Path: sn.no!uninett.no!news.algonet.se!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.uow.edu.au!not-for-mail From: zed@magna.com.au (Zed) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: WARD - AND NET ABUSE SYNDROME Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 17:32:20 GMT Organization: University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia. Lines: 163 Message-ID: <62arbs$14l$1@wyrm.its.uow.edu.au> References: <6287rp$9vi$1@usenet76.supernews.com> Reply-To: zed@magna.com.au NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp01.connectivity.net.au X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 Xref: sn.no alt.religion.scientology:385618 alt.censorship:170476 comp.org.eff.talk:73561 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- It seems that the Co$ continues its efforts to silence its critics while doing its utmost to convince people that it doesn't try to silence its critics. I don't buy this claim that Grady brought this on himself (or that he "pulled it in", as Scientologists describe it). wgert@loop.com (wgert) wrote: >The symptoms of "net abuse syndrome" are: >1. Unwilling to take responsibilty for one's actions. >- In Grady's account of his being banned from Tidepool, he has used >such phrases as "my apparently slanderous posting" and "what I had >allegedly posted" and "the content of the alleged slander". He >claims that the TOS were changed This appears to be true. The current TOS of Tidepool is not the TOS that Grady agreed to when he signed on with Tidepool. Nevertheless, Tidepool is claiming that Grady violated their (new) TOS, which he didn't agree to. > (ignoring the fact that no internet >service provider allows their systems to be used for committing >illegal or tortious acts). There's a good reason to ignore that fact IMHO: it's irrelevant. If you have proof that Grady's posts are libellous, tell it to a judge. Until then, your allegations of libel are nothing more than that: allegations. Unsubstantiated allegations at that. Could you take pity on a foreigner and explain exactly why you believe these posts to be libellous according to American law? >2. Blames the consequence of his own actions on others. >- Like a first grader, in Grady's account, he blames libellous conduct allegedly libellous conduct. >and violations of netiquette on Scientology. >[..] >4. Inability see facts that are clearly evident. >- Despite already being the subject of a court order which describes >Grady's postings as "the most offensive as any it has ever read" "Offensive" is not "libellous". Try again. > his >perception of reality remains distorted (see next symptom). Grady >stated, "Jim did not disclose to me which term of service I violated". Jim didn't. Tidepool representatives still haven't given a straight answer as to what Grady supposedly did wrong. Was it "slander"? Was it "off-topic"? Did it "cause trouble" for Tidepool? All of these reasons have been given by representatives of Tidepool. >Anyone new to usenet knows that libellous statements are not protected >by any ISP. Despite this reality, Grady cannot seem to grasp it or >that his postings are even outside the realm of heated discussion and, >according to the laws we all live under are not constitutionally >protected free speech. Please provide evidence that Grady's posts are libellous. >5. Deviously dishonest / covers lying artfully. >- On the one hand Grady distances himself from being the orginator of >the offending postings using statements such as "allegedly" in >referring to the posing which he obviously made, No, he uses the word "allegedly" wrt your claim (and possibly Tidepool's claim) that his posts are libellous. > yet later he admits >to these posings when he states, "But to get terminated for some ex >post facto TOS especially from a jerk like wgert (who wasn't even the >target of my rant) ..." He never denied posting the single, solitary post that you complained about. He denies that it is libellous. >Grady then goes on trying to deviously cover up his lying statements All to quick too think the worst of Grady, eh? Grady made no lying statements, and he certainly isn't deviously covering anything up. You're imagining a wrongdoing where none exists. >which he just admitted to having posted when he accuses "Scientology" >(who did not make the complaint - it was made by an individual, wgert) >of being against free speech because it has stated that it only sues >when it had to protect its property rights. Ward is artfully lying >again as: a) no suit has been filed here by Scientology The Co$ has stated that it has only _taken action_ against people who (allegedly) violate copyrights. Trying to close someone's account qualifies as "taking action" against someone in my book, and it wasn't due to alleged copyright violations. >and, b) my >complaint was done by myself as an individual report against his net >abuse and not by "Scientology" I'll take you at your word. I doubt Grady does. He may be mistaken in his belief, but to claim that he is "artfully lying" is a mischaracterisation. > and, c) "free speech", per many court >decisions and case law, does not include making libellous statements. This is the fourth time that you have claimed that Grady is posting libellous material. I have no more reason to believe it than I did the first three times. >Another blatant falsehood is that Grady refers to a my report about >HIS abuse of the internet as "intimidation". Isn't that what he is >trying to do to the targets of his rants and to his former ISP? Er....how does Grady's alleged motives make his description of your complaint as "intimidation" a blatant falsehood? >I attach the court order by Judge Whyte who made an official finding >that Grady's previous similar statement were, "as offensive as any it >has ever read". Implicit in this finding is that Grady was the >author of these posts. I remember reading about the hearing that this finding came from in Shelley Thompson's "Biased Journalism". I distinctly remember that Judge Whyte said that Grady's posts were disgusting, but he _did_ have a Constitutional right to express himself as he has in his posts. Why are you claiming that Grady's posts are libellous when an American Judge disagrees with you? Zed Xenu Remailer for a.r.s.:http://www.magna.com.au/~zed/remailer.html "I try to use only the strongest evidence in my criticism. Part of that must include pointing out where other evidence is lacking." - Rogue Agent -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: cp850 iQEVAwUBNEmNASsxIzhyTOOxAQH3awgAiydd86NIQYfsRzChSFJzXXVPBkb9izTC 3dT2757mtoXauWEMpc5fdYifLTPwv9nt4S90OqGEr1X+gApUYz6+JEtTZNrJ+qiB 37Wvbag/dcgaNnPIscbrdLYJzEW9NFeiMi74zPlh0cDYvj3e1DkQNpoCBA2EfuYI pVXWGnjCL666xLUtBbcJiyrw0D7uri0E9WNcg1m0JOn4/ZRF2r4FwDVdGvyznGQP f9Fn/wMwPY5UJli8ZDNp8pIWvyJ56sHn3PdfrXgddAaosNvf1kRDwMte4709vOaI k3JrU9WsRSZzHJDyYP4i0N5qRVI4IQb0sWRNCt1yQB1AX/SS1iYeMA== =A4Nm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----