Apparently, remmers recently vandalised M-Net by killing an item that had responses from other people, which is a violation of the rules of that system. Because of the whole fiasco that started when valerie decided to vandalize Grex, remmers can't possibly claim to be ignorant of the possibility that such rules exist and that violating them can be a very serious disruption to a BBS. Because he is a known vandal, all of Prof. Remmers's staff privileges on Grex should be revoked.39 responses total.
I'm sorry, but nowhere in M-Net's acceptable use policy does it prohibit people from killing items they created. Further, because this is not addressed in the AUP, and is a valid BBS command that anyone can invoke on their own without altering their security permission or exploiting a weakness, I believe it would be safe to say that by default M-Net allows this. This is clearly NOT a case of computer trespass. But I do see a clear case of trying to soil John's reputation, which in response I would politely say: Fuck off.
What's more, the item in question wasn't actually killed, as it already had responses from other users and YAPP doesn't permit killing at that point.
re. 1: the aup prohibits vandalism, which this was.
Why? Nothing happened.
As you would know if you been paying attention, the item in question is 14, not 15. The 15 thing means 14, but, as is discussed extensively on the system problems item on M-Net, that's a known bug.
John is in good standing on this system, and others. I cannot say that for the author of this item.
Regarding #5; So, were there any responses in item 14 when remmers killed it? If not, then I fail to see what the big deal is. Regarding #6; I think a policy of non-acknowledgement would be well advised here.
I dont think that we necessarily need to to concern ourselves with items being deleted on Mnet even if someone were to have done so inappropriately. However, the system allows people to kill items they author. It is supposed to not allow it if there are already responses to the item. If the system did allow that, then it is more of a technical problem than anything else. Also, I think remmers has been one of the more vocal people who has spoken out against killing items with responses in them. So I dont think it very likely that remmers would do such a thing on purpose.
Not only didn't I do it on purpose, I didn't do it by accident either. I killed item 14, which I entered and had no responses. Did it right after I posted it. The software allows an author do that if nobody else has responded, and does *not* allow it if there are responses by other people. Apparently there's a bug in Yapp that caused it to log that item 15 had been killed, i.e. an "off by one" error. But if you look, item 15 (which I also posted) is still there, with people responding merrily away. Much ado about nothing. I didn't delete anybody's text but my own. Somebody needs to fix that bug in Yapp, though.
re. 6: oh please. talk about an intellectually lame red herring ad hominem attack. how, exactly, does anything you said in your response have anything to do with anything? moreover, who decides if someone's in 'good standing'? an ugly fat stroke victim who can't control his eating, sends libelous and false abuse reports to systems, and whose antiquated 'if we've always done it this way, we'll always do it this way' methods of administrating a system have caused countless hours of downtime on grex and presumably other computers? please. go suck your wife's dick.
I think I'm going to frame response #10. I haven't laughed that hard in quite some time.
Now why don't you do me a favour and acknowledge that the abuse report you sent, as a representative of Cyberspace, Inc., about me to Gmail was complete fantasy?
As was acknowledged by members of Grex's board who actually read the copious amounts of evidence I provided to proove it was nonsense.
Scholar, if you are still upset about that, then fine. But don't start making shit up about remmers and accusing him of things you have no evidence of.
I didn't make anything up.
re #6 Since when did a popularity contest get in the way of a good rumor? (Oh wait, this is Grex.)
welcome to GreX ; it's gay !
youse
#10 of 18: by By the way, this item has been archived offsite so you cannot erase it. (scholar) on Wed, Aug 2, 2006 (23:30): re. 6: oh please. talk about an intellectually lame red herring ad hominem attack. how, exactly, does anything you said in your response have anything to do with anything? moreover, who decides if someone's in 'good standing'? an ugly fat stroke victim who can't control his eating, sends libelous and false abuse reports to systems, and whose antiquated 'if we've always done it this way, we'll always do it this way' methods of administrating a system have caused countless hours of downtime on grex and presumably other computers? please. go suck your wife's dick. ------------ hahhah, that's the best thing i have read all day and it is all true. way to go scholar. as for n8 he's a douche bag that contantly looks, no begs for attention; no one is concerned about him or takes him serious.
I formally retract any statement of fact or inuendo I made about Mr. Remmers or his darling wife in this item. The shit about steve' stays, though.
I am so relieved.
Now now, Children, play nice. Steve, it would really behoove you not to let your animosity towards polytarp show so much. Just ignore him.
Do you mind if I use that line the next time you're picking at STeve and let it get a bit too personal?
Sure. We can all use such reminders from time to time.
I think Grex should realize that it's highly inappropriate for someone to send abuse reports about users when they know the reports are false. If Steve' didn't realize the report was false (despite the plentiful evidence and general agreement that showed it to be false), we have an even bigger problem than willful maliciousness: utter ignorance.
Utter is where the milk comes from, right?
Milk it for all its worth.
i'm going to introduce cross to my special hoover
Why are you people wasting your time responding to this drivel?
Why do you consider it a waste of time?
Why do you ask?
Why ask why?
Why ask why I ask why?
Because.
If responding is a waste of time, it follows that #29 is a waste of time.
this is drivel and nonsense.
Re: resp:26 - Utter Pradesh is the state in India where all the sacred cows live.
re 35 - I should've been more specific. Responding the the drivel in #0 is a waste of time. re 32 - Try Bud Dry
heh
You have several choices: