it? >If you came home and found that your home had been broken into, would you >let thge matter pass?

Leaky, with all respect, in all the examples here something it stolen or damaged, so those are not good examples. If you saw someone making a copy from a copyrighted book in the library, would you warn the librarian? If your neighbour lends a music cd from you and copies it on tape, would you call the police? Andre

Quoted text (12 lines)

>By your line of reasoning, the person responsible for taping the Rodney >King bashing some years ago was a low-life for making the tape available so >that the law could be prosecuted. > >The law may be an ass, but you, sir, are a complete imbecile. > > >[email hidden] wrote: > >> yet it is clear that those same vast >> majority (I would go as far as to say 100%) are against your methods, >> Barton.

[email hidden] wrote: > And I'm pretty sure I speak for pretty much everyone out here ... Now, is this another "complete guess on [your] part", or are you *really* sure you "speak for pretty much everyone out here"? Did you take a poll? Consult the psychic friends hotline? Toss the yarrow stalks? By "pretty sure", do you mean like 81.5% sure, 99.3% sure, 57.7% sure, or your "100%", as in: "yet it is clear that those [sic] same vast majority (I would go as far as to say 100%) are against your methods?" I'd say it's patently obvious that a couple folks, at least, pretty much agree with me, which obviously puts a dent in going so far as to say 100%. And you've really gotta define your terms a little better: what are these "methods" you're 100% sure 100% of the "vast majority out here" are against? And, where, exactly, *is* "out here"? Do you mean "out here" in Buzzard's Elbow, Nebraska, "out here" in this here newsgroup, or "out here" as in "patrick_172sp is really out there"? Need more info... BB

Colin Harris wrote: > >><[email hidden]> gurgled effusively in messagenews:8pbesn$erg$[email hidden]... > > And I'm pretty sure I speak for pretty much everyone out here > > in saying: no... we will not be sorry when you are dead. > You don't speak for me, not with that line.

Andre Warringa wrote: > If you saw someone making a copy from a copyrighted book in thelibrary, would you warn the librarian? Actually, Andre, I'm glad you brought up that point. Did you know that Kinko's, for one, has a corporate policy that they will NOT copy previously-published images or text? I believe that most legit copy joints now have the same policy. Guess why... BB

Leaky_Valve wrote: > > Wrong. > You'd better adjust that figure downwards to 99.9999% because here's > another who agrees with Mr. Brown's sentiments. Thanks, Mr. Valve! Another voice of reason in a sea of marmalade! BB

"Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote > Yeah, it *is* kinda funny that many of these Warez Defenderz and > testicle twiddlers have zero history of posting here previously. You do have a point here, which I mentionned in one of my post earlier in the week. Those people should be ignored, that's all. It's an elitist attitude, since the newsgroup will after that discuss freely the new beta build version of X simracing game that circulates on the net, how good/bad it is, if it lived up to it's expectations, etc... It's a double-edge knife. What is the worst thing? Having a bad title on the shelves with people buying it not knowing that it's bad or having a bad title on the shelves but with a good group of people here (us and lurkers) knowing that it's bad. I know my moralistic answer and the *law* answer. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

I'd be happy to adjust my figure to 99.9999% Doesn't change my point at all. And as far as agreeing with Mr. Brown's sentiments, I never said I disagreed with them. He is anti-warez. So am I. And I assume so are you! I only referred to his "methods". Are you even aware of how this thread was started? It started because Mr. Brown decided to post a message to an individual's ISP stating that the individual was participating in illegal activities using the services of the ISP. This was done with NO EVIDENCE to support this charge! As a matter of fact, after the individual complained, Mr. Brown even admitted that he might be wrong... Something along the lines of him possibly going after the wrong guy. You state a bunch of examples asking how I would react if I witnessed a crime. Would I do something about it? Sure I would! But I'm afraid you have used bad examples, sir! Barton witnessed no crime here. He had ABSOLUTELY no evidence that a crime occured!!! Yet he felt compelled to take action. So I disagree with the action. You state that makes me an "imbicile". And I would say you are a bit immature. Who knows, we may both be right. PS In article <[email hidden]>, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote: > Wrong. > You'd better adjust that figure downwards to 99.9999% because here's > another who agrees with Mr. Brown's sentiments. > > The "methods" that you refer to are no different to reporting anapparent > or observed crime to the authorities no matter what or where thesituation. > > If you are aware that a theft has occurred in a retail store would you > ignore it or report it? > If you observed a citizen being robbed in broad daylight (or the deadof > night, for that matter) would you do something about it? > If you came home and found that your home had been broken into, wouldyou > let thge matter pass? > > By your line of reasoning, the person responsible for taping theRodney > King bashing some years ago was a low-life for making the tapeavailable so

Quoted text (8 lines)

> that the law could be prosecuted. > > The law may be an ass, but you, sir, are a complete imbecile. > > [email hidden] wrote: > > > yet it is clear that those same vast > > majority (I would go as far as to say 100%) are against your

methods, > > Barton. > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Barton, I thought my message was relatively clear, but apparently not. I'm sorry for the confusion it has caused you (and anyone else who could not comprehend it). So I'll do my best to clarify. Of course my 100% figure was a complete guess on my part. It's already been shown to be wrong, as at least 2 respondents have said they agree with your actions. My OPINION (call it a guess if you prefer) is that the vast majority in this newsgoup don't agree with your actions. I believe the posts support that claim, but again... my GUESS... Nothing scientific about it. Didn't even need to consult the Psychic Hotline to come up with it, either! :o) The "methods" I refer to are you taking action agains someone (in this case, writing an email to their ISP stating that they are participating in illegal activities) when you have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE. Is that clear enough for you now? The "out here" I referred to was this newsgroup. Sorry, I should have been more clear on that one. And the last line of my message, where I state that we will not be sorry when you are dead was un-called for. I should have at least put a :o) at the end, as it was a non-serious reply to your non-serious post stating that we'd all be sorry when you are dead. Understandable if you took offence to that one! PS In article <[email hidden]>, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> [email hidden] wrote: > > > And I'm pretty sure I speak for pretty much everyone out here ... > > Now, is this another "complete guess on [your] part", or are you > *really* sure you "speak for pretty much everyone out here"? Did you > take a poll? Consult the psychic friends hotline? Toss the yarrow > stalks? By "pretty sure", do you mean like 81.5% sure, 99.3% sure,

57.7% > sure, or your "100%", as in: "yet it is clear that those [sic] samevast > majority (I would go as far as to say 100%) are against your methods?" > I'd say it's patently obvious that a couple folks, at least, prettymuch

Quoted text (11 lines)

> agree with me, which obviously puts a dent in going so far as to say > 100%. And you've really gotta define your terms a little better: what > are these "methods" you're 100% sure 100% of the "vast majority out > here" are against? And, where, exactly, *is* "out here"? Do you mean > "out here" in Buzzard's Elbow, Nebraska, "out here" in this here > newsgroup, or "out here" as in "patrick_172sp is really out there"? > > Need more info... > > BB >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8pbesn$erg$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] writes: >(I would go as far as to say 100%) are against your methods, >Barton. You are worse than the people you glorify yourself as >policing. And I'm pretty sure I speak for pretty much everyone out here >in saying: no... we will not be sorry when you are dead. Not 100%... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

B(S)B, This inset quote by you is a stupid comment, because it doesn't go beyond the most simplistic of assertions: ">The law is very > specific, and you've either broken it or you haven't. Whatever > justifications, mitigations, or self-hallucinated "shadings" anyone > comes up with, (last time I'm gonna say it, so let it sink in) has no > impact whatsoever on the Law AS IT IS ON THE BOOKS. Severity of > punishment may be mitigated in the trial and sentencing phase, but the > ... Law ... is ... the ... Law." That's simply not so, Barton. Many African-Americans sat themselves down at the counters of restaurants in the U.S. South in the 1960s (when local property law and custom clearly protected the rights of legal zealots); many women in late 19C and early 20C US and Britain clearly saw that "law" discriminated against their rights as political agents (when the "law" clearly said otherwise)--at least one died for it; many campaigned against child labor practices in mid-19C Britain (when the law clearly gave employers a free field in hiring practices); and subjects of imperialist powers such as M. Gandhi certainly understood the difference between legal and moral authory in their own struggles against the Crown. Many of them broke the law. And indeed, conservatives called their defenses "appeals to sentiment and irrationality", or (ahem) "shadings." Yet their acts certainly DID have impacts on the law! Witness, . . . (duh) changes in legal codes and applicatons since . . . The point is NOT that warez d'loaders are today carrying the mantle of MLK, Jr. (!), but rather that your own confusion of the law with morality is misguided at best, and looks damned myopic from my little corner of creation. Even--dare I type it?--fascistic? In short, I think you're making a real muddle between something called "the law" (where is it, this abstraction??), and its application in social life--a distinction that isn't supported by the way things work on the ground. The law (or rather, the legal field) is how the state organizes the rights and constraints of its subjects, through--in nominally-democratic states--the consent of said subjects; and so it is a profoundly *socially-constructed* set of practices. love and peas, David PS: And I still think your argument about the natural superiority of the English language re. world capitalism (oh! sorry! "globalisation!") was simply laughable. But I'd love to hear more. "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Jo Helsen wrote: > > > >Sorry, Jo: The Law is The Law (ask a lawyer) and Theft is Theft (ask > your Priest). As far as I'm concerned, there *is* no "half-decent > argument" against either one of those statements; so why should I debate > the questions(s) just because you don't like my position? I'm not asking > you or anyone else to like it, I'm asking people to look at the history, > application, and enforcement of Copyright Law and understand that being > "a little illegal" is like being "a little pregnant". The law is very > specific, and you've either broken it or you haven't. Whatever > justifications, mitigations, or self-hallucinated "shadings" anyone > comes up with, (last time I'm gonna say it, so let it sink in) has no > impact whatsoever on the Law AS IT IS ON THE BOOKS. Severity of > punishment may be mitigated in the trial and sentencing phase, but the > ... Law ... is ... the ... Law. > > If you get arrested for speeding over there in Transylvania, and the > cop's got a good radar hook and you're 60kph over the limit, do you say > to him: "Oh, that's a stupid law," and expect him to pat you on the > head, apologize, and send you on your merry way? > > BB

Nor myself either. That sentiment is inexcusable. --David "Colin Harris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Fqbu5.13049$[email hidden]... > > > PS > > You don't speak for me, not with that line.

Oh God....you REALLY just don't get it, do you? A crime is a crime is a crime.......THAT is the point. Now, if my neighbour was stupid enough to tell me that he had copied a CD that I lent him, no, I wouldn't call the police. But he wouldn't get a lend of any of my CD's in future. If, however, he told me that he had broken into the house next door and stolen goods then I would advise him to get a good solicitor. Libraries here don't allow the photocopying of any...repeat, ANY.....copyrighted material without permission. (I believe that the library system has some special arrangement with publishers regarding what may be copied for student use). One of the easiest things in the world to do is turn a blind eye, Andre. "Oh, I really didn't see/hear that. I'll pretend that it didn't happen. I don't want to get involved." Doesn't matter whether it's the knowledge that you might have of theft, a child being abused or a whole race of people undergoing genocide.....it is just SO easy to ignore it, isn't it? Andre Warringa wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > Leaky, with all respect, in all the examples here something it stolen > or damaged, so those are not good examples. > If you saw someone making a copy from a copyrighted book in the > library, would you warn the librarian? > If your neighbour lends a music cd from you and copies it on tape, > would you call the police? > > Andre > >

No worries. I tend to get fed up with hair-splitters at the best of times. When it comes to matters of a legal ....and moral... bent, the hackles certainly rise. Barton Brown wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Leaky_Valve wrote: > > > > Wrong. > > You'd better adjust that figure downwards to 99.9999% because here's > > another who agrees with Mr. Brown's sentiments. > > Thanks, Mr. Valve! Another voice of reason in a sea of marmalade! > > BB

Yes...I've followed the thread. Yes...I understand that Mr. Brown contacted the ISP of a person who posted something here. Mr. Brown THOUGHT that he'd "witnessed a crime". He reported it. He was in error. He apologised. Publicly. However, he was not wrong in what he did.....he reported what he thought was somebody making a public admission of theft. What WAS wrong was that the ISP did not check the facts fully before acting on the report!! If the police had acted in the same manner with a civil or criminal case as the ISP did with this matter, that is, "arrested" or confronted the accused before checking out the background to, and the facts of, the allegation, then all hell would have broken loose. (And I say this as a person involved in the legal profession.) Barton did what his upbringing and personal values told him to. The ISP knee-jerked. [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> I'd be happy to adjust my figure to 99.9999% Doesn't change my point > at all. And as far as agreeing with Mr. Brown's sentiments, I never > said I disagreed with them. He is anti-warez. So am I. And I assume > so are you! I only referred to his "methods". Are you even aware of > how this thread was started? It started because Mr. Brown decided to > post a message to an individual's ISP stating that the individual was > participating in illegal activities using the services of the ISP. > This was done with NO EVIDENCE to support this charge! As a matter of > fact, after the individual complained, Mr. Brown even admitted that he > might be wrong... Something along the lines of him possibly going > after the wrong guy. > > You state a bunch of examples asking how I would react if I witnessed a > crime. Would I do something about it? Sure I would! But I'm afraid > you have used bad examples, sir! Barton witnessed no crime here. He > had ABSOLUTELY no evidence that a crime occured!!! Yet he felt > compelled to take action. So I disagree with the action. You state > that makes me an "imbicile". And I would say you are a bit immature. > Who knows, we may both be right. >

Andre Warringa wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Leaky, with all respect, in all the examples here something it stolen > or damaged, so those are not good examples. > If you saw someone making a copy from a copyrighted book in the > library, would you warn the librarian? > If your neighbour lends a music cd from you and copies it on tape, > would you call the police?

No I wouldn't But I would certainly think less of the person in question, some people seem to think that just because there's no damage done, we can argue a bit over whether or not that is the case later, no crime has been committed I don't agree with that, if you have something in your possession that costs money, but you haven't paid for it, you have stolen something Usenet as we know it today can only survive if we police it ourselves, no, admitting to DL warez is not a capital offense, but then again the people in question were not lynched either, I don't even think they were reported to the Police, they were reported to their ISP's for violation of the TOI for which they have signed, he didn't even post a big note on here saying that he had reported them and mentioned their names in public, yes there was a smug little note in one thread, but if you didn't read closely you wouldn't have noticed, in fact, the guy who got wrongly accused didn't even get it until someone spelled it out to him, so it's not like it was a public lynching Would I have done what Barton did, probably not, for several reasons which I feel no need to discuss here, but I don't care for people openly discussing games that they have DL from the net in this place, it's not what it's for, and if that kind of action is what it takes to get those people (still not talking about those specific people that were reported, this is a general "those people" statement) out of this place, or at least stop them talking about it here, then I in some way support it I'm no "do gooder" or moralist, I just don't want people to openly talk about warez in this place, is that too much to ask ? If anyone can come up with some better way of getting rid of those people then I'll try that, but as long as the participants of this NG not only tolerate other's talking about warez, but even participate in those talks, how the hell are we going to get rid of them ? Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 17:29:19 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Yes...I've followed the thread. >Yes...I understand that Mr. Brown contacted the ISP of a person who posted >something here. >Mr. Brown THOUGHT that he'd "witnessed a crime". He reported it. He was in >error. He apologised. Publicly. >However, he was not wrong in what he did.....he reported what he thought was >somebody making a public admission of theft. > >What WAS wrong was that the ISP did not check the facts fully before acting >on the report!!

Hey, hang on a minute here :-) I am the fellow in question so please let me clarify. I do not post through an ISP but through a unix shell. I had to be interviewed before the shell provider would allow me to sign up because of the potential for abuse. Mr Brown then makes allegations to them that I am advocating /discussing hacking or other illegal activities. This tarnishes my reputation with them and could, if other coincidental mis-accusations# were make, result in the loss to me of the service. Moreover, it is defamatory as the people that I have contact with there may have the seeds of doubt planted about me and may think the less of me because of it. Similarly the words thief, stealing and other very accusatory language has been used: paraphrasing, 'Michael Lapsley is a thief' is _NOT_ the same as 'if you examine msg ID's xxx..xxx you may wish to to take a view on whether M Lapsley is breaking your UAP and possibly the law'. As it happens the night duty support at my shell provider merely mailed me asking me to refrain from illegal activity! When I called them the next morning their senior guy was more than happy to agree that my accusor is self-evidently a wierdo and there was no case to answer. His advice: in view of the recent Demon case I should sue Mr Brown and Earthlink for defamation. Frankly, I can't be bothered. A public apology is meaningless if the apologiser evidently intends to carry on as before as if nothing had happened. I'd like to quit this thread, as a few snide remarks about people with no posting history have been made. Yes, I am new to driving simulators. Funnily enough, I think I have more to learn about than to contribute on the subject. I spend a few moments, though, reviewing Mr Brown's posting history on Deja, and even read a few text bodies before I got fed up with the bilge. Result: Hundreds of posts, a tiny percentage about cars, didn't see any about simulators. Is this preferable to respectful lurkerdom? Michael

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 17:29:19 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote: >(And I say this as a person involved in the legal profession.) Ah, sorry Mr Valve, didn't spot that the first time through: I am genuinely intersted to know your thoughts on what constitutes defamation apropos this thread. Michael

>No worries. I tend to get fed up with hair-splitters at the best of >times. Still waiting for your "everyone is ignorant" 2001 Millennium party? :-) -- Cheers! Graeme Nash

Michael Lapsley wrote: <snip> > As it happens the night duty support at my shell provider merely > mailed me asking me to refrain from illegal activity! When I called > them the next morning their senior guy was more than happy to agree > that my accusor is self-evidently a wierdo and there was no case to answer. > His advice: in view of the recent Demon case I should sue Mr Brown > and Earthlink for defamation. Frankly, I can't be bothered. Good for you, the only ones standing to make something out of a case like that are the lawyers <snip>

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I'd like to quit this thread, as a few snide remarks about people > with no posting history have been made. Yes, I am new to driving simulators. > Funnily enough, I think I have more to learn about than to contribute on the > subject. I spend a few moments, though, reviewing Mr Brown's posting history > on Deja, and even read a few text bodies before I got fed up with the bilge. > Result: Hundreds of posts, a tiny percentage about cars, didn't see any about > simulators. Is this preferable to respectful lurkerdom?

As one of those who has commented on the people with no posting history, I'd like to clarify what I was talking about, you have every right to express your feeling about what happened to you, past posting history has nothing to do about it, what I was talking about are some of the others who have never posted here before but chose to jump on the bandwagon against Barton as it seemed like it was the "popular" thing to do at the moment In my opinion this is a very "low" way of introducing yourself to a community, it's like they saw a chance to become polar with the "in crowd" or something, Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

(snipped from Mr. Lapsley's post) the night duty support at my shell provider merely mailed me asking me to refrain from illegal activity! ============ Mr. Lapsley, I rest my case. ISP, shellunix provider...whatever that may be....or XYZ. It's all the same; the provider ASSUMED that what Mr. Brown was charging you with was correct. The provider took the assertion at face value. I am sure that "the senior guy" is, most competent in shellunix. But if I were you I certainly would NOT call upon him to stand by your side in a court of law! Michael Lapsley wrote:

In the legal system pertinent to the United States, Mr. Lapsley, I would be afraid to proffer an opinion other than to suggest that you consult with a lawyer who is prepared to offer you a "no win - no fee" contract. To anyone outside the United States, legal profession or not, you (Americans) leap to litigation like starving Ethiopian children leap at stale bread. In other societies what Mr. Brown may have stated in this public domain would be treated with a few choice words in retort and left at that. I should mention though that you stated that satisfaction would be met if Mr. Brown made an apology, publicly. This was done and there is evidence to that fact. This now means that you really couldn't take further action even if you wanted to. (This legal advice is free, by-the-way.) Michael Lapsley wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 17:29:19 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote: > >(And I say this as a person involved in the legal profession.) > > Ah, sorry Mr Valve, didn't spot that the first time through: > I am genuinely intersted to know your thoughts on what constitutes > defamation apropos this thread. > > Michael

>In other >societies what Mr. Brown may have stated in this public domain would be >treated >with a few choice words in retort and left at that. Hmm, seems there was a different solution in the code of Hammurabi(sp?), but I sold my Criminal Justice book back long ago... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Gristina [email hidden] "I am tougher than a $2 steak" - Norman Smiley

[email hidden] wrote: > As a matter of fact, after the individual complained, Mr. Brown even > admitted that he might be wrong No, I admitted that I was *completely* wrong ... no "might be" about it.

