Path: sn.no!uninett.no!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!207.200.71.66!newsfeed.netscape.com!pixie.mcom.com!news From: Matt Ouimette Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Internet Ventures, Inc. (Response) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:37:52 -0800 Organization: http://help.netscape.com/ Lines: 53 Message-ID: <3454ED90.5A5C17E@netscape.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.217.251.60 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03C-NSCP [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4m) To: donjla@tidepool.com Xref: sn.no alt.religion.scientology:388282 Donald Janke posted: > > This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute > between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet. [snip] Donald, I don't get a lot of time to follow this, but I HAVE been following the story since it's inception. I'm not going to wax verbose, obviously there are plenty of other posters who can do that for me. I do have some questions and opinions though. First, I want you to know that I agree with the overwhelming tide of sentiment so far. Tidepool was WRONG to close the account, MORE wrong to tell others it was for slander or abuses, especially since no one has yet been able to point out (In the original AUP) what Grady was abusing, And even MORE wrong to change the TOS later in the day to make it look more like Grady was abusing it. My first question is this - HOW could you cancel his account for a post that he made that WASN"T through Tidepool? I can see the point in cancelling spam sites, or mail accounts that are pointed to by spams, but this? It's ludicrous! Donald, I would very much like to see another response from you, now that a large number of the 'usual' posters in ARS have responded - After all, that's the group that the postings were supposed to be off-topic in. I'd like to see how you feel about what Tidepool did, after reading the responses, and looking up the case law that has been referenced. Do you still feel Tidepool was in the right? Do you still intend to try and censor content in all your user's postings? Do you intend to cancel accounts anytime someone complains about being 'offended'? I am a pseudo-lurker to this group. I read it often, but seldom post. Many, MANY others read it as well, and less of them post. Why? Because of the 'fair-game' tactics to obviously displayed by the CO$ against those who DO post. I don't know if you're getting a lot of private e-mail on this, but I have a feeling you might be. I know many people who read this group but don't post. Remember, all of those people are seeing everything that has happened as well. I expect the hits on the www pages detailing this story are pretty high indeed. As I said, I agree with the better-worded posts that preceded mine, and truly hope that you continue to respond. Perhaps you are beginning to see just what a stinkbomb you set off, and will be able to clear the air before you set off another, larger one. -- Ermine!