|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 335 responses total. |
md
|
|
response 120 of 335:
| 
Oct 25 14:14 UTC 2001 |
What about copying and retaining for evidentiary purposes only?
|
tfbjr
|
|
response 121 of 335:
|
Oct 25 14:47 UTC 2001 |
I admit, it took a few posts and responses for me to realize Jamie was
only trolling. His own press releases made it fairly clear.
What didn't mesh is that a good troller would take the minor insults I
threw at him and would have had more fun with them. So that ruled him
out as a good troller.
The DMCA comments again revealed him as a troll.
Other comments revealed a possible hint of desire to be elected.
So now I'm confused. Jamie, are you serious about winning? Is it a
joke?
Apparently both. What a disappointing combination it has to be in the
long run. Perhaps you will consider it complimentary, but it reminds
me somewhat of Andy Kaufman with the whole wrestling thing he got
into. It was more humorous to him than anyone else.
I'm not simply slamming you (no wrestling pun intended), I'm honestly
baffled trying to read your intentions.
|
gull
|
|
response 122 of 335:
|
Oct 25 15:25 UTC 2001 |
Re #34: That's just silly. Saying that photocopying a driver's license
for ID purposes is illegal because copying a license for the purpose of
deceiving someone is illegal is like saying that calling someone on the
telephone is illegal because the telephone can be used to make illegal
obscene phone calls.
Re #109:
I think, as a political candidate, jp2's words are considered public
record and you can quote him all you want.
Re #115:
Some people might object to requiring all board members to run a
Windows-only piece of software. ;>
|
janc
|
|
response 123 of 335:
|
Oct 25 15:58 UTC 2001 |
Re netmeeting: Actually most of the protocols spoken by Microsoft
Netmeeting are industry standard teleconferencing protocols. There
are open source versions that will interoperate with netmeeting, though
they are not well developed. See for example
http://www.freesoft.org/software/NetMeeting/
|
pthomas
|
|
response 124 of 335:
|
Oct 25 16:15 UTC 2001 |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Phil Thomas pthomas@arbornet.org
25 October 2001
THOMAS SCRIBBLES ITEM
Cyberspace Communications Board of Directors pre-candidate Phil Thomas
today scribbled a response in the M-Net "general conference," noting his
ability on that system to control his intellectual property.
"In the interests of straight talk, the response I scribbled wasn't really
anything too worthy, but it could have been." said Thomas. "I'm glad that
on M-Net I have the right to do this, whereas on Grex they believe that
the instant you write something it belongs to the 'commune,' despite the
fact that this notion violates every legal precedent known to man, and
every ethical and moral precedent founded in reason."
When asked again about the charges released by TwinkieTime Communications,
he declared that "I will not dignify these allegations with a further
response."
Thomas ended his statement condemning what he called the "deplorable state
of affairs" on Grex, saying "They are in the clutches of the collectivist
lie. I intend to give them a dose of reality."
ABOUT PHIL THOMAS: Phil Thomas recently declared his pre-candidacy for the
Cyberspace Communications Board of Directors.
|
keesan
|
|
response 125 of 335:
|
Oct 25 16:40 UTC 2001 |
Question to the candidates: Could Jamie and Phil please state in 100 words
or less how it would benefit grex if they were elected to the board?
Comment: I wish to point out that M-Net is continuing to exist despite the
odds and this is probably due to a great deal of devoted work on the part of
M-Net staff, who are doing a great job on hardware and software there.
Are Jamie or Phil in part responsible for the technical aspects of M-Net, and
might one or both of them be more interested in serving as Grex staff rather
than board members? (Sorry, I am not up on the details of who is doing what
at M-Net, even though I have a paid membership there because I like using
their faster hardware for browsing.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 126 of 335:
|
Oct 25 17:36 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 127 of 335:
|
Oct 25 17:52 UTC 2001 |
If you lose, it won't be because Grexers have "hatred for all things M-
Net." It is embarrassingly obvious that many "mnetters" have hatred
for all things Grex, and have so for may years, but you will search
Grex in vain for anything of that magnitude. What you will find is
that mnet and "mnetters" are mostly ignored on Grex. (I, of course,
have fun tormenting "mnetters" now and then, but I'm not really a
Grexer so I don't count.) No, if you lose, it will be because of you,
period. Now go eat a sack of shitdicks.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 128 of 335:
|
Oct 25 17:52 UTC 2001 |
86 responses in 24 hours - time to forget. Sorry.
|
scott
|
|
response 129 of 335:
|
Oct 25 18:20 UTC 2001 |
Grexers are generally open to other people. However, we do hold a grudge
pretty well, which is why Jamie feels like we're against him.
|
md
|
|
response 130 of 335:
|
Oct 25 18:29 UTC 2001 |
Heh. Go to the oldpolicy conference on mnet and check out item 120 for
an example (one *small* example) of how Jamie and other "mnetters" feel
about Grex. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
|
tfbjr
|
|
response 131 of 335:
|
Oct 25 18:34 UTC 2001 |
Jamie, I harbor no hatred toward MNet. Do you know where my attacks came
from? It was a combination of info others have posted here and your negative
responses. Add to that your vague description of how you will benefit Grex.
You cite Arbor Net/MNet success as the basis for your competence, but I am
not familiar with MNet. You were asking us to do the work to verify your
success.
Some concrete examples of how you would improve Grex would have been in order.
The only issues you have stated strong opinion on are the user ID methods in
place and the message logs. I don't believe that changing these policies will
bring in hordes of new users.
Attacking people while here does not improve things for your image.
Truth be told, image usually outweighs ability.
|
jp2
|
|
response 132 of 335:
|
Oct 25 18:43 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 133 of 335:
|
Oct 25 19:13 UTC 2001 |
Sindi in resp:125 :: you wrote, about M-net ::
> even though I have a paid membership there because I like using
> their faster hardware for browsing.)
Has M-net told you how much more you'll be expected to pay to
renew that membership when it expires soon? :)
Maybe Jamie can tell you how wonderful it is that you'll be paying more.
|
jp2
|
|
response 134 of 335:
|
Oct 25 19:18 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
tfbjr
|
|
response 135 of 335:
|
Oct 25 19:42 UTC 2001 |
I paid for my membership today - one year's worth.
Things should be all lined up after I e-mail an image of my ID to the staff
tonight. A concept I have no problem with.
See you at the polls.
|
jp2
|
|
response 136 of 335:
|
Oct 25 19:57 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 137 of 335:
|
Oct 25 19:59 UTC 2001 |
Thank you, Terence, and thank you, Jamie! :)
I hope Terence will stick around for more than just the upcoming
election.
|
jp2
|
|
response 138 of 335:
|
Oct 25 20:10 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 139 of 335:
|
Oct 25 20:16 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 140 of 335:
|
Oct 25 20:40 UTC 2001 |
I guess I am ignorant, Jamie. I just go by the published minutes of
Arbornet:
> Void suggested that we reduce the rate for a Patronship to $7.50
> per month or $80.00 per year for the next six months. Existing Members
> would get Patron access immediately, and they would need to renew as
> Patrons.
> Jp2 moved void's suggestion, dpc seconded, and the motion carried
> 3-0.
So, the minutes say explicitly that "Members" must renew as
"Patrons." The plain reading would say that they from paying
$50/year to $80/year,
but Jamie says there is some secret proposal I don't know about
which might allow existing members to be grandfathered in at the
current $50 rate.
I sure am "stupid" for trusting the published records of the Board
Jamie serves on today.
|
tfbjr
|
|
response 141 of 335:
|
Oct 25 20:50 UTC 2001 |
Wow, Jamie. The longer you are here, the more people you attack.
Every time you open your mouth, you show us how stupid you are. This is not
the way to influence people, I'm telling ya.
I always wonder how long it will take for a troll like you to disappear.
Given, we have to stop feeding you first, but it's SO MUCH FUN to watch...
BTW, I was considering membership before all this. You did succeed in making
up my mind. I suppose the benefit could be compared to virus writers creating
business for antivirus companies.
|
krj
|
|
response 142 of 335:
|
Oct 25 20:54 UTC 2001 |
((Jamie's been here for years, I doubt he's going away soon.))
|
jp2
|
|
response 143 of 335:
|
Oct 25 21:06 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 144 of 335:
|
Oct 25 21:20 UTC 2001 |
Can't wait to hear the answers to that one.
|