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 23:20:44 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> thus spoke:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>In the legal system pertinent to the United States, Mr. Lapsley, I would be afraid >to proffer an opinion other than to suggest that you consult with a lawyer who is >prepared to offer you a "no win - no fee" contract. > >To anyone outside the United States, legal profession or not, you (Americans) leap >to litigation like starving Ethiopian children leap at stale bread. In other >societies what Mr. Brown may have stated in this public domain would be treated >with a few choice words in retort and left at that. > >I should mention though that you stated that satisfaction would be met if Mr. >Brown made an apology, publicly. This was done and there is evidence to that fact. > >This now means that you really couldn't take further action even if you wanted to. > >(This legal advice is free, by-the-way.)

And I suppose you think your *opinion* is final? I see arrogance is part of your repertoire too. -- Nos

[email hidden] wrote: > > Barton, > > I thought my message was relatively clear, but apparently not. Pat -- I was joking...jokes don't translate all that well in a text medium... BB

David Karr wrote: > > but rather that your own confusion of the law with morality ismisguided at best I'm sorry, David -- but that's what I've been saying from the git-go: morality and the law are completely unrelated (except in the theoretical sense), just as are "justice" and the law. See my other posts. As for the superiority of English ... please, don't get me started... BB

Michael Lapsley wrote: > self-evidently a wierdo At least I can *spell* weirdo...

Nos wrote: > And I suppose you think your *opinion* is final? I see arrogance is > part of your repertoire too. Earth to pot! Earth to pot! Another of your messages has rebounded ... Oh, never mind. You're not listening anyway...

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 16:22:56 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Earth to pot! Earth to pot! Another of your messages has rebounded ... >Oh, never mind. You're not listening anyway... Haha...the irony of it all. -- Nos

In article <8pcimr$s3f$[email hidden]>, "David Karr" <[email hidden]> writes: >The point is NOT that warez d'loaders are today carrying the mantle of MLK, >Jr. (!)Thanks for that, at least... > but rather that your own confusion of the law with morality is >misguided at best, and looks damned myopic from my little corner of >creation. Even--dare I type it?--fascistic? There are a lot of things that are illegal, but moral. And, there are also a lot of things that ate immoral, but perfectly legal. That's how the rich get ahead - by using the law to their advantage... I gotta brush up on my law books, and turn off my conscience.<g> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

>Jo Helsen wrote: >> >>Sorry, Jo: The Law is The Law (ask a lawyer) and Theft is Theft (ask >your Priest). As far as I'm concerned, there *is* no "half-decent >argument" against either one of those statements; so why should I debate >the questions(s) just because you don't like my position? I'm not asking >you or anyone else to like it, I'm asking people to look at the history, >application, and enforcement of Copyright Law and understand that being >"a little illegal" is like being "a little pregnant". The law is very >specific, and you've either broken it or you haven't. Whatever >justifications, mitigations, or self-hallucinated "shadings" anyone >comes up with, (last time I'm gonna say it, so let it sink in) has no >impact whatsoever on the Law AS IT IS ON THE BOOKS. Severity of >punishment may be mitigated in the trial and sentencing phase, but the >... Law ... is ... the ... Law. > >If you get arrested for speeding over there in Transylvania, and the >cop's got a good radar hook and you're 60kph over the limit, do you say >to him: "Oh, that's a stupid law," and expect him to pat you on the >head, apologize, and send you on your merry way?

Yeah well.. I've understood now so I think we best try to avoid each other. I will pay no attention anymore to your posts. Bye. JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

"Colin Harris" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> >-- > > >Colin Harris > >Bomber Racing: Http://fullspeed.to/Bomber >ICQ 25485061 ><[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:8pbesn$erg$[email hidden]... >. And I'm pretty sure I speak for pretty much everyone out here >> in saying: no... we will not be sorry when you are dead. >> >> PS > >You don't speak for me, not with that line.

Not for me either. Mr. Brown should live forever as an example Read him and shudder.... ;-) JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

"David Karr" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (48 lines)

>B(S)B, > >This inset quote by you is a stupid comment, because it doesn't go beyond >the most simplistic of assertions: > >">The law is very >> specific, and you've either broken it or you haven't. Whatever >> justifications, mitigations, or self-hallucinated "shadings" anyone >> comes up with, (last time I'm gonna say it, so let it sink in) has no >> impact whatsoever on the Law AS IT IS ON THE BOOKS. Severity of >> punishment may be mitigated in the trial and sentencing phase, but the >> ... Law ... is ... the ... Law." > >That's simply not so, Barton. Many African-Americans sat themselves down at >the counters of restaurants in the U.S. South in the 1960s (when local >property law and custom clearly protected the rights of legal zealots); many >women in late 19C and early 20C US and Britain clearly saw that "law" >discriminated against their rights as political agents (when the "law" >clearly said otherwise)--at least one died for it; many campaigned against >child labor practices in mid-19C Britain (when the law clearly gave >employers a free field in hiring practices); and subjects of imperialist >powers such as M. Gandhi certainly understood the difference between legal >and moral authory in their own struggles against the Crown. > >Many of them broke the law. And indeed, conservatives called their defenses >"appeals to sentiment and irrationality", or (ahem) "shadings." Yet their >acts certainly DID have impacts on the law! Witness, . . . (duh) changes >in legal codes and applicatons since . . . > >The point is NOT that warez d'loaders are today carrying the mantle of MLK, >Jr. (!), but rather that your own confusion of the law with morality is >misguided at best, and looks damned myopic from my little corner of >creation. Even--dare I type it?--fascistic? > >In short, I think you're making a real muddle between something called "the >law" (where is it, this abstraction??), and its application in social >life--a distinction that isn't supported by the way things work on the >ground. The law (or rather, the legal field) is how the state organizes the >rights and constraints of its subjects, through--in nominally-democratic >states--the consent of said subjects; and so it is a profoundly >*socially-constructed* set of practices. > >love and peas, >David > >PS: And I still think your argument about the natural superiority of the >English language re. world capitalism (oh! sorry! "globalisation!") was >simply laughable. But I'd love to hear more.

Did he really? Oh pleaaaaase. The Romans and the Greek used to be "naturally superior" also. How much history does it take to GET something? JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Oh God....you REALLY just don't get it, do you? >A crime is a crime is a crime.......THAT is the point. > >Now, if my neighbour was stupid enough to tell me that he had copied a CD that I >lent him, no, I wouldn't call the police. But he wouldn't get a lend of any of >my CD's in future. >If, however, he told me that he had broken into the house next door and stolen >goods then I would advise him to get a good solicitor.

Apparently, a "crime" is NOT a "crime", then. And even more: you're taking the personal liberty to assign your own idea of "severity" to it. Since you WON'T report the copying of the CD, but WILL report the breaking in. I was under the impression that BOTH are illegal and should be reported, though? That there was no SHADING and that mitigation was reserved for trial-time? Aren't you a little bit HYPOCRITICAL, Leaky_Valve? We are handling EXACTLY the same in the warez issue, pal! JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Yes...I've followed the thread. >Yes...I understand that Mr. Brown contacted the ISP of a person who posted >something here. >Mr. Brown THOUGHT that he'd "witnessed a crime". He reported it. He was in >error. He apologised. Publicly. >However, he was not wrong in what he did.....he reported what he thought was >somebody making a public admission of theft.

In the middle-ages, they had a great way to acquire goods and to get rid of people (women) you didn't like: just accuse them of being a witch! If one of those creepy ladies was accused, they had to go through a water-proof test: being thrown into the water with a millstone attached. Since witches used to fly on broomsticks, the middle-age mind smartly came to the conclusion that they had to be lighter than air! So if the woman kept floating on the water, even with a millstone attached, she was a witch and she was burnt (and all goods went to the local community or something). If she sank and drowned, she had been accused "by accident", and the person who reported her had to say "sorry" in public. (THAT was painful!) See? Like Barton, I can also post interesting (maybe even remotely RELEVANT) stories about how it used to be in the good ol' times. JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry Barton. I didn't look back at your actual quote. There you go, RAS-dwellers....see how easy it is to insert one incorrect word? Changes the value of the statement completely. Barton Brown wrote: > [email hidden] wrote: > > As a matter of fact, after the individual complained, Mr. Brown even > > admitted that he might be wrong > > No, I admitted that I was *completely* wrong ... no "might be" about it.

No...not at all, Nos. Like any profession; legal, medical, automotive repair.....the customer is free to obtain as many opinions as he or she wishes to. (Not "arrogance", Nos. Simply an unbiased view of the facts as they were presented herein with an opinion included.) Nos wrote: > > > And I suppose you think your *opinion* is final? I see arrogance is > part of your repertoire too. > -- > Nos

Leaky_Valve wrote: > > Sorry Barton. I didn't look back at your actual quote. No problem -- gad, not even looking back at my quote you get the sense of them better than most who pore over them like they were court documents! BTW, anyone see Monza qual today? No spoilers, but didja see the tifoso across from the pits with the mongogulous sound system (with over-the-head PA speaker!) strapped to his back? Thing had to weigh 150 pounds! I wish I could afford a trip to Italy -- *my* kind of people! BB

> Jo Helsen wrote: > See? Like Barton, I can also post interesting (maybe even remotely RELEVANT) > stories about how it used to be in the good ol' times. Yeah, but you *lived* back then -- that's no fair! Seriously (yeah, right!), I saw "Monty Python and The Holy Grail" so I know all about that "weighs the same as a duck" stuff... On a more relevant note, Jo -- do you live anywhere near Spa? BB

I said that it is what *I* would do. Me. Ergo, Mr. Brown acted on HIS beliefs. I would act on MY beliefs. What Mr. Brown did was his decision and, in the eyes of the law, what the offender MAY have done was wrong. And whatever both of us or either of us did would not change the fact that the downloading of warez is illegal. Jo Helsen wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Apparently, a "crime" is NOT a "crime", then. And even more: you're taking the > personal liberty to assign your own idea of "severity" to it. Since you WON'T > report the copying of the CD, but WILL report the breaking in. I was under the > impression that BOTH are illegal and should be reported, though? That there was > no SHADING and that mitigation was reserved for trial-time? > > Aren't you a little bit HYPOCRITICAL, Leaky_Valve? We are handling EXACTLY the > same in the warez issue, pal! >

Thank you for that interesting tid-bit of history. (Unfortunately it's missing a few relevant details but an amusing tale, never-the-less). Next time I have someone seek my advice on whether they should accuse their neighbour of witch-craft I'll think of it. Jo Helsen wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> In the middle-ages, they had a great way to acquire goods and to get rid of > people (women) you didn't like: just accuse them of being a witch! If one of > those creepy ladies was accused, they had to go through a water-proof test: > being thrown into the water with a millstone attached. > > Since witches used to fly on broomsticks, the middle-age mind smartly came to > the conclusion that they had to be lighter than air! So if the woman kept > floating on the water, even with a millstone attached, she was a witch and she > was burnt (and all goods went to the local community or something). If she sank > and drowned, she had been accused "by accident", and the person who reported her > had to say "sorry" in public. (THAT was painful!) > > See? Like Barton, I can also post interesting (maybe even remotely RELEVANT) > stories about how it used to be in the good ol' times. > > JoH > > ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- > --------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 08:15:36 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >No...not at all, Nos. Like any profession; legal, medical, automotive repair.....the >customer is free to obtain as many opinions as he or she wishes to. > >(Not "arrogance", Nos. Simply an unbiased view of the facts as they were presented >herein with an opinion included.) Well, try removing those blinkers now and again. -- Nos

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 23:20:44 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote: >In the legal system pertinent to the United States, Mr. Lapsley, I would be afraid >to proffer an opinion other than to suggest that you consult with a lawyer who is >prepared to offer you a "no win - no fee" contract. > >To anyone outside the United States, legal profession or not, you (Americans) leap ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The fine legal mind might form a hypothesis that someone with a .co.uk address more likely than not to be from .......... (No, I won't make it too easy for you). Litigation is for mugs. Michael

If my opinion was unbiased, Nos, the blinkers have already been removed. Nos wrote: > Well, try removing those blinkers now and again. > -- > Nos

To be perfectly honest, Michael, I didn't even glance at your address details, just blindly typed away in response. I extend my deepest apology for referring to you as an American when you are, obviously, located in the UK. (Of course, you COULD still be a US citizen, couldn't you?!) Michael Lapsley wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > >To anyone outside the United States, legal profession or not, you (Americans) leap > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > The fine legal mind might form a hypothesis that someone with a .co.uk > address more likely than not to be from .......... > (No, I won't make it too easy for you). > > Litigation is for mugs. > > Michael

On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 22:00:32 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >If my opinion was unbiased, Nos, the blinkers have already been removed. Well, I've read your condescending arrogant posts and you are no where near of an unbiased opinion. You are very biased in everything you say. I found your comments about the school chum that was anti-authoritarian to be very narrow minded. I expect you see anyone who is anti-establishment as a threat to your way of life and therefore you despise them without even understanding why they feel as they do. As I said, take off the blinkers. -- Nos

Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> Jo Helsen wrote: >> See? Like Barton, I can also post interesting (maybe even remotely RELEVANT) >> stories about how it used to be in the good ol' times. > >Yeah, but you *lived* back then -- that's no fair! Seriously (yeah, >right!), I saw "Monty Python and The Holy Grail" so I know all about >that "weighs the same as a duck" stuff... > >On a more relevant note, Jo -- do you live anywhere near Spa?

The "changing subject" tactic at its most obvious... <G> In American terms, VERY close. In Belgian terms: about as far away as possible :-) JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>I said that it is what *I* would do. Me. >Ergo, Mr. Brown acted on HIS beliefs. I would act on MY beliefs. >What Mr. Brown did was his decision and, in the eyes of the law, what the offender >MAY have done was wrong. >And whatever both of us or either of us did would not change the fact that the >downloading of warez is illegal. > >Jo Helsen wrote: > >> Apparently, a "crime" is NOT a "crime", then. And even more: you're taking the >> personal liberty to assign your own idea of "severity" to it. Since you WON'T >> report the copying of the CD, but WILL report the breaking in. I was under the >> impression that BOTH are illegal and should be reported, though? That there was >> no SHADING and that mitigation was reserved for trial-time? >> >> Aren't you a little bit HYPOCRITICAL, Leaky_Valve? We are handling EXACTLY the >> same in the warez issue, pal!

But what you don't seem to understand is that you are on OUR side. By NOT reporting it, you acknowledge that this law goes over the top and should better be ignored. You saw it as "no big deal". You recognised that it didn't do a great deal of harm. That sounds pretty much similar to my sentiments regarding the "warez-user type 3". JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote: >Thank you for that interesting tid-bit of history. (Unfortunately it's missing a few >relevant details but an amusing tale, never-the-less). I was not under the impression that you bothered about relevant details in your posts. So I didn't see the need to bother, either. <G> JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

But that's just it--they are NOT completely unrelated;--not, that is, unless citizens acquiesce to them, as my instances regarding women's suffrage, child labor and imperialism attempted to demonstrate. And furthermore, I insist that this interrelatedness is NOT solely theoretical, but (see same instances), deeply related to concrete life-as-it-is-lived. Let me say this: although we don't agree here, I am glad that you are at least willing to keep arguing. Frankly, I'm surprised by the relative lack of "this is a SIM forum, so shut up"-type interventions. And so, I tip my hat. I think today's sad event at Monza has dampened my ardor for argument. cheers, DK "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> David Karr wrote: > > > > but rather that your own confusion of the law with morality is > misguided at best > > I'm sorry, David -- but that's what I've been saying from the git-go: > morality and the law are completely unrelated (except in the theoretical > sense), just as are "justice" and the law. See my other posts. > > As for the superiority of English ... please, don't get me started... > > BB

David Karr wrote: > I think today's sad event at Monza has dampened my ardor for argument. I couldn't agree more. BB

I'll be as disinterested, as impartial and as unblinkered as I can possibly be when I am asked to determine the rights and wrongs of a particular situation. The facts, and nothing more and nothing less, are what I would base such a decision upon. However, that does not alter one iota either my personal beliefs, morals or convictions on how I will lead my life, so long as it is charted in accordance with societies rules. I am, after all, a member of that society. Man is, after all, a "pack animal". We ALL have personal standards, beliefs and morals, Nos. If mine collide with yours then so be it. If yours collide with societies, then be prepared to face the consequences. Qu� sera, sera, as the song goes. Nos wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Well, I've read your condescending arrogant posts and you are no where > near of an unbiased opinion. You are very biased in everything you > say. I found your comments about the school chum that was > anti-authoritarian to be very narrow minded. I expect you see anyone > who is anti-establishment as a threat to your way of life and > therefore you despise them without even understanding why they feel as > they do. As I said, take off the blinkers. >

I give up. I did not consider myself as playing on someone's team. It will be less painful, and possibly will have a greater chance of denting the masonry, if I stand over there in the corner and bang my tired head against the brick wall. Au revoir, Jo. Jo Helsen wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> But what you don't seem to understand is that you are on OUR side. By NOT > reporting it, you acknowledge that this law goes over the top and should better > be ignored. You saw it as "no big deal". You recognised that it didn't do a > great deal of harm. > > That sounds pretty much similar to my sentiments regarding the "warez-user type > 3". >

Dear me, it has been a long and somewhat tiring day. "Societies" should, of course, be "society's". My apologies for the slip. Leaky_Valve wrote: > societies rules. > If yours collide with societies,

On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:51:28 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote: >I give up. I did not consider myself as playing on someone's team. >It will be less painful, and possibly will have a greater chance of denting the >masonry, if I stand over there in the corner and bang my tired head against the brick >wall. Bang hard enough. But I think the wall will collapse before that stubborn head of you does. JoH

On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:35:40 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote: >I'll be as disinterested, as impartial and as unblinkered as I can possibly >be when I am asked to determine the rights and wrongs of a particular >situation. The facts, and nothing more and nothing less, are what I would >base such a decision upon. I never had the impression that you needed something as stupid as "facts" to take decisions. There probably is no room for them next to the shit that stuffs your head. Want a lolly? >However, that does not alter one iota either my personal beliefs, morals or >convictions on how I will lead my life, so long as it is charted in >accordance with societies rules. In Saoudi Arabia, Leaky_Valve would cut off hands. In the middle-ages, Leaky_Valve would burn witches. In Irak, Leaky_Valve would gas Kurds. In NAZI Germany, Leaky_Valve would gas Jews. In the US Civil War, Leaky_Valve would try to keep his slaves. In...etc..etc.. Because Leaky_Valve is a GOOD citizen! He does what the Law tells him to do, no matter what. > I am, after all, a member of that society. >Man is, after all, a "pack animal". Thank God we aren't all of us...... JoH

On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:35:40 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >However, that does not alter one iota either my personal beliefs, morals or >convictions on how I will lead my life, so long as it is charted in >accordance with societies rules. I am, after all, a member of that society. >Man is, after all, a "pack animal". Not all of us are sheep. Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a >We ALL have personal standards, beliefs and morals, Nos. >If mine collide with yours then so be it. No they don't, I just take exception to the "your standards are the right standards for all" attitude. >If yours collide with societies, then be prepared to face the consequences. There you go being narrow minded again. Just because someone doesn't care for the society they are *forced* to adhere to doesn't mean they have committed any crime or plan to. Therefore; there is no consequence. There are many turns society could have taken throughout history, just because we have this one doesn't mean it is the right one or has to stay this way. Freedom is in the mind my dear boy. Your's is shackled by the confines of society. Me thinks you need a good dose of some literary greats that may expand your horizons. May I suggest you start with Brave New World by Aldous Huxley? Perhaps you had to read it at Uni? If you did I expect the point of the novel was lost on you. But then I don't know you so this is all pure conjecture on my part so don't take it to heart. I'm sure you are a fine upstanding lad. :-) -- Nos

On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:20:29 GMT, [email hidden] (Jo Helsen) thus spoke:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>In Saoudi Arabia, Leaky_Valve would cut off hands. In the middle-ages, >Leaky_Valve would burn witches. In Irak, Leaky_Valve would gas Kurds. >In NAZI Germany, Leaky_Valve would gas Jews. In the US Civil War, >Leaky_Valve would try to keep his slaves. In...etc..etc.. > >Because Leaky_Valve is a GOOD citizen! He does what the Law tells him >to do, no matter what.

<Nos gives Jo a standing ovation> :-) -- Nos

Me buckos -- as much as I enjoy seeing my name in lights every time I open this NG, I have long since ceased to participate in my own crucifixion, so I thought I'd change the header ... hope you don't mind... Nos wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:35:40 +1000, Leaky_Valve > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: