Discussion:
Microsoft has removed 500+ groups, including 21 Windows-98 groups
(too old to reply)
98 Guy
2009-12-11 01:28:38 UTC
Permalink
I'm not exactly sure when this happened, but Microsoft has removed
approx. 535 groups from it's server. 21 of those pertain to windows-98.

Those 21 groups are:

---------------------
microsoft.public.il.hebrew.win98
microsoft.public.jp.win98
microsoft.public.kr.windows98.qna
microsoft.public.nl.windows98

microsoft.public.win98.comm.dun
microsoft.public.win98.comm.modem
microsoft.public.win98.display.general
microsoft.public.win98.display.multi_monitor
microsoft.public.win98.fat32
microsoft.public.win98.internet.netmeeting
microsoft.public.win98.msinfo32
microsoft.public.win98.multimedia
microsoft.public.win98.multimedia.directx5
microsoft.public.win98.power_mgmt
microsoft.public.win98.pptp
microsoft.public.win98.pws_4
microsoft.public.win98.scanreg
microsoft.public.win98.setup.win31
microsoft.public.win98.sys_file_check
microsoft.public.win98.taskscheduler
microsoft.public.win98.webtv
----------------------

I belive that at this point, if you use microsoft's server (HTTP or
NNTP) to read/write to those groups, that as of this point you can no
longer do so. Those groups are still being propagated by the wider
usenet community as if nothing happened. This may change if a certain
dick-wad issues control messages that are obeyed by independent server
operators (it's not clear that they will).

I can post the entire list if requested. And note - as of this point,
Microsoft has still not created any Windows-7 usenet group on it's
server...
MEB
2009-12-11 03:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
I'm not exactly sure when this happened, but Microsoft has removed
approx. 535 groups from it's server. 21 of those pertain to windows-98.
---------------------
microsoft.public.il.hebrew.win98
microsoft.public.jp.win98
microsoft.public.kr.windows98.qna
microsoft.public.nl.windows98
microsoft.public.win98.comm.dun
microsoft.public.win98.comm.modem
microsoft.public.win98.display.general
microsoft.public.win98.display.multi_monitor
microsoft.public.win98.fat32
microsoft.public.win98.internet.netmeeting
microsoft.public.win98.msinfo32
microsoft.public.win98.multimedia
microsoft.public.win98.multimedia.directx5
microsoft.public.win98.power_mgmt
microsoft.public.win98.pptp
microsoft.public.win98.pws_4
microsoft.public.win98.scanreg
microsoft.public.win98.setup.win31
microsoft.public.win98.sys_file_check
microsoft.public.win98.taskscheduler
microsoft.public.win98.webtv
----------------------
I belive that at this point, if you use microsoft's server (HTTP or
NNTP) to read/write to those groups, that as of this point you can no
longer do so. Those groups are still being propagated by the wider
usenet community as if nothing happened. This may change if a certain
dick-wad issues control messages that are obeyed by independent server
operators (it's not clear that they will).
I can post the entire list if requested. And note - as of this point,
Microsoft has still not created any Windows-7 usenet group on it's
server...
Microsoft has no intention of opening its Win7 or later OSs and
applications to Usenet. It does supply forums [as these were originally]
and other communities via direct access.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2009-12-11 08:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
I'm not exactly sure when this happened, but Microsoft has removed
approx. 535 groups from it's server. 21 of those pertain to windows-98.
[complete list repost]
Out of interest, does anyone (obviously outside the MS server) have a
feel for what the traffic level was on these 'groups?
Post by MEB
Microsoft has no intention of opening its Win7 or later OSs and
applications to Usenet. It does supply forums [as these were originally]
and other communities via direct access.
No, because they can't control them; they've never really felt at home
with usenet, one gets the impression from some people. (This may not
actually be the case.) Nothing to stop anyone else setting them up -
I'll just look, for the servers I use:

alt.windows7.general
it.comp.os.win.windows7
microsoft.public.it.windows7 (sounds suspiciously like ...!)

and probably some others (I didn't check for win.7, windows.7, win7,
win-7 ...)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)***@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

... on Thursdays on BBC Two, the former BBC2. (John Peel in "Radio Times", 1-7
May 1999.)
Tim Slattery
2009-12-11 13:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
I'm not exactly sure when this happened, but Microsoft has removed
approx. 535 groups from it's server. 21 of those pertain to windows-98.
[complete list repost]
Out of interest, does anyone (obviously outside the MS server) have a
feel for what the traffic level was on these 'groups?
Not much of one. Many of them are for quite obsolete products, and a
LOT of them were non-English language groups. The entire list was
posted to news.admin.misc. I was subscribed to
microsoft.public.win98.fat32, there were a few posts in that group
just last week.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Microsoft has no intention of opening its Win7 or later OSs and
applications to Usenet.
AFAIK, they haven't actually said that, but their actions certainly
bear it out.
--
Tim Slattery
***@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
MEB
2009-12-11 17:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Slattery
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
I'm not exactly sure when this happened, but Microsoft has removed
approx. 535 groups from it's server. 21 of those pertain to windows-98.
[complete list repost]
Out of interest, does anyone (obviously outside the MS server) have a
feel for what the traffic level was on these 'groups?
Not much of one. Many of them are for quite obsolete products, and a
LOT of them were non-English language groups. The entire list was
posted to news.admin.misc. I was subscribed to
microsoft.public.win98.fat32, there were a few posts in that group
just last week.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Microsoft has no intention of opening its Win7 or later OSs and
applications to Usenet.
AFAIK, they haven't actually said that, but their actions certainly
bear it out.
Once again you are correct and what I posted was too limiting and too
direct.
As you indicate, I haven't seen a direct statement [press release or
otherwise] *from Microsoft* regarding Win7 Usenet groups; relying more
upon prior activities that the groups were generally created during beta
activities previously, or directly after RTM, AND I never received any
notice from Microsoft regarding Support offered via Usenet accessible
*public* groups. The secondary hearsay "from those in the know" seems to
indicate there will be none, or at least English versions.
Having just refreshed the list, I see only 14 groups supposedly left in
.win98, and no win7 or windows7

Microsoft DID create Win7 groups in its direct access communities
[TechNet, others].
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2009-12-15 21:26:52 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@4ax.com>, Tim Slattery
<***@bls.gov> writes:
[]
[]
Post by Tim Slattery
Post by MEB
Microsoft has no intention of opening its Win7 or later OSs and
applications to Usenet.
AFAIK, they haven't actually said that, but their actions certainly
bear it out.
alt.windows7.general
it.comp.os.win.windows7
microsoft.public.it.windows7

Are already on the 'servers I use. While far from proof of any sort, the
name of the last one suggests that it might be a Microsoft-"sponsored"
one.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)***@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons
provided for defence against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad.
-James Madison, 4th US president (1751-1836)
98 Guy
2009-12-16 02:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
alt.windows7.general
it.comp.os.win.windows7
microsoft.public.it.windows7
Are already on the 'servers I use. While far from proof of any
sort, the name of the last one suggests that it might be a
Microsoft-"sponsored" one.
Actually - no.

The last group on your list was not created by Microsoft.

It's an example of what I've said many times - that Microsoft has no
unique relationship with the microsoft.* hierarchy of usenet
newsgroups. Microsoft does not control, direct, administer, or manage
those usenet groups. Microsoft does not play any role in message
aggregation, distribution, or moderation.

Someone else generated the group-create messages for that group, and
other usenet servers around the world honored them. So there exists a
newsgroup called microsoft.public.it.windows7 on some usenet servers,
and they are exchanging messages that are being posted to it by their
users.
MEB
2009-12-16 06:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
alt.windows7.general
it.comp.os.win.windows7
microsoft.public.it.windows7
Are already on the 'servers I use. While far from proof of any
sort, the name of the last one suggests that it might be a
Microsoft-"sponsored" one.
Actually - no.
The last group on your list was not created by Microsoft.
It's an example of what I've said many times - that Microsoft has no
unique relationship with the microsoft.* hierarchy of usenet
newsgroups. Microsoft does not control, direct, administer, or manage
those usenet groups. Microsoft does not play any role in message
aggregation, distribution, or moderation.
Someone else generated the group-create messages for that group, and
other usenet servers around the world honored them. So there exists a
newsgroup called microsoft.public.it.windows7 on some usenet servers,
and they are exchanging messages that are being posted to it by their
users.
AND now that you've brought it Microsoft's attention, it will likely
shut it down....
As for honored; no, likely it was propagated under the impression
Microsoft created it.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Sunny
2009-12-16 06:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
AND now that you've brought it Microsoft's attention, it will likely
shut it down....
Only in your dreams. Microsoft has no control over Usenet
Post by MEB
As for honored; no, likely it was propagated under the impression
Microsoft created it.
Who cares, Usenet servers around the World are "honouring" it
MEB
2009-12-16 06:52:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
AND now that you've brought it Microsoft's attention, it will likely
shut it down....
Only in your dreams. Microsoft has no control over Usenet
Post by MEB
As for honored; no, likely it was propagated under the impression
Microsoft created it.
Who cares, Usenet servers around the World are "honouring" it
NO they are not...
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Sunny
2009-12-16 07:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
AND now that you've brought it Microsoft's attention, it will likely
shut it down....
Only in your dreams. Microsoft has no control over Usenet
Post by MEB
As for honored; no, likely it was propagated under the impression
Microsoft created it.
Who cares, Usenet servers around the World are "honouring" it
NO they are not...
How would you know? From your own statements, you don't participate in
"Usenutter" games.

Have you personally "Tested" ALL the Usenet servers available around the
World?
If not, then your "NO they are not..." is crap. (As you are so fond of
telling others)

All it takes, for your info, is for any customer of any ISP or News Server
to request that a News Group be carried.
I asked for my ISP to carry "alt.windows98" and they complied.
I have no doubt that I could request the non "Microsoft initiated" usenet
group as well.
98 Guy
2009-12-16 13:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
AND now that you've brought it Microsoft's attention, it will
likely shut it down....
As has already been explained to you, Microsoft has no control over what
other server operators carry on their own servers. The group in
question has never existed on Microsoft's own servers. There is no
evidence that Microsoft has EVER cared about what the larger usenet
community does or how it handles the microsoft.* set of usenet groups.
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
Who cares, Usenet servers around the World are "honouring" it
NO they are not...
Yes they are:

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.it.windows7/topics

Google groups (formerly deja news) is carrying it.

Giganews carries it too.
MEB
2009-12-16 17:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
AND now that you've brought it Microsoft's attention, it will
likely shut it down....
As has already been explained to you, Microsoft has no control over what
other server operators carry on their own servers. The group in
question has never existed on Microsoft's own servers. There is no
evidence that Microsoft has EVER cared about what the larger usenet
community does or how it handles the microsoft.* set of usenet groups.
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
Who cares, Usenet servers around the World are "honouring" it
NO they are not...
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.it.windows7/topics
Google groups (formerly deja news) is carrying it.
Giganews carries it too.
HAHAHAHHA, so two carriers make it world-wide and carried to all
services.... ahahahahahhahahahhahahaha, that's funny.

It doesn't come as part of the master distribution from Microsoft so
ISPs will likely not carry it nor will the several hundred other News
Services. Its basically local crap... as soon as someone INFORMALLY
informs Google that this is a legal fraud and NOT a Microsoft group,
Google may remove it.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Sunny
2009-12-17 00:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
AND now that you've brought it Microsoft's attention, it will
likely shut it down....
As has already been explained to you, Microsoft has no control over what
other server operators carry on their own servers. The group in
question has never existed on Microsoft's own servers. There is no
evidence that Microsoft has EVER cared about what the larger usenet
community does or how it handles the microsoft.* set of usenet groups.
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
Who cares, Usenet servers around the World are "honouring" it
NO they are not...
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.it.windows7/topics
Google groups (formerly deja news) is carrying it.
Giganews carries it too.
HAHAHAHHA, so two carriers make it world-wide and carried to all
services.... ahahahahahhahahahhahahaha, that's funny.
One of the attractions of Usenet is that it reacts to what users want, not
what some corporate identity deems is suitable.
Post by MEB
It doesn't come as part of the master distribution from Microsoft so
ISPs will likely not carry it nor will the several hundred other News
Services.
ISPs, for the most part don't give a shit about what Microsoft tries to
dictate, and dedicated news servers couldn't care less as they carry news
groups that users want.
Post by MEB
Its basically local crap... as soon as someone INFORMALLY
informs Google that this is a legal fraud and NOT a Microsoft group,
Google may remove it.
Prove it then, "INFORMALLY" inform Google, and post your "Test Results".
As for your "this is a legal fraud", Bullshit.
98 Guy
2009-12-17 02:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.it.windows7/topics
Giganews carries it too.
HAHAHAHHA, so two carriers make it world-wide and carried to all
services.... ahahahahahhahahahhahahaha, that's funny.
What a total fool you are.

I identify two servers, out of many that I could have listed, that carry
that newsgroup, and you burst out all silly and goofy as if I posted the
total list.

You should really think about your responses before you post, unless you
like to give the impression that you're a Klown.
Post by MEB
It doesn't come as part of the master distribution from Microsoft
There is no such thing as a "master distribution" from Microsoft.

Microsoft is not the "master distributor" of messages that are posted to
the set of microsoft newsgroups. Microsoft is one of many peers that
carry these groups.

Do you know what a peer is Meb?
Post by MEB
so ISPs will likely not carry it nor will the several hundred
other News Services.
ISP's do not factor into this. ISP's provide internet connectivity to
end users. Some ISP's operate usenet servers for free use by their
customers. Internet users are free to use their ISP's NNTP servers, or
use one or several third-party servers as they wish. Google operates an
NNTP server by way of google-groups. Google will probably continue to
carry all the microsoft.* set of groups, and so will the vast majority
of other servers. And microsoft *will not care* what anyone else does.
They will make NO fuss or complain to no one.
Post by MEB
Its basically local crap... as soon as someone INFORMALLY
informs Google that this is a legal fraud and NOT a
Microsoft group, Google may remove it.
The only legal fraud around here is you.
MEB
2009-12-17 19:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.it.windows7/topics
Giganews carries it too.
HAHAHAHHA, so two carriers make it world-wide and carried to all
services.... ahahahahahhahahahhahahaha, that's funny.
What a total fool you are.
I identify two servers, out of many that I could have listed, that carry
that newsgroup, and you burst out all silly and goofy as if I posted the
total list.
You should really think about your responses before you post, unless you
like to give the impression that you're a Klown.
Post by MEB
It doesn't come as part of the master distribution from Microsoft
There is no such thing as a "master distribution" from Microsoft.
Microsoft is not the "master distributor" of messages that are posted to
the set of microsoft newsgroups. Microsoft is one of many peers that
carry these groups.
Do you know what a peer is Meb?
Do you have a friggin clue who offers the FRAKKEN peering. IT IS NOT
USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the
*LISTING* of the offered groups FROM THE VARIOUS AUTHORS/CREATORS.

Its presently offered because AT PRESENT IT IS THOUGHT IT IS
MICROSOFT"S GROUP, not some dipstick's fraud.
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
so ISPs will likely not carry it nor will the several hundred
other News Services.
ISP's do not factor into this. ISP's provide internet connectivity to
end users. Some ISP's operate usenet servers for free use by their
customers. Internet users are free to use their ISP's NNTP servers, or
use one or several third-party servers as they wish. Google operates an
NNTP server by way of google-groups. Google will probably continue to
carry all the microsoft.* set of groups, and so will the vast majority
of other servers. And microsoft *will not care* what anyone else does.
They will make NO fuss or complain to no one.
Post by MEB
Its basically local crap... as soon as someone INFORMALLY
informs Google that this is a legal fraud and NOT a
Microsoft group, Google may remove it.
The only legal fraud around here is you.
ISP DO FACTOR INTO IT YOU MORON, who the hell do you think provides the
servers and server space, PLUS THE GD transference. Just where the F*&%K
do you think most NNTP servers are you friggin moron.
And are you USENUTTERS such absolute morons you STILL don't get who
provides these MANUFACTURER and PRODUCT newsgroups AND THE SERVERS.

YOU *USENUTTERS* {and that is distinct from Usenetters} HAVE BECOME THE
DUMBEST ROCKS ON THIS PLANET.

So this is along the same lines as the same STUPID AND MORONIC crap as
your continued insistence that SOFTWARE SHOULD BE STOLEN rather than
purchased. And you believe that crap because YOU AND YOUR LIKE couldn't
program an application IF SOMEONE LEAD YOU BE THE HAND.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
John John - MVP
2009-12-17 20:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.it.windows7/topics
Giganews carries it too.
HAHAHAHHA, so two carriers make it world-wide and carried to all
services.... ahahahahahhahahahhahahaha, that's funny.
What a total fool you are.
I identify two servers, out of many that I could have listed, that carry
that newsgroup, and you burst out all silly and goofy as if I posted the
total list.
You should really think about your responses before you post, unless you
like to give the impression that you're a Klown.
Post by MEB
It doesn't come as part of the master distribution from Microsoft
There is no such thing as a "master distribution" from Microsoft.
Microsoft is not the "master distributor" of messages that are posted to
the set of microsoft newsgroups. Microsoft is one of many peers that
carry these groups.
Do you know what a peer is Meb?
Do you have a friggin clue who offers the FRAKKEN peering. IT IS NOT
USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the
*LISTING* of the offered groups FROM THE VARIOUS AUTHORS/CREATORS.
Its presently offered because AT PRESENT IT IS THOUGHT IT IS
MICROSOFT"S GROUP, not some dipstick's fraud.
You really don't know how any of it works. You should *really* do a bit
more research before your next contribution to the group.

http://www.pitt.edu/~news/faq.html#2.3
University of Pittsburgh Usenet News FAQ
Why doesn't Pitt carry the microsoft.* hierarchy?

The above information is interesting because it gives an inside view of
how Usenet and nntp servers work. However, the information above is
more than ten years old and the short explanation given by Pitts is at
odds with statements from Microsoft. Microsoft might have had initial
reservations, but there are are no suggestions from Microsoft which
would lead anyone to believe that they don't support active distribution
from their servers, quite to the contrary Microsoft clearly states that
its servers are available to anyone on Usenet:

http://www.microsoft.com/communities/guide/newsgroupfaq.mspx
Microsoft Newsgroups: Frequently Asked Questions

Please note that on Usenet another Usenet server is akin to 'someone',
Usenet is made up of peers, Microsoft is just another peer:

http://www.livinginternet.com/u/uw.htm
How Usenet Newsgroups Work, Usenet Design

It will be regrettable if Microsoft shuts down their servers but other
than vigorously protest and hope that they reconsider there is not much
that we can do about it. On the other hand, if the other Usenet peers
decide to continue carrying the microsoft.* hierarchy there is really
not too much that Microsoft will be able to do to stop them. The Usenet
*is* public and creating a Usenet hierarchy is like opening a bag of
feathers in a windstorm, after the feathers are scattered to the four
winds there is no gathering them back!

John
MEB
2009-12-17 21:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by John John - MVP
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.it.windows7/topics
Giganews carries it too.
HAHAHAHHA, so two carriers make it world-wide and carried to all
services.... ahahahahahhahahahhahahaha, that's funny.
What a total fool you are.
I identify two servers, out of many that I could have listed, that carry
that newsgroup, and you burst out all silly and goofy as if I posted the
total list.
You should really think about your responses before you post, unless you
like to give the impression that you're a Klown.
Post by MEB
It doesn't come as part of the master distribution from Microsoft
There is no such thing as a "master distribution" from Microsoft.
Microsoft is not the "master distributor" of messages that are posted to
the set of microsoft newsgroups. Microsoft is one of many peers that
carry these groups.
Do you know what a peer is Meb?
Do you have a friggin clue who offers the FRAKKEN peering. IT IS NOT
USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the
*LISTING* of the offered groups FROM THE VARIOUS AUTHORS/CREATORS.
Its presently offered because AT PRESENT IT IS THOUGHT IT IS
MICROSOFT"S GROUP, not some dipstick's fraud.
You really don't know how any of it works. You should *really* do a bit
more research before your next contribution to the group.
http://www.pitt.edu/~news/faq.html#2.3
University of Pittsburgh Usenet News FAQ
Why doesn't Pitt carry the microsoft.* hierarchy?
The above information is interesting because it gives an inside view of
how Usenet and nntp servers work. However, the information above is
more than ten years old and the short explanation given by Pitts is at
odds with statements from Microsoft. Microsoft might have had initial
reservations, but there are are no suggestions from Microsoft which
would lead anyone to believe that they don't support active distribution
from their servers, quite to the contrary Microsoft clearly states that
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/guide/newsgroupfaq.mspx
Microsoft Newsgroups: Frequently Asked Questions
Please note that on Usenet another Usenet server is akin to 'someone',
http://www.livinginternet.com/u/uw.htm
How Usenet Newsgroups Work, Usenet Design
It will be regrettable if Microsoft shuts down their servers but other
than vigorously protest and hope that they reconsider there is not much
that we can do about it. On the other hand, if the other Usenet peers
decide to continue carrying the microsoft.* hierarchy there is really
not too much that Microsoft will be able to do to stop them. The Usenet
*is* public and creating a Usenet hierarchy is like opening a bag of
feathers in a windstorm, after the feathers are scattered to the four
winds there is no gathering them back!
John
In part true, I will leave this as your statement on the beliefs you
presently have.

Usenet is, however, just the TERM for the peered servers and LISTING.
The *News SERVICES* such as giganews, aioe.org, and the others ARE the
access points TO USENET.

Just as Microsoft sent its notice via NNTP for groups removed recently,
it can send official notice of the complete removal should it wish to do
so. Just because something was once public does not mean it remains
public when no longer offered.
Microsoft was quite careful when it offered its once private
communities to the Usenet arena. Here the *documented* HISTORY
shows/reflects *private activities* *PRE-DATING* public Usenet access.
Compare these to instances where some site OFFERED access to its forums
trying to create increased traffic.
On one hand you have ALL the legal aspects following a MAJOR well known
software producer and all its registrations, trade name, trademarks, and
other verses someone who offered public access for other purposes.
Microsoft ALSO has the historical documents and other from the initial
CREATION [creative license] of these groups.

Best think carefully about those legal ramifications.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Sunny
2009-12-17 22:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by John John - MVP
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.it.windows7/topics
Giganews carries it too.
HAHAHAHHA, so two carriers make it world-wide and carried to all
services.... ahahahahahhahahahhahahaha, that's funny.
What a total fool you are.
I identify two servers, out of many that I could have listed, that carry
that newsgroup, and you burst out all silly and goofy as if I posted the
total list.
You should really think about your responses before you post, unless you
like to give the impression that you're a Klown.
Post by MEB
It doesn't come as part of the master distribution from Microsoft
There is no such thing as a "master distribution" from Microsoft.
Microsoft is not the "master distributor" of messages that are posted to
the set of microsoft newsgroups. Microsoft is one of many peers that
carry these groups.
Do you know what a peer is Meb?
Do you have a friggin clue who offers the FRAKKEN peering. IT IS NOT
USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the
*LISTING* of the offered groups FROM THE VARIOUS AUTHORS/CREATORS.
Its presently offered because AT PRESENT IT IS THOUGHT IT IS
MICROSOFT"S GROUP, not some dipstick's fraud.
You really don't know how any of it works. You should *really* do a bit
more research before your next contribution to the group.
http://www.pitt.edu/~news/faq.html#2.3
University of Pittsburgh Usenet News FAQ
Why doesn't Pitt carry the microsoft.* hierarchy?
The above information is interesting because it gives an inside view of
how Usenet and nntp servers work. However, the information above is
more than ten years old and the short explanation given by Pitts is at
odds with statements from Microsoft. Microsoft might have had initial
reservations, but there are are no suggestions from Microsoft which
would lead anyone to believe that they don't support active
distribution
from their servers, quite to the contrary Microsoft clearly states that
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/guide/newsgroupfaq.mspx
Microsoft Newsgroups: Frequently Asked Questions
Please note that on Usenet another Usenet server is akin to 'someone',
http://www.livinginternet.com/u/uw.htm
How Usenet Newsgroups Work, Usenet Design
It will be regrettable if Microsoft shuts down their servers but other
than vigorously protest and hope that they reconsider there is not much
that we can do about it. On the other hand, if the other Usenet peers
decide to continue carrying the microsoft.* hierarchy there is really
not too much that Microsoft will be able to do to stop them. The Usenet
*is* public and creating a Usenet hierarchy is like opening a bag of
feathers in a windstorm, after the feathers are scattered to the four
winds there is no gathering them back!
John
In part true, I will leave this as your statement on the beliefs you
Big deal, so gracious of you.
Post by MEB
presently have.
Usenet is, however, just the TERM for the peered servers and LISTING.
The *News SERVICES* such as giganews, aioe.org, and the others ARE the
access points TO USENET.
Each Usenet site makes its own decisions about the set of groups available
to its users; this set differs from site to site. (
Post by MEB
Just as Microsoft sent its notice via NNTP for groups removed recently,
it can send official notice of the complete removal should it wish to do
so. Just because something was once public does not mean it remains
public when no longer offered.
Microsoft removed the groups from it's own servers, If any other server
wants continue carrying them they can.
Post by MEB
Microsoft was quite careful when it offered its once private
communities to the Usenet arena. Here the *documented* HISTORY
shows/reflects *private activities* *PRE-DATING* public Usenet access.
Compare these to instances where some site OFFERED access to its forums
trying to create increased traffic.
On one hand you have ALL the legal aspects following a MAJOR well known
software producer and all its registrations, trade name, trademarks, and
other verses someone who offered public access for other purposes.
Microsoft ALSO has the historical documents and other from the initial
CREATION [creative license] of these groups.
Best think carefully about those legal ramifications.
Crap,
MEB
2009-12-17 22:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
Post by John John - MVP
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.it.windows7/topics
Giganews carries it too.
HAHAHAHHA, so two carriers make it world-wide and carried to all
services.... ahahahahahhahahahhahahaha, that's funny.
What a total fool you are.
I identify two servers, out of many that I could have listed, that carry
that newsgroup, and you burst out all silly and goofy as if I posted the
total list.
You should really think about your responses before you post, unless you
like to give the impression that you're a Klown.
Post by MEB
It doesn't come as part of the master distribution from Microsoft
There is no such thing as a "master distribution" from Microsoft.
Microsoft is not the "master distributor" of messages that are posted to
the set of microsoft newsgroups. Microsoft is one of many peers that
carry these groups.
Do you know what a peer is Meb?
Do you have a friggin clue who offers the FRAKKEN peering. IT IS NOT
USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the
*LISTING* of the offered groups FROM THE VARIOUS AUTHORS/CREATORS.
Its presently offered because AT PRESENT IT IS THOUGHT IT IS
MICROSOFT"S GROUP, not some dipstick's fraud.
You really don't know how any of it works. You should *really* do a bit
more research before your next contribution to the group.
http://www.pitt.edu/~news/faq.html#2.3
University of Pittsburgh Usenet News FAQ
Why doesn't Pitt carry the microsoft.* hierarchy?
The above information is interesting because it gives an inside view of
how Usenet and nntp servers work. However, the information above is
more than ten years old and the short explanation given by Pitts is at
odds with statements from Microsoft. Microsoft might have had initial
reservations, but there are are no suggestions from Microsoft which
would lead anyone to believe that they don't support active
distribution
from their servers, quite to the contrary Microsoft clearly states that
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/guide/newsgroupfaq.mspx
Microsoft Newsgroups: Frequently Asked Questions
Please note that on Usenet another Usenet server is akin to 'someone',
http://www.livinginternet.com/u/uw.htm
How Usenet Newsgroups Work, Usenet Design
It will be regrettable if Microsoft shuts down their servers but other
than vigorously protest and hope that they reconsider there is not much
that we can do about it. On the other hand, if the other Usenet peers
decide to continue carrying the microsoft.* hierarchy there is really
not too much that Microsoft will be able to do to stop them. The Usenet
*is* public and creating a Usenet hierarchy is like opening a bag of
feathers in a windstorm, after the feathers are scattered to the four
winds there is no gathering them back!
John
In part true, I will leave this as your statement on the beliefs you
Big deal, so gracious of you.
Yeah, I'm gracious to him.. you on the other hand, are an ignorant
Troll and a USENUTTER... someone without a basic grasp of much of
anything on the planet, with nothing better to do than foster crap,
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
presently have.
Usenet is, however, just the TERM for the peered servers and LISTING.
The *News SERVICES* such as giganews, aioe.org, and the others ARE the
access points TO USENET.
Each Usenet site makes its own decisions about the set of groups available
to its users; this set differs from site to site. (
And that is true for *USENET* *SERVICES*, that has nothing to do with
the microsoft.public. hierarchy ownership.
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
Just as Microsoft sent its notice via NNTP for groups removed recently,
it can send official notice of the complete removal should it wish to do
so. Just because something was once public does not mean it remains
public when no longer offered.
Microsoft removed the groups from it's own servers, If any other server
wants continue carrying them they can.
NOPE, that has no basis in Law...
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
Microsoft was quite careful when it offered its once private
communities to the Usenet arena. Here the *documented* HISTORY
shows/reflects *private activities* *PRE-DATING* public Usenet access.
Compare these to instances where some site OFFERED access to its forums
trying to create increased traffic.
On one hand you have ALL the legal aspects following a MAJOR well known
software producer and all its registrations, trade name, trademarks, and
other verses someone who offered public access for other purposes.
Microsoft ALSO has the historical documents and other from the initial
CREATION [creative license] of these groups.
Best think carefully about those legal ramifications.
Crap,
Nope, sorry,,, Microsoft LITERALLY OWNS the microsoft.public.
hierarchy, It is one of its assets and part of its *CORPORATE PROPERTY*.
Microsoft can do what it wishes with its property INCLUDING shutting
access and forcing removal. It would take a single attorney from
Microsoft's vast army across the world to bring suit against any of the
*Services* refusing to honor the Law. Probable take one or two days
legal work as there is NO legal basis or defense for the intrusion or
refusal.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
98 Guy
2009-12-18 14:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John John - MVP
http://www.pitt.edu/~news/faq.html#2.3
University of Pittsburgh Usenet News FAQ
Why doesn't Pitt carry the microsoft.* hierarchy?
The above information is interesting because it gives an inside
view of how Usenet and nntp servers work. However, the
information above is more than ten years old and the short
explanation given by Pitts is at odds with statements from
Microsoft.
It is true that, according to that article, that Microsoft initially set
up their server as a private server, with no peering connection to the
rest of usenet. And it is true that some un-named others extracted
posts from the microsoft server and injected them back into usenet.
This is called "sucking" in the above pitt.edu link. I don't know of
those same person(s) performed bi-directional "sucking".

But at some point, microsoft did hook up and peer it's servers with the
rest of usenet, removing the need for the "sucking" connection.
Post by John John - MVP
It will be regrettable if Microsoft shuts down their servers
but other than vigorously protest and hope that they reconsider
there is not much that we can do about it.
The existance of newsgroups that act as support channels for officially
unsupported products is a stumbling block for Microsoft as it can't
control the existance of those groups nor the information contained in
them. This inhibits their ability to force people to migrate to newer
Microsoft products according to their sales and marketing plans.
Post by John John - MVP
On the other hand, if the other Usenet peers decide to continue
carrying the microsoft.* hierarchy there is really not too much
that Microsoft will be able to do to stop them.
As I said before, there is a self-appointed person who believes he has
some innate right to administer the microsoft groups since Microsoft
itself has issued no "housekeeping" control messages to the internet at
large. This person is going to be a dick-wad and issue control messages
soon that are intended to remove the 500+ microsoft groups from usenet.
This is purely a superficial act - it has no weight or sanction with
anything or anyone that might be considered an actual usenet controlling
body. Almost no usenet server operators will honor these rmgroup or
check-group messages because there are many such rogue messages that
circulate on the internet every day.

This point will become even more clear if or when microsoft decides to
end all usenet peering or delete entire sub-trees from it's own usenet
server. The removal of still-popular groups relating to Win-2K or XP
would be met with outrage if other usenet operators around the world did
the same.
MEB
2009-12-18 18:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by John John - MVP
http://www.pitt.edu/~news/faq.html#2.3
University of Pittsburgh Usenet News FAQ
Why doesn't Pitt carry the microsoft.* hierarchy?
The above information is interesting because it gives an inside
view of how Usenet and nntp servers work. However, the
information above is more than ten years old and the short
explanation given by Pitts is at odds with statements from
Microsoft.
It is true that, according to that article, that Microsoft initially set
up their server as a private server, with no peering connection to the
rest of usenet. And it is true that some un-named others extracted
posts from the microsoft server and injected them back into usenet.
This is called "sucking" in the above pitt.edu link. I don't know of
those same person(s) performed bi-directional "sucking".
But at some point, microsoft did hook up and peer it's servers with the
rest of usenet, removing the need for the "sucking" connection.
Post by John John - MVP
It will be regrettable if Microsoft shuts down their servers
but other than vigorously protest and hope that they reconsider
there is not much that we can do about it.
The existance of newsgroups that act as support channels for officially
unsupported products is a stumbling block for Microsoft as it can't
control the existance of those groups nor the information contained in
them. This inhibits their ability to force people to migrate to newer
Microsoft products according to their sales and marketing plans.
Post by John John - MVP
On the other hand, if the other Usenet peers decide to continue
carrying the microsoft.* hierarchy there is really not too much
that Microsoft will be able to do to stop them.
WRONG as usual. Microsoft has inherent control and authority to do as
it wishes with its own microsoft.public. hierarchy. NO ARGUMENT will
remove this legal authority, particularly the fact that Useneters seem
to feel THEY OWN Usenet now. They never have and never will.

As for Usenet in general, it is an old and out-dated format which all
manufacturers and most others now KNOW is not a good way to develop
customer satisfaction or provide the things generally needed. And
Usenetters have NO ONE to blame but themselves and their failure to keep
the offered groups free of Trolls and the other crap that goes on in
these things.
Post by 98 Guy
As I said before, there is a self-appointed person who believes he has
some innate right to administer the microsoft groups since Microsoft
itself has issued no "housekeeping" control messages to the internet at
large. This person is going to be a dick-wad and issue control messages
soon that are intended to remove the 500+ microsoft groups from usenet.
This is purely a superficial act - it has no weight or sanction with
anything or anyone that might be considered an actual usenet controlling
body. Almost no usenet server operators will honor these rmgroup or
check-group messages because there are many such rogue messages that
circulate on the internet every day.
WRONG AGAIN. Microsoft JUST provided "housekeeping" to THE GROUPS IN
OWNS. THIS in itself gives even further legal showing of its intent to
maintain *the groups it owns* AND that it has NEVER done otherwise.
THESE SERVICES have, generally, 30 days in which to comply, after which
Microsoft may proceed in whichever/whatever form it chooses against the
*SERVICES* refusing to comply. The News Services have no authority to do
anything other than what Microsoft or any owner might request they do.
These services are as bound by Law as any other party or entity on this
planet.
So whether you or anyone else likes it, YOU HAVE ZERO to use as defense
or argument should Microsoft determine anything related to its
microsoft.public. newsgroups. Moreover, it WOULD NOT SUFFICIENTLY IMPACT
any of its OSs, support, or sales, now or in the future, if it did shut
down and force the entire hierarchy off of Usenet. Microsoft DOES
provide and have other support groups/communities that provide the
supposed support for its other OSs and products. Moreover, Usenet or
forums or sites or whatever can fill in any spaces/gaps. The qualifier
being, WITHIN the legally allowed limits and NOT via the use of
deliberate fraud and theft.

Let's hope Microsoft doesn't do that. But again, were I in Microsoft's
counsel, I would aggressively pursue compliance.
Post by 98 Guy
This point will become even more clear if or when microsoft decides to
end all usenet peering or delete entire sub-trees from it's own usenet
server. The removal of still-popular groups relating to Win-2K or XP
would be met with outrage if other usenet operators around the world did
the same.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Jeff Richards
2009-12-18 22:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Why are you bothering to blather on about this. Surely MS has now given you
the perfect opportunity to prove that you are right and the rest of the
world is wrong. Instead of engaging in stupid namecalling, why don't you
just wait until you have the evidence you need.

All you need to do is locate a good selection of public servers that
currently carry any of the groups that MS has just deleted. Then monitor
those servers.

When, in 30 days time, those groups suddenly disappear from those servers
you will be able to post the complete details here and prove that you were
right and we were all wrong.
--
Jeff Richards
----------------------------------------
MEB
2009-12-19 01:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Richards
Why are you bothering to blather on about this. Surely MS has now given you
the perfect opportunity to prove that you are right and the rest of the
world is wrong. Instead of engaging in stupid namecalling, why don't you
just wait until you have the evidence you need.
All you need to do is locate a good selection of public servers that
currently carry any of the groups that MS has just deleted. Then monitor
those servers.
When, in 30 days time, those groups suddenly disappear from those servers
you will be able to post the complete details here and prove that you were
right and we were all wrong.
Why, because you parties continue to blather on about it..
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2009-12-17 22:39:19 UTC
Permalink
[]
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Do you know what a peer is Meb?
Do you have a friggin clue who offers the FRAKKEN peering. IT IS NOT
USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the
*LISTING* of the offered groups FROM THE VARIOUS AUTHORS/CREATORS.
Calm down.

(By the way: it's probably changing due to the frequency of it being got
wrong, but the phrase "is comprised of" should really be replaced by the
single word "comprises". If you feel naked without the word "of", then
say "consists of".)

Not sure what you mean by listing. If you mean just the actual list of
newsgroups, then that is indeed part of what usenet is, though most news
servers have at least some newsgroups they don't carry, so there is no
single list. If you mean the _carrying_ of postings within the
individual 'groups, then that is of course also part of what usenet is.
Post by MEB
Its presently offered because AT PRESENT IT IS THOUGHT IT IS
MICROSOFT"S GROUP, not some dipstick's fraud.
I will admit that the name of that 'group misled me into thinking it had
been originated by MS. However, I doubt more than a small proportion of
newsserver operators were as easily fooled.
[]
Post by MEB
ISP DO FACTOR INTO IT YOU MORON, who the hell do you think provides the
servers and server space, PLUS THE GD transference. Just where the F*&%K
do you think most NNTP servers are you friggin moron.
It's not _only_ ISPs who provide newsservers (which obviously include
server space). There are some major newsservers operated by companies
who are not ISPs, and quite a lot of ISPs (at least in UK - can't speak
for elsewhere) do not offer a newsserver. To add further to the
complication, some ISPs don't operate their own newsserver, but pay one
of the big newsserver operating companies to let their customers use
that server (sometimes disguised behind an alias related to the ISP in
question).
Post by MEB
And are you USENUTTERS such absolute morons you STILL don't get who
provides these MANUFACTURER and PRODUCT newsgroups AND THE SERVERS.
"Provides" isn't quite correct. In the case of (most of!) the
microsoft.public.* newsgroups, they may well have originated as private
'groups - or fora, or whatever - inside Microsoft's own server, and not
passed to usenet in general; at some point, Microsoft opened them to
usenet. Once they had done that, they could not really control what
appeared in those 'groups _on usenet_; some people have claimed that MS
censors the posts _as carried on its own servers_, on which I cannot
comment as I'm not a user of those servers.
Post by MEB
YOU *USENUTTERS* {and that is distinct from Usenetters} HAVE BECOME THE
DUMBEST ROCKS ON THIS PLANET.
So this is along the same lines as the same STUPID AND MORONIC crap as
your continued insistence that SOFTWARE SHOULD BE STOLEN rather than
There I don't happen to agree with 98Guy - though equally, I think
suppressing software which is no longer supported isn't praiseworthy
either.
Post by MEB
purchased. And you believe that crap because YOU AND YOUR LIKE couldn't
program an application IF SOMEONE LEAD YOU BE THE HAND.
I certainly haven't programmed anything GUI (apart from a bit of HTML),
though I do speak a few programming languages; that doesn't mean I think
you should steal software.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)***@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense,
reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei
MEB
2009-12-17 23:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Do you know what a peer is Meb?
Do you have a friggin clue who offers the FRAKKEN peering. IT IS NOT
USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the
*LISTING* of the offered groups FROM THE VARIOUS AUTHORS/CREATORS.
Calm down.
(By the way: it's probably changing due to the frequency of it being got
wrong, but the phrase "is comprised of" should really be replaced by the
single word "comprises". If you feel naked without the word "of", then
say "consists of".)
Look, I don't care what YOU think, how many times do I need to tell you
that... and who, pray tell, says that everyone on this planet should
drop proper form and grammar.

So what next, we should all just use the common cell text "shorts"? Not
going to happen...
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Not sure what you mean by listing. If you mean just the actual list of
newsgroups, then that is indeed part of what usenet is, though most news
servers have at least some newsgroups they don't carry, so there is no
single list. If you mean the _carrying_ of postings within the
individual 'groups, then that is of course also part of what usenet is.
You, as typical, equate Usenet with the *News Services* as if they are
one and the same. They are not. The Services make up part of the Usenet,
they are NOT Usenet.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Its presently offered because AT PRESENT IT IS THOUGHT IT IS
MICROSOFT"S GROUP, not some dipstick's fraud.
I will admit that the name of that 'group misled me into thinking it had
been originated by MS. However, I doubt more than a small proportion of
newsserver operators were as easily fooled.
[]
Post by MEB
ISP DO FACTOR INTO IT YOU MORON, who the hell do you think provides the
servers and server space, PLUS THE GD transference. Just where the F*&%K
do you think most NNTP servers are you friggin moron.
It's not _only_ ISPs who provide newsservers (which obviously include
server space). There are some major newsservers operated by companies
who are not ISPs, and quite a lot of ISPs (at least in UK - can't speak
for elsewhere) do not offer a newsserver. To add further to the
complication, some ISPs don't operate their own newsserver, but pay one
of the big newsserver operating companies to let their customers use
that server (sometimes disguised behind an alias related to the ISP in
question).
Uh, okay, so that's part of its make-up.. the point was?
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
And are you USENUTTERS such absolute morons you STILL don't get who
provides these MANUFACTURER and PRODUCT newsgroups AND THE SERVERS.
"Provides" isn't quite correct. In the case of (most of!) the
microsoft.public.* newsgroups, they may well have originated as private
'groups - or fora, or whatever - inside Microsoft's own server, and not
passed to usenet in general; at some point, Microsoft opened them to
usenet. Once they had done that, they could not really control what
appeared in those 'groups _on usenet_; some people have claimed that MS
censors the posts _as carried on its own servers_, on which I cannot
comment as I'm not a user of those servers.
Actually no, Microsoft did NOT offer them to Usenet originally, but to
NNTP access. Microsoft specifically stated such.
Microsoft CAN control what it owns, and it does OWN the
microsoft.public. hierarchy.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
YOU *USENUTTERS* {and that is distinct from Usenetters} HAVE BECOME THE
DUMBEST ROCKS ON THIS PLANET.
So this is along the same lines as the same STUPID AND MORONIC crap as
your continued insistence that SOFTWARE SHOULD BE STOLEN rather than
There I don't happen to agree with 98Guy - though equally, I think
suppressing software which is no longer supported isn't praiseworthy
either.
Well I voiced at EOL, that Microsoft should offer the source and code
to the public. That didn't occur, likely due to being a corporate asset,
and to limit the usage since it has ZERO in-built protections, and most
of its users contributed to the vast number of hacked computers and
botnets. There was a drop in those during the change-over to the NT
based OSs. Now the incidences are far worse.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
purchased. And you believe that crap because YOU AND YOUR LIKE couldn't
program an application IF SOMEONE LEAD YOU BE THE HAND.
I certainly haven't programmed anything GUI (apart from a bit of HTML),
though I do speak a few programming languages; that doesn't mean I think
you should steal software.
That's good. As found in nations across the world, that once there are
developers creating software, they demand legal protection for that
software. If ANYONE could program, it might be different, but
comparatively, there are few verses the number of computer users.

*IF* someone wants FREE stuff then there is some available, including
free OSs, so stealing software has NO support from any who do program
[unless for the public offerings]. Even the governments are now
involved, such as in the inclusions within The Free Trade Agreements
around the world, AND WTO, and the U.N..
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2009-12-20 20:44:58 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, MEB
<MEB-not-***@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Do you have a friggin clue who offers the FRAKKEN peering. IT IS NOT
USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the
*LISTING* of the offered groups FROM THE VARIOUS AUTHORS/CREATORS.
Calm down.
(By the way: it's probably changing due to the frequency of it being got
wrong, but the phrase "is comprised of" should really be replaced by the
single word "comprises". If you feel naked without the word "of", then
say "consists of".)
Look, I don't care what YOU think, how many times do I need to tell you
that... and who, pray tell, says that everyone on this planet should
drop proper form and grammar.
Gauntlet accepted. But you're agreeing with me: when you say "who ...
says that everyone ... should drop proper form and grammar", you at
least IMPLY that you think such things matter. Therefore your use of the
abomination "is comprised of" is to be deprecated. (As I said above, it
is now so common that it will probably become accepted.)
Post by MEB
So what next, we should all just use the common cell text "shorts"? Not
going to happen...
I hope not, but of course your use of the non-sentence "Not going to
happen" suggests that you're not as immune to short-speak as you'd like
to think you are (-:.
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
ISP DO FACTOR INTO IT YOU MORON, who the hell do you think provides the
servers and server space, PLUS THE GD transference. Just where the F*&%K
do you think most NNTP servers are you friggin moron.
It's not _only_ ISPs who provide newsservers (which obviously include
server space). There are some major newsservers operated by companies
who are not ISPs, and quite a lot of ISPs (at least in UK - can't speak
for elsewhere) do not offer a newsserver. To add further to the
complication, some ISPs don't operate their own newsserver, but pay one
of the big newsserver operating companies to let their customers use
that server (sometimes disguised behind an alias related to the ISP in
question).
Uh, okay, so that's part of its make-up.. the point was?
It was your point - you shouted and swore above, suggesting that ISPs
provide "the servers and server space". I was simply gently pointing out
that not all such servers are provided by ISPs - not even "most" of
them, in the UK, I would say, since more and more ISPs are dropping news
provision.
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
And are you USENUTTERS such absolute morons you STILL don't get who
provides these MANUFACTURER and PRODUCT newsgroups AND THE SERVERS.
"Provides" isn't quite correct. In the case of (most of!) the
microsoft.public.* newsgroups, they may well have originated as private
'groups - or fora, or whatever - inside Microsoft's own server, and not
passed to usenet in general; at some point, Microsoft opened them to
usenet. Once they had done that, they could not really control what
appeared in those 'groups _on usenet_; some people have claimed that MS
censors the posts _as carried on its own servers_, on which I cannot
comment as I'm not a user of those servers.
Actually no, Microsoft did NOT offer them to Usenet originally, but to
NNTP access. Microsoft specifically stated such.
Microsoft CAN control what it owns, and it does OWN the
microsoft.public. hierarchy.
It "owned" them while they were on its own servers. I can only rely here
on what others have said, but apparently someone (or several someones)
"created" them on usenet at large, some years ago, and someone (maybe or
maybe not the same someones) cross-fertilised the inner and outer
contents. If any claim to "ownership" is being made, it would indeed
have been prudent for Microsoft to object when these two things first
happened, some years ago; the fact that they did not, suggests that they
do not make any such ownership claim. (Incidentally, I have not seen a
claim of ownership of these 'groups by Microsoft, only by you on their
behalf - and you have stated by implication that you are not in their
counsel.)
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
YOU *USENUTTERS* {and that is distinct from Usenetters} HAVE BECOME THE
DUMBEST ROCKS ON THIS PLANET.
So this is along the same lines as the same STUPID AND MORONIC crap as
your continued insistence that SOFTWARE SHOULD BE STOLEN rather than
There I don't happen to agree with 98Guy - though equally, I think
suppressing software which is no longer supported isn't praiseworthy
either.
Well I voiced at EOL, that Microsoft should offer the source and code
to the public. That didn't occur, likely due to being a corporate asset,
For once we are in agreement, that would have been a Good Thing To Do.
Post by MEB
and to limit the usage since it has ZERO in-built protections, and most
of its users contributed to the vast number of hacked computers and
botnets. There was a drop in those during the change-over to the NT
based OSs. Now the incidences are far worse.
(This is not a loaded question, I ask out of genuine desire to know:)
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying there. It sounds like you are
saying the number of botnets etc. dropped briefly during the changeover,
and has now gone much higher - is that what you are saying? If so, it
would be interesting to know (though impossible to prove either way)
whether the drop was related to the NT-based OSs, or just coincidental.
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
purchased. And you believe that crap because YOU AND YOUR LIKE couldn't
program an application IF SOMEONE LEAD YOU BE THE HAND.
I certainly haven't programmed anything GUI (apart from a bit of HTML),
though I do speak a few programming languages; that doesn't mean I think
you should steal software.
That's good. As found in nations across the world, that once there are
developers creating software, they demand legal protection for that
software. If ANYONE could program, it might be different, but
comparatively, there are few verses the number of computer users.
(That sentence beginning "As" is at least clumsy, if not ungrammatical.
And the word you want in the last line is "versus". But I'm still in
agreement with you that software should not be stolen.)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)***@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Is Jimi Hendrix's modem a Purple Hayes?
MEB
2009-12-20 21:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Do you have a friggin clue who offers the FRAKKEN peering. IT IS NOT
USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the
*LISTING* of the offered groups FROM THE VARIOUS AUTHORS/CREATORS.
Calm down.
(By the way: it's probably changing due to the frequency of it being got
wrong, but the phrase "is comprised of" should really be replaced by the
single word "comprises". If you feel naked without the word "of", then
say "consists of".)
Look, I don't care what YOU think, how many times do I need to tell you
that... and who, pray tell, says that everyone on this planet should
drop proper form and grammar.
Gauntlet accepted. But you're agreeing with me: when you say "who ...
says that everyone ... should drop proper form and grammar", you at
least IMPLY that you think such things matter. Therefore your use of the
abomination "is comprised of" is to be deprecated. (As I said above, it
is now so common that it will probably become accepted.)
No, the intelligent will never accept depreciation to a level of
ignorance...
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
So what next, we should all just use the common cell text "shorts"? Not
going to happen...
I hope not, but of course your use of the non-sentence "Not going to
happen" suggests that you're not as immune to short-speak as you'd like
to think you are (-:.
Actually the three dots at the end connotation mean addition materials
are to be considered... do try to keep up.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
ISP DO FACTOR INTO IT YOU MORON, who the hell do you think provides the
servers and server space, PLUS THE GD transference. Just where the F*&%K
do you think most NNTP servers are you friggin moron.
It's not _only_ ISPs who provide newsservers (which obviously include
server space). There are some major newsservers operated by companies
who are not ISPs, and quite a lot of ISPs (at least in UK - can't speak
for elsewhere) do not offer a newsserver. To add further to the
complication, some ISPs don't operate their own newsserver, but pay one
of the big newsserver operating companies to let their customers use
that server (sometimes disguised behind an alias related to the ISP in
question).
Uh, okay, so that's part of its make-up.. the point was?
It was your point - you shouted and swore above, suggesting that ISPs
provide "the servers and server space". I was simply gently pointing out
that not all such servers are provided by ISPs - not even "most" of
them, in the UK, I would say, since more and more ISPs are dropping news
provision.
Sooooooooo...
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
And are you USENUTTERS such absolute morons you STILL don't get who
provides these MANUFACTURER and PRODUCT newsgroups AND THE SERVERS.
"Provides" isn't quite correct. In the case of (most of!) the
microsoft.public.* newsgroups, they may well have originated as private
'groups - or fora, or whatever - inside Microsoft's own server, and not
passed to usenet in general; at some point, Microsoft opened them to
usenet. Once they had done that, they could not really control what
appeared in those 'groups _on usenet_; some people have claimed that MS
censors the posts _as carried on its own servers_, on which I cannot
comment as I'm not a user of those servers.
That was the correct and LEGAL determination. That you fail to grasp
that, as most USENUTTERS do, is why all the issues within Usenet abound.
Microsoft OWNS AND CONTROLS its own groups, e.g, the microsoft.public.
hierarchy. PERIOD. Usenet and/or the Services have ZERO authority to do
anything in, as create any groups, these groups. That these are on
Usenet means nothing,,, zip,, nada.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Actually no, Microsoft did NOT offer them to Usenet originally, but to
NNTP access. Microsoft specifically stated such.
Microsoft CAN control what it owns, and it does OWN the
microsoft.public. hierarchy.
It "owned" them while they were on its own servers. I can only rely here
on what others have said, but apparently someone (or several someones)
"created" them on usenet at large, some years ago, and someone (maybe or
maybe not the same someones) cross-fertilised the inner and outer
contents. If any claim to "ownership" is being made, it would indeed
have been prudent for Microsoft to object when these two things first
happened, some years ago; the fact that they did not, suggests that they
do not make any such ownership claim. (Incidentally, I have not seen a
claim of ownership of these 'groups by Microsoft, only by you on their
behalf - and you have stated by implication that you are not in their
counsel.)
WRONG, Microsoft followed EXACTLY what was required to ensure continued
ownership. This has already been shown, why didn't you bother to read
the Law, the Microsoft documents, and everything else that applies. You
didn't so you can make these ignorant comments and continue in a
discussion in which you have no basis nor argument TO WASTE TIME.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
YOU *USENUTTERS* {and that is distinct from Usenetters} HAVE BECOME THE
DUMBEST ROCKS ON THIS PLANET.
So this is along the same lines as the same STUPID AND MORONIC crap as
your continued insistence that SOFTWARE SHOULD BE STOLEN rather than
There I don't happen to agree with 98Guy - though equally, I think
suppressing software which is no longer supported isn't praiseworthy
either.
Well I voiced at EOL, that Microsoft should offer the source and code
to the public. That didn't occur, likely due to being a corporate asset,
For once we are in agreement, that would have been a Good Thing To Do.
Post by MEB
and to limit the usage since it has ZERO in-built protections, and most
of its users contributed to the vast number of hacked computers and
botnets. There was a drop in those during the change-over to the NT
based OSs. Now the incidences are far worse.
(This is not a loaded question, I ask out of genuine desire to know:)
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying there. It sounds like you are
saying the number of botnets etc. dropped briefly during the changeover,
and has now gone much higher - is that what you are saying? If so, it
would be interesting to know (though impossible to prove either way)
whether the drop was related to the NT-based OSs, or just coincidental.
It was presumed that there was a change over occurring by those in the
field. The information now available seems to indicate there was, and
not just due to the normal fluctuations.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
purchased. And you believe that crap because YOU AND YOUR LIKE couldn't
program an application IF SOMEONE LEAD YOU BE THE HAND.
I certainly haven't programmed anything GUI (apart from a bit of HTML),
though I do speak a few programming languages; that doesn't mean I think
you should steal software.
That's good. As found in nations across the world, that once there are
developers creating software, they demand legal protection for that
software. If ANYONE could program, it might be different, but
comparatively, there are few verses the number of computer users.
(That sentence beginning "As" is at least clumsy, if not ungrammatical.
And the word you want in the last line is "versus". But I'm still in
agreement with you that software should not be stolen.)
[]
I write they way I choose to write at that time, and which does include
the normally found errors and other; you have issues with it, you can
deal with it and keep your comments to yourself or I will respond in
kind. You were warned again, I suggest you heed that warning.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2009-12-21 01:17:45 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB
<MEB-not-***@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(By the way: it's probably changing due to the frequency of it being got
wrong, but the phrase "is comprised of" should really be replaced by the
single word "comprises". If you feel naked without the word "of", then
say "consists of".)
[]
Post by MEB
No, the intelligent will never accept depreciation to a level of
ignorance...
Any lexicographer will tell you that language _does_ change, however
much we pedants would wish otherwise!
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
So what next, we should all just use the common cell text "shorts"? Not
going to happen...
I hope not, but of course your use of the non-sentence "Not going to
happen" suggests that you're not as immune to short-speak as you'd like
to think you are (-:.
Actually the three dots at the end connotation mean addition materials
are to be considered... do try to keep up.
Oh, I'm keeping up: it was the other end of the sentence where you have
trimmed - using a form that is so common you haven't noticed it. What
you meant was IT'S not going to happen (with dots on the end if you
wish); you had trimmed the "It's".
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
And are you USENUTTERS such absolute morons you STILL don't get who
provides these MANUFACTURER and PRODUCT newsgroups AND THE SERVERS.
"Provides" isn't quite correct. In the case of (most of!) the
microsoft.public.* newsgroups, they may well have originated as private
'groups - or fora, or whatever - inside Microsoft's own server, and not
passed to usenet in general; at some point, Microsoft opened them to
usenet. Once they had done that, they could not really control what
appeared in those 'groups _on usenet_; some people have claimed that MS
censors the posts _as carried on its own servers_, on which I cannot
comment as I'm not a user of those servers.
That was the correct and LEGAL determination. That you fail to grasp
What was: that Microsoft originally created them on their own servers?
That Microsoft at some point peered them? That Microsoft censored the
posts on their own servers?
Post by MEB
that, as most USENUTTERS do, is why all the issues within Usenet abound.
Microsoft OWNS AND CONTROLS its own groups, e.g, the microsoft.public.
hierarchy. PERIOD. Usenet and/or the Services have ZERO authority to do
Anyone who tries to end an argument with PERIOD is feeling insecure.
(Incidentally, we don't have periods in the UK, at least not with that
meaning!) Microsoft own and control their own _servers_.
Post by MEB
anything in, as create any groups, these groups. That these are on
Usenet means nothing,,, zip,, nada.
If their being on usenet means nothing, why are you so agitated about
them? You have made your opinion of usenet clear for some time, though I
wonder why you bother to continue if you think it's such rubbish.
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Microsoft CAN control what it owns, and it does OWN the
microsoft.public. hierarchy.
Within its own servers, certainly.
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
It "owned" them while they were on its own servers. I can only rely here
on what others have said, but apparently someone (or several someones)
"created" them on usenet at large, some years ago, and someone (maybe or
maybe not the same someones) cross-fertilised the inner and outer
contents. If any claim to "ownership" is being made, it would indeed
have been prudent for Microsoft to object when these two things first
happened, some years ago; the fact that they did not, suggests that they
do not make any such ownership claim. (Incidentally, I have not seen a
claim of ownership of these 'groups by Microsoft, only by you on their
behalf - and you have stated by implication that you are not in their
counsel.)
WRONG, Microsoft followed EXACTLY what was required to ensure continued
ownership. This has already been shown, why didn't you bother to read
the Law, the Microsoft documents, and everything else that applies. You
I'm afraid that, despite what their lawyers would wish, Microsoft do not
write the law.
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(This is not a loaded question, I ask out of genuine desire to know:)
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying there. It sounds like you are
saying the number of botnets etc. dropped briefly during the changeover,
and has now gone much higher - is that what you are saying? If so, it
would be interesting to know (though impossible to prove either way)
whether the drop was related to the NT-based OSs, or just coincidental.
It was presumed that there was a change over occurring by those in the
field. The information now available seems to indicate there was, and
not just due to the normal fluctuations.
I think I know, but in that case, to what would you attribute the rise
since?
[]
Post by MEB
I write they way I choose to write at that time, and which does include
the normally found errors and other; you have issues with it, you can
deal with it and keep your comments to yourself or I will respond in
kind. You were warned again, I suggest you heed that warning.
As others would say, gee I'm scared. I'll take you on on grammar any
time - though it'd be kind to other readers if we didn't have that sort
of fight in the win98 'group. Let's not, eh - for 2010?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)***@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Is Jimi Hendrix's modem a Purple Hayes?
MEB
2009-12-26 21:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(By the way: it's probably changing due to the frequency of it being got
wrong, but the phrase "is comprised of" should really be replaced by the
single word "comprises". If you feel naked without the word "of", then
say "consists of".)
[]
Post by MEB
No, the intelligent will never accept depreciation to a level of
ignorance...
Any lexicographer will tell you that language _does_ change, however
much we pedants would wish otherwise!
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
So what next, we should all just use the common cell text "shorts"? Not
going to happen...
I hope not, but of course your use of the non-sentence "Not going to
happen" suggests that you're not as immune to short-speak as you'd like
to think you are (-:.
Actually the three dots at the end connotation mean addition materials
are to be considered... do try to keep up.
Oh, I'm keeping up: it was the other end of the sentence where you have
trimmed - using a form that is so common you haven't noticed it. What
you meant was IT'S not going to happen (with dots on the end if you
wish); you had trimmed the "It's".
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
And are you USENUTTERS such absolute morons you STILL don't get who
provides these MANUFACTURER and PRODUCT newsgroups AND THE SERVERS.
"Provides" isn't quite correct. In the case of (most of!) the
microsoft.public.* newsgroups, they may well have originated as private
'groups - or fora, or whatever - inside Microsoft's own server, and not
passed to usenet in general; at some point, Microsoft opened them to
usenet. Once they had done that, they could not really control what
appeared in those 'groups _on usenet_; some people have claimed that MS
censors the posts _as carried on its own servers_, on which I cannot
comment as I'm not a user of those servers.
That was the correct and LEGAL determination. That you fail to grasp
What was: that Microsoft originally created them on their own servers?
That Microsoft at some point peered them? That Microsoft censored the
posts on their own servers?
Post by MEB
that, as most USENUTTERS do, is why all the issues within Usenet abound.
Microsoft OWNS AND CONTROLS its own groups, e.g, the microsoft.public.
hierarchy. PERIOD. Usenet and/or the Services have ZERO authority to do
Anyone who tries to end an argument with PERIOD is feeling insecure.
(Incidentally, we don't have periods in the UK, at least not with that
meaning!) Microsoft own and control their own _servers_.
Post by MEB
anything in, as create any groups, these groups. That these are on
Usenet means nothing,,, zip,, nada.
If their being on usenet means nothing, why are you so agitated about
them? You have made your opinion of usenet clear for some time, though I
wonder why you bother to continue if you think it's such rubbish.
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by MEB
Microsoft CAN control what it owns, and it does OWN the
microsoft.public. hierarchy.
Within its own servers, certainly.
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
It "owned" them while they were on its own servers. I can only rely here
on what others have said, but apparently someone (or several someones)
"created" them on usenet at large, some years ago, and someone (maybe or
maybe not the same someones) cross-fertilised the inner and outer
contents. If any claim to "ownership" is being made, it would indeed
have been prudent for Microsoft to object when these two things first
happened, some years ago; the fact that they did not, suggests that they
do not make any such ownership claim. (Incidentally, I have not seen a
claim of ownership of these 'groups by Microsoft, only by you on their
behalf - and you have stated by implication that you are not in their
counsel.)
WRONG, Microsoft followed EXACTLY what was required to ensure continued
ownership. This has already been shown, why didn't you bother to read
the Law, the Microsoft documents, and everything else that applies. You
I'm afraid that, despite what their lawyers would wish, Microsoft do not
write the law.
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(This is not a loaded question, I ask out of genuine desire to know:)
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying there. It sounds like you are
saying the number of botnets etc. dropped briefly during the changeover,
and has now gone much higher - is that what you are saying? If so, it
would be interesting to know (though impossible to prove either way)
whether the drop was related to the NT-based OSs, or just coincidental.
It was presumed that there was a change over occurring by those in the
field. The information now available seems to indicate there was, and
not just due to the normal fluctuations.
I think I know, but in that case, to what would you attribute the rise
since?
[]
Post by MEB
I write they way I choose to write at that time, and which does include
the normally found errors and other; you have issues with it, you can
deal with it and keep your comments to yourself or I will respond in
kind. You were warned again, I suggest you heed that warning.
As others would say, gee I'm scared. I'll take you on on grammar any
time - though it'd be kind to other readers if we didn't have that sort
of fight in the win98 'group. Let's not, eh - for 2010?
Short, sweet and to the point..

If you wish the battle then it will be done.

As for the rest of your crap, ah, its crap.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2009-12-28 01:50:41 UTC
Permalink
In message <uumQ#***@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB
<MEB-not-***@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
As others would say, gee I'm scared. I'll take you on on grammar any
time - though it'd be kind to other readers if we didn't have that sort
of fight in the win98 'group. Let's not, eh - for 2010?
Short, sweet and to the point..
If you wish the battle then it will be done.
As for the rest of your crap, ah, its crap.
Can't be bothered. Plonk.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)***@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Dictionary: Opinion presented as truth in alphabetical order. -John Ralston
Saul, essayist, novelist, and critic (1947- )
MEB
2009-12-28 05:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by MEB
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
As others would say, gee I'm scared. I'll take you on on grammar any
time - though it'd be kind to other readers if we didn't have that sort
of fight in the win98 'group. Let's not, eh - for 2010?
Short, sweet and to the point..
If you wish the battle then it will be done.
As for the rest of your crap, ah, its crap.
Can't be bothered. Plonk.
AWWWHHH, I thought you wanted to play...
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Tim Slattery
2009-12-16 13:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Someone else generated the group-create messages for that group, and
other usenet servers around the world honored them. So there exists a
newsgroup called microsoft.public.it.windows7 on some usenet servers,
and they are exchanging messages that are being posted to it by their
users.
AND now that you've brought it Microsoft's attention, it will likely
shut it down....
They can't. They can refuse to host it on their servers, but they
can't force other servers around the world to drop it.
--
Tim Slattery
***@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
MEB
2009-12-16 17:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Slattery
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Someone else generated the group-create messages for that group, and
other usenet servers around the world honored them. So there exists a
newsgroup called microsoft.public.it.windows7 on some usenet servers,
and they are exchanging messages that are being posted to it by their
users.
AND now that you've brought it Microsoft's attention, it will likely
shut it down....
They can't. They can refuse to host it on their servers, but they
can't force other servers around the world to drop it.
Oh come on, you come from a supposed government institution.

Do governments constantly negotiate????
DO businesses and governments constantly negotiate???
DO corporations apply leverage across the world, PARTICULARLY in this
repressed economic situation???

The answers to all the above is YES. And YES Microsoft and its related
PARTNERS can force just about anything, though it will likely be the
partners who apply the pressure in this instance.

AND, of course, since Microsoft is a tradename and Windows and its
logos are trademarked, the microsoft.public is Microsoft's DESIGNED
format for is news services, and various other legal aspects apply; your
statement is overly broad and fails to address the actual realities of
the world.

So whoever created this is trying to CLAIM what belongs to Microsoft,
as well as other legal aspects. Were I in Microsoft's counsel, I would
stomp this microsoft.public crap out. If someone wants a Windows7 Usenet
group, they can create it in the normal form of Usenet as an alt. or other.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Sunny
2009-12-16 23:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
So whoever created this is trying to CLAIM what belongs to Microsoft,
as well as other legal aspects. Were I in Microsoft's counsel, I would
stomp this microsoft.public crap out. If someone wants a Windows7 Usenet
group, they can create it in the normal form of Usenet as an alt. or other.
Thankfully, you have no say in it.
"Microsoft's council" ? (Another Inflated ego spasm?)
MEB
2009-12-17 19:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
So whoever created this is trying to CLAIM what belongs to Microsoft,
as well as other legal aspects. Were I in Microsoft's counsel, I would
stomp this microsoft.public crap out. If someone wants a Windows7 Usenet
group, they can create it in the normal form of Usenet as an alt. or other.
Thankfully, you have no say in it.
"Microsoft's council" ? (Another Inflated ego spasm?)
That's counsel idiot. Two distinct forms and words.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
98 Guy
2009-12-17 02:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by Tim Slattery
They can't. They can refuse to host it on their servers, but they
can't force other servers around the world to drop it.
Oh come on, you come from a supposed government institution.
There is nothing to negotiate.

Newsgroups are not tangible property nor copyrighted. Microsoft can do
absolutely nothing about the fact that there might be some newsgroups
with the string "microsoft" in the group-name.

And Microsoft would not want to appear to be concerned about it. It
would be incredibly bad (optically and politically) for it to become
known that Microsoft was exerting pressure on various orginizations and
entities to remove certain newsgroups from their servers. The bad press
that would result from it is simply not worth the futile attempt.

You continue to have this strange idea that Microsoft somehow "owns" or
can control the content - even the very existance - of usenet newsgroups
named after it.

Microsoft NEVER DID control, manage, administer, moderate, or aggregate
posts to those newsgroups, nor act as a central distributor for them.
Microsoft simply operated a set of servers that peered with other
servers of equal status to cooperatively distribute and originate posts
for the benefit of their users.

Do you know what a peer is Meb?

Do you not understand the concept that Microsoft's server equipment has
a peering relationship with other usenet servers - not an authoritarian
or controling relationship?
Post by MEB
The answers to all the above is YES. And YES Microsoft and its
related PARTNERS can force just about anything,
Speaking as an ignorant lawyer, that is exactly what I'd expect you to
say.

But you have no clue that not even a million microsoft lawyers can make
a usenet server operator remove a usenet group or set of groups from
their server.
Post by MEB
AND, of course, since Microsoft is a tradename and Windows
and its logos are trademarked, the microsoft.public is
Microsoft's DESIGNED format for is news services,
You are so full of horse shit. It's funny - in a sad way - that you
actually believe that.

I can write a book and call it "Microsoft is a criminal organization"
and Microsoft can't force me to remove the word "microsoft" from the
title of the book. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of books,
magazines, internet forums, internet NEWSGROUPS, that contain the word
"microsoft" in their titles, headings, names, etc.

The use of the word "microsoft" in those contexts are protected as free
speech and are not copyright or trademark or other property violations.
Post by MEB
Were I in Microsoft's counsel,
If you were to counsel Microsoft, they would kick you out of their
office and laugh at you as you landed on your ass.
Etal
2009-12-18 03:02:03 UTC
Permalink
MEB wrote:

( Regarding "microsoft.public.it.windows7" )
Post by MEB
AND, of course, since Microsoft is a tradename and Windows and
its logos are trademarked, the microsoft.public is Microsoft's
DESIGNED format for is news services, and various other legal
aspects apply; your statement is overly broad and fails to
address the actual realities of the world.
So whoever created this is trying to CLAIM what belongs to
Microsoft, as well as other legal aspects. Were I in
Microsoft's counsel, I would stomp this microsoft.public crap
out. If someone wants a Windows7 Usenet group, they can create
it in the normal form of Usenet as an alt. or other.
Are you here saying that the version of WinNT known by the
trivial-name "Windows 7" doesn't belong to Microsoft?

Try looking at the hierarchy from a purely organizational point
of view, rather then from a presumed ownership (what you here
call 'legal') point of the same.

Are corporations now disallowing humanity to organize its
discussions in logical ways?
--
Nah-ah. I'm staying out of this. ... Now, here's my opinion.

Please followup in the newsgroup.
E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.
MEB
2009-12-18 09:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Etal
( Regarding "microsoft.public.it.windows7" )
Post by MEB
AND, of course, since Microsoft is a tradename and Windows and
its logos are trademarked, the microsoft.public is Microsoft's
DESIGNED format for is news services, and various other legal
aspects apply; your statement is overly broad and fails to
address the actual realities of the world.
So whoever created this is trying to CLAIM what belongs to
Microsoft, as well as other legal aspects. Were I in
Microsoft's counsel, I would stomp this microsoft.public crap
out. If someone wants a Windows7 Usenet group, they can create
it in the normal form of Usenet as an alt. or other.
Are you here saying that the version of WinNT known by the trivial-name
"Windows 7" doesn't belong to Microsoft?
Try looking at the hierarchy from a purely organizational point of view,
rather then from a presumed ownership (what you here call 'legal') point
of the same.
Are corporations now disallowing humanity to organize its discussions in
logical ways?
It can do what it wishes, YOU on the other hand, have ZERO right to use
Microsoft's microsoft.public. hierarchy. Call it anything you want, but
don't try to foster fraud by forging Microsoft's forums... which it
holds legal right to.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
98 Guy
2009-12-18 14:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
It can do what it wishes, YOU on the other hand, have ZERO right
to use Microsoft's microsoft.public. hierarchy. Call it anything
you want, but don't try to foster fraud by forging Microsoft's
forums... which it holds legal right to.
You can't copyright free speech.

You did not address the points I made on this topic in earlier posts.

The use of the word "microsoft" in a free-speech context is not
controllable as a copyright or trade-name or property issue. As I've
stated before, the word "microsoft" appears in hundreds and likely
thousands of places such as book-titles, magazine titles, third-party
online programming and technology web-forums, and naturally as the names
of usenet newsgroups.

Microsoft has no control over how it's name is used in that context.

Indeed - had it not registered the domain "microsoft.com" for itself, it
would have had no recourse but to purchase that domain from those that
did. It is not legally entitled to that domain name, nor is any one or
any entity entitled to a domain name that contains it's own legal name.
MEB
2009-12-18 18:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
It can do what it wishes, YOU on the other hand, have ZERO right
to use Microsoft's microsoft.public. hierarchy. Call it anything
you want, but don't try to foster fraud by forging Microsoft's
forums... which it holds legal right to.
You can't copyright free speech.
You did not address the points I made on this topic in earlier posts.
The use of the word "microsoft" in a free-speech context is not
controllable as a copyright or trade-name or property issue. As I've
stated before, the word "microsoft" appears in hundreds and likely
thousands of places such as book-titles, magazine titles, third-party
online programming and technology web-forums, and naturally as the names
of usenet newsgroups.
Microsoft has no control over how it's name is used in that context.
Indeed - had it not registered the domain "microsoft.com" for itself, it
would have had no recourse but to purchase that domain from those that
did. It is not legally entitled to that domain name, nor is any one or
any entity entitled to a domain name that contains it's own legal name.
You ignorant dork, the use of microsoft.public is legally controlled
and has NOTHING to do with free speech... get a friggin grasp on the
world. As for the microsoft.com aspect, you should CAREFULLY review what
Microsoft has done previously to those attempting to inflict damage...
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
John John - MVP
2009-12-18 14:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by Etal
( Regarding "microsoft.public.it.windows7" )
Post by MEB
AND, of course, since Microsoft is a tradename and Windows and
its logos are trademarked, the microsoft.public is Microsoft's
DESIGNED format for is news services, and various other legal
aspects apply; your statement is overly broad and fails to
address the actual realities of the world.
So whoever created this is trying to CLAIM what belongs to
Microsoft, as well as other legal aspects. Were I in
Microsoft's counsel, I would stomp this microsoft.public crap
out. If someone wants a Windows7 Usenet group, they can create
it in the normal form of Usenet as an alt. or other.
Are you here saying that the version of WinNT known by the trivial-name
"Windows 7" doesn't belong to Microsoft?
Try looking at the hierarchy from a purely organizational point of view,
rather then from a presumed ownership (what you here call 'legal') point
of the same.
Are corporations now disallowing humanity to organize its discussions in
logical ways?
It can do what it wishes, YOU on the other hand, have ZERO right to use
Microsoft's microsoft.public. hierarchy. Call it anything you want, but
don't try to foster fraud by forging Microsoft's forums... which it
holds legal right to.
Do you seriously think that what you say would pass a constitutional
challenge of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution? Are
people forbidden to ever speak or write a copywritten name in your
country? You just plain and simply do not understand what Usenet is and
how it works, if we are to believe you any corporation in your country
could forbid the use of its name in newsgroups, that isn't so, the First
Amendment will not allow any one to muzzle free speech to that extent.
Just do a search on any public Usenet server for names like GM, Ford,
IBM, Apple and so on and you will see that these names also show up in
newsgroup names. The hierarchy is just the way the *discussion* groups
are organized, next you are going to try to tell us that Microsoft could
close any discussion group that contains the name Microsoft or Windows.
For all it matters anyway the 500 or so groups that were removed from
Microsoft servers were all but completely deserted, no one or hardly
anyone but stupid spammers ever posted to any of these groups so it is
no big loss.
MEB
2009-12-18 18:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John John - MVP
Post by MEB
Post by Etal
( Regarding "microsoft.public.it.windows7" )
Post by MEB
AND, of course, since Microsoft is a tradename and Windows and
its logos are trademarked, the microsoft.public is Microsoft's
DESIGNED format for is news services, and various other legal
aspects apply; your statement is overly broad and fails to
address the actual realities of the world.
So whoever created this is trying to CLAIM what belongs to
Microsoft, as well as other legal aspects. Were I in
Microsoft's counsel, I would stomp this microsoft.public crap
out. If someone wants a Windows7 Usenet group, they can create
it in the normal form of Usenet as an alt. or other.
Are you here saying that the version of WinNT known by the trivial-name
"Windows 7" doesn't belong to Microsoft?
Try looking at the hierarchy from a purely organizational point of view,
rather then from a presumed ownership (what you here call 'legal') point
of the same.
Are corporations now disallowing humanity to organize its discussions in
logical ways?
It can do what it wishes, YOU on the other hand, have ZERO right to use
Microsoft's microsoft.public. hierarchy. Call it anything you want, but
don't try to foster fraud by forging Microsoft's forums... which it
holds legal right to.
Do you seriously think that what you say would pass a constitutional
challenge of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution? Are
people forbidden to ever speak or write a copywritten name in your
country? You just plain and simply do not understand what Usenet is and
how it works, if we are to believe you any corporation in your country
could forbid the use of its name in newsgroups, that isn't so, the First
Amendment will not allow any one to muzzle free speech to that extent.
Just do a search on any public Usenet server for names like GM, Ford,
IBM, Apple and so on and you will see that these names also show up in
newsgroup names. The hierarchy is just the way the *discussion* groups
are organized, next you are going to try to tell us that Microsoft could
close any discussion group that contains the name Microsoft or Windows.
For all it matters anyway the 500 or so groups that were removed from
Microsoft servers were all but completely deserted, no one or hardly
anyone but stupid spammers ever posted to any of these groups so it is
no big loss.
Yes it would, and that comes from a constitutionally trained and
educated party. The First Amendment has ZERO to do with this particular
instance of the microsoft.public. hierarchy. This has ZERO impact on
anything related to FREE SPEECH as you or anyone CAN: DISCUSS Microsoft
or its products, create NON microsoft.public. groups, can do many other
things.

The First Amendment is not a catch-all, nor is free speech. To apply
something must inflict harm upon the individual. The control of
microsoft.public. does none of that or anything related to it.

So get some education on these matters, you sorely need it.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Sunny
2009-12-18 23:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by John John - MVP
Do you seriously think that what you say would pass a constitutional
challenge of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?
Are
people forbidden to ever speak or write a copywritten name in your
country? You just plain and simply do not understand what Usenet is and
how it works, if we are to believe you any corporation in your country
could forbid the use of its name in newsgroups, that isn't so, the First
Amendment will not allow any one to muzzle free speech to that extent.
Just do a search on any public Usenet server for names like GM, Ford,
IBM, Apple and so on and you will see that these names also show up in
newsgroup names. The hierarchy is just the way the *discussion* groups
are organized, next you are going to try to tell us that Microsoft could
close any discussion group that contains the name Microsoft or Windows.
For all it matters anyway the 500 or so groups that were removed from
Microsoft servers were all but completely deserted, no one or hardly
anyone but stupid spammers ever posted to any of these groups so it is
no big loss.
Yes it would, and that comes from a constitutionally trained and
educated party. The First Amendment has ZERO to do with this particular
instance of the microsoft.public. hierarchy. This has ZERO impact on
anything related to FREE SPEECH as you or anyone CAN: DISCUSS Microsoft
or its products, create NON microsoft.public. groups, can do many other
things.
The First Amendment is not a catch-all, nor is free speech. To apply
something must inflict harm upon the individual. The control of
microsoft.public. does none of that or anything related to it.
So get some education on these matters, you sorely need it.
Are you aware that many users don't even know that Microsoft news servers
exist?
They access "microsoft.public" groups that their ISP/NNTP news servers
carry
Post by MEB
HAHAHAHA, and WHO started the name calling you friggin worthless POS.
You did.
Post by MEB
And those were posted related to WHAT,,, you and your stupidity AND
name calling.. you have the intellect of a snail...
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/msg/2b54f891eae67c87?dmode=source

I rest my case
MEB
2009-12-19 01:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
Post by John John - MVP
Do you seriously think that what you say would pass a constitutional
challenge of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?
Are
people forbidden to ever speak or write a copywritten name in your
country? You just plain and simply do not understand what Usenet is and
how it works, if we are to believe you any corporation in your country
could forbid the use of its name in newsgroups, that isn't so, the First
Amendment will not allow any one to muzzle free speech to that extent.
Just do a search on any public Usenet server for names like GM, Ford,
IBM, Apple and so on and you will see that these names also show up in
newsgroup names. The hierarchy is just the way the *discussion* groups
are organized, next you are going to try to tell us that Microsoft could
close any discussion group that contains the name Microsoft or Windows.
For all it matters anyway the 500 or so groups that were removed from
Microsoft servers were all but completely deserted, no one or hardly
anyone but stupid spammers ever posted to any of these groups so it is
no big loss.
Yes it would, and that comes from a constitutionally trained and
educated party. The First Amendment has ZERO to do with this particular
instance of the microsoft.public. hierarchy. This has ZERO impact on
anything related to FREE SPEECH as you or anyone CAN: DISCUSS Microsoft
or its products, create NON microsoft.public. groups, can do many other
things.
The First Amendment is not a catch-all, nor is free speech. To apply
something must inflict harm upon the individual. The control of
microsoft.public. does none of that or anything related to it.
So get some education on these matters, you sorely need it.
Are you aware that many users don't even know that Microsoft news servers
exist?
They access "microsoft.public" groups that their ISP/NNTP news servers
carry
Stupid argument, no basis in anything, much less what is required to occur.
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
HAHAHAHA, and WHO started the name calling you friggin worthless POS.
You did.
Post by MEB
And those were posted related to WHAT,,, you and your stupidity AND
name calling.. you have the intellect of a snail...
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/msg/2b54f891eae67c87?dmode=source
I rest my case
What case would that be Troll.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Sunny
2009-12-19 01:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/msg/2b54f891eae67c87?dmode=source
I rest my case
What case would that be Troll.
English not your first language ?
Get one of your supporters to read your posting history to you.
MEB
2009-12-19 01:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/msg/2b54f891eae67c87?dmode=source
I rest my case
What case would that be Troll.
English not your first language ?
Get one of your supporters to read your posting history to you.
Don't need to, I have them saved for legal purposes...

Now what was it you wanted Troll?
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Sunny
2009-12-19 02:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/msg/2b54f891eae67c87?dmode=source
I rest my case
What case would that be Troll.
English not your first language ?
Get one of your supporters to read your posting history to you.
Don't need to, I have them saved for legal purposes...
Now, that is funny.
Still dirty that you lost a court case?
Post by MEB
Now what was it you wanted Troll?
Do you find it odd, that you are the only one voicing that opinion?
MEB
2009-12-19 16:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/msg/2b54f891eae67c87?dmode=source
I rest my case
What case would that be Troll.
English not your first language ?
Get one of your supporters to read your posting history to you.
Don't need to, I have them saved for legal purposes...
Now, that is funny.
Still dirty that you lost a court case?
No. To make sure some moron like you doesn't a have a chance in Hel? of
bringing any sort of complaint or case pursuant what I may write.

Since I put up with your derogatory comments for approximately two
years, you are one of the parties who are "fair game" for the taking...
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
Now what was it you wanted Troll?
Do you find it odd, that you are the only one voicing that opinion?
No. Not at all. What I find here are the same ignorant [of most
everything of relevance on the planet] parties as are now found
throughout Usenet.

Do you find it odd that the Newsgroups and Usenet are dying?
Look at yourself as part of that reason.

Now, do you have anything intelligent to place here, you POS troll?
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2009-12-20 20:52:59 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB
<MEB-not-***@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by MEB
No. To make sure some moron like you doesn't a have a chance in Hel? of
bringing any sort of complaint or case pursuant what I may write.
"pursuant what I may write"?
[]
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
Now what was it you wanted Troll?
Do you find it odd, that you are the only one voicing that opinion?
No. Not at all. What I find here are the same ignorant [of most
almost
Post by MEB
everything of relevance on the planet] parties as are now found
throughout Usenet.
Do you find it odd that the Newsgroups and Usenet are dying?
Look at yourself as part of that reason.
I think you are contributing too.
Post by MEB
Now, do you have anything intelligent to place here, you POS troll?
IT is NOT necessary TO keep INSULTING and SWEARING at EVERYONE with WHOM
you CONVERSE - it DOESN'T make A good IMPRESSION on THOSE who READ your
OUTPUT. (And I don't just mean me; I know you don't care about my
opinion [though it seems you do since you respond to what I say]. Of
course, it could be that you consider anyone reading threads like this
is by definition sub-normal and thus not worthy of consideration - in
which case one wonders why you keep it up.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)***@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Is Jimi Hendrix's modem a Purple Hayes?
MEB
2009-12-20 21:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by MEB
No. To make sure some moron like you doesn't a have a chance in Hel? of
bringing any sort of complaint or case pursuant what I may write.
"pursuant what I may write"?
[]
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
Now what was it you wanted Troll?
Do you find it odd, that you are the only one voicing that opinion?
No. Not at all. What I find here are the same ignorant [of most
almost
Post by MEB
everything of relevance on the planet] parties as are now found
throughout Usenet.
Do you find it odd that the Newsgroups and Usenet are dying?
Look at yourself as part of that reason.
I think you are contributing too.
Post by MEB
Now, do you have anything intelligent to place here, you POS troll?
IT is NOT necessary TO keep INSULTING and SWEARING at EVERYONE with WHOM
you CONVERSE - it DOESN'T make A good IMPRESSION on THOSE who READ your
OUTPUT. (And I don't just mean me; I know you don't care about my
opinion [though it seems you do since you respond to what I say]. Of
course, it could be that you consider anyone reading threads like this
is by definition sub-normal and thus not worthy of consideration - in
which case one wonders why you keep it up.)
I don't swear at everyone. *IF* that party has NOT posted derogatory
comments or proceeded in a Troll like fashion the issues are never raised.

OTOH, when someone, as you have upon occasion, has deliberately done so
then that party WILL receive a proper response.

Would YOU like another one placed upon you...
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2009-12-20 21:17:09 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB
<MEB-not-***@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by MEB
I don't swear at everyone. *IF* that party has NOT posted derogatory
comments or proceeded in a Troll like fashion the issues are never raised.
I hadn't noticed, if that is the case - but I do feel that you
swear/insult more than most who post here, even if only when responding
to certain people. I'm afraid I'm more likely to remember who swears
than who is sworn at, but others may notice the latter.
Post by MEB
OTOH, when someone, as you have upon occasion, has deliberately done so
then that party WILL receive a proper response.
Would YOU like another one placed upon you...
Well, I've just added to the cheerful thread started by "Angel", hoping
that we can all be nicer in 2010, so no, I wouldn't really, but I
wouldn't dream of trying to limit your freedom of speech (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)***@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Is Jimi Hendrix's modem a Purple Hayes?
MEB
2009-12-20 21:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by MEB
I don't swear at everyone. *IF* that party has NOT posted derogatory
comments or proceeded in a Troll like fashion the issues are never raised.
I hadn't noticed, if that is the case - but I do feel that you
swear/insult more than most who post here, even if only when responding
to certain people. I'm afraid I'm more likely to remember who swears
than who is sworn at, but others may notice the latter.
Post by MEB
OTOH, when someone, as you have upon occasion, has deliberately done so
then that party WILL receive a proper response.
Would YOU like another one placed upon you...
Well, I've just added to the cheerful thread started by "Angel", hoping
that we can all be nicer in 2010, so no, I wouldn't really, but I
Uhuh, as the saying goes "whatever!!!".
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Etal
2009-12-18 23:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by Etal
( Regarding "microsoft.public.it.windows7" )
Are corporations now disallowing humanity to organize its discussions in
logical ways?
It can do what it wishes, YOU on the other hand, have ZERO right to use
Microsoft's microsoft.public. hierarchy. Call it anything you want, but
don't try to foster fraud by forging Microsoft's forums... which it
holds legal right to.
It (corporations) can do as it wishes on their own servers yes.
And i guess we can agree that i have zero right to create or
remove various newsgroups on their NNTP-servers.

However, if i setup my own NNTP server, i might create a group
'microsoft.public.knitting'. If anyone wants to configure their
newsclient so it connects to my server to lurk or post to that
group they can do so - if i let them. I will have the ability to
filter/censor any posts not related to knitting, or if i so
choose filter any post that are. It wouldn't be running on
'msnews.microsoft.com', or somehow pretending to, so how is that
fostering fraud?
--
Nah-ah. I'm staying out of this. ... Now, here's my opinion.

Please followup in the newsgroup.
E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.
MEB
2009-12-19 01:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by Etal
( Regarding "microsoft.public.it.windows7" )
Are corporations now disallowing humanity to organize its discussions in
logical ways?
It can do what it wishes, YOU on the other hand, have ZERO right to use
Microsoft's microsoft.public. hierarchy. Call it anything you want, but
don't try to foster fraud by forging Microsoft's forums... which it
holds legal right to.
It (corporations) can do as it wishes on their own servers yes. And i
guess we can agree that i have zero right to create or remove various
newsgroups on their NNTP-servers.
However, if i setup my own NNTP server, i might create a group
'microsoft.public.knitting'. If anyone wants to configure their
newsclient so it connects to my server to lurk or post to that group
they can do so - if i let them. I will have the ability to filter/censor
any posts not related to knitting, or if i so choose filter any post
that are. It wouldn't be running on 'msnews.microsoft.com', or somehow
pretending to, so how is that fostering fraud?
NO. Check the Law if it really interests you. Usenet is NOT above any
Law nor are the parties that use it.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
John John - MVP
2009-12-19 17:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by MEB
Post by Etal
( Regarding "microsoft.public.it.windows7" )
Are corporations now disallowing humanity to organize its discussions in
logical ways?
It can do what it wishes, YOU on the other hand, have ZERO right to use
Microsoft's microsoft.public. hierarchy. Call it anything you want, but
don't try to foster fraud by forging Microsoft's forums... which it
holds legal right to.
It (corporations) can do as it wishes on their own servers yes. And i
guess we can agree that i have zero right to create or remove various
newsgroups on their NNTP-servers.
However, if i setup my own NNTP server, i might create a group
'microsoft.public.knitting'. If anyone wants to configure their
newsclient so it connects to my server to lurk or post to that group
they can do so - if i let them. I will have the ability to filter/censor
any posts not related to knitting, or if i so choose filter any post
that are. It wouldn't be running on 'msnews.microsoft.com', or somehow
pretending to, so how is that fostering fraud?
NO. Check the Law if it really interests you. Usenet is NOT above any
Law nor are the parties that use it.
Maybe the 'Peoples' Counsel' should check the law himself, the US
Supreme Court has already ruled that the Internet and Usenet is
protected by the First Amendment. Is the 'Peoples' Counsel' not
familiar with the challenge from the Church of Scientology? Do you
remember what happened with that? Did they succeed in preventing the
use of their name in newsgroup names?
MEB
2009-12-19 17:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John John - MVP
Post by MEB
Post by MEB
Post by Etal
( Regarding "microsoft.public.it.windows7" )
Are corporations now disallowing humanity to organize its
discussions in
logical ways?
It can do what it wishes, YOU on the other hand, have ZERO right to use
Microsoft's microsoft.public. hierarchy. Call it anything you want, but
don't try to foster fraud by forging Microsoft's forums... which it
holds legal right to.
It (corporations) can do as it wishes on their own servers yes. And i
guess we can agree that i have zero right to create or remove various
newsgroups on their NNTP-servers.
However, if i setup my own NNTP server, i might create a group
'microsoft.public.knitting'. If anyone wants to configure their
newsclient so it connects to my server to lurk or post to that group
they can do so - if i let them. I will have the ability to filter/censor
any posts not related to knitting, or if i so choose filter any post
that are. It wouldn't be running on 'msnews.microsoft.com', or somehow
pretending to, so how is that fostering fraud?
NO. Check the Law if it really interests you. Usenet is NOT above any
Law nor are the parties that use it.
Maybe the 'Peoples' Counsel' should check the law himself, the US
Supreme Court has already ruled that the Internet and Usenet is
protected by the First Amendment. Is the 'Peoples' Counsel' not
familiar with the challenge from the Church of Scientology? Do you
remember what happened with that? Did they succeed in preventing the
use of their name in newsgroup names?
HAHAHAHA, wrong argument.
The case [and there are others] you mention deals with SPECIFIC issues
to the individual NOT the theft or fraud associated with attempting to
falsely portray being Microsoft *IN ITS OWN NEWSGROUPS*.
Keep searching, direct your searches more towards property rights, and
rulings pursuant issues of theft, fraud, and the other that would and is
occurring by the false presentation of being Microsoft IN ITS OWN
NEWSGROUPS.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
John John - MVP
2009-12-19 18:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by John John - MVP
Post by MEB
Post by MEB
Post by Etal
( Regarding "microsoft.public.it.windows7" )
Are corporations now disallowing humanity to organize its
discussions in
logical ways?
It can do what it wishes, YOU on the other hand, have ZERO right to use
Microsoft's microsoft.public. hierarchy. Call it anything you want, but
don't try to foster fraud by forging Microsoft's forums... which it
holds legal right to.
It (corporations) can do as it wishes on their own servers yes. And i
guess we can agree that i have zero right to create or remove various
newsgroups on their NNTP-servers.
However, if i setup my own NNTP server, i might create a group
'microsoft.public.knitting'. If anyone wants to configure their
newsclient so it connects to my server to lurk or post to that group
they can do so - if i let them. I will have the ability to filter/censor
any posts not related to knitting, or if i so choose filter any post
that are. It wouldn't be running on 'msnews.microsoft.com', or somehow
pretending to, so how is that fostering fraud?
NO. Check the Law if it really interests you. Usenet is NOT above any
Law nor are the parties that use it.
Maybe the 'Peoples' Counsel' should check the law himself, the US
Supreme Court has already ruled that the Internet and Usenet is
protected by the First Amendment. Is the 'Peoples' Counsel' not
familiar with the challenge from the Church of Scientology? Do you
remember what happened with that? Did they succeed in preventing the
use of their name in newsgroup names?
HAHAHAHA, wrong argument.
The case [and there are others] you mention deals with SPECIFIC issues
to the individual NOT the theft or fraud associated with attempting to
falsely portray being Microsoft *IN ITS OWN NEWSGROUPS*.
You still don't get it because you still don't know how Usenet works.
Earlier you were saying that there was a "master distribution" and that
*all* posts had to pass by Microsoft servers. You just don't know how
it works and anyone who knows you knows very well that you can never
admit to being wrong, so you will just keep on arguing even when you are
proven wrong. Microsoft doesn't own anything on Usenet and it can't
tell other Usenet server operators how to organize their discussion
groups. Ignorance is bliss so you must indeed be a very happy man.

Bye!
MEB
2009-12-19 18:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John John - MVP
Post by MEB
Post by John John - MVP
Post by MEB
Post by MEB
Post by Etal
( Regarding "microsoft.public.it.windows7" )
Are corporations now disallowing humanity to organize its discussions in
logical ways?
It can do what it wishes, YOU on the other hand, have ZERO right to use
Microsoft's microsoft.public. hierarchy. Call it anything you want, but
don't try to foster fraud by forging Microsoft's forums... which it
holds legal right to.
It (corporations) can do as it wishes on their own servers yes. And i
guess we can agree that i have zero right to create or remove various
newsgroups on their NNTP-servers.
However, if i setup my own NNTP server, i might create a group
'microsoft.public.knitting'. If anyone wants to configure their
newsclient so it connects to my server to lurk or post to that group
they can do so - if i let them. I will have the ability to
filter/censor
any posts not related to knitting, or if i so choose filter any post
that are. It wouldn't be running on 'msnews.microsoft.com', or somehow
pretending to, so how is that fostering fraud?
NO. Check the Law if it really interests you. Usenet is NOT above any
Law nor are the parties that use it.
Maybe the 'Peoples' Counsel' should check the law himself, the US
Supreme Court has already ruled that the Internet and Usenet is
protected by the First Amendment. Is the 'Peoples' Counsel' not
familiar with the challenge from the Church of Scientology? Do you
remember what happened with that? Did they succeed in preventing the
use of their name in newsgroup names?
HAHAHAHA, wrong argument.
The case [and there are others] you mention deals with SPECIFIC issues
to the individual NOT the theft or fraud associated with attempting to
falsely portray being Microsoft *IN ITS OWN NEWSGROUPS*.
You still don't get it because you still don't know how Usenet works.
Earlier you were saying that there was a "master distribution" and that
*all* posts had to pass by Microsoft servers. You just don't know how
it works and anyone who knows you knows very well that you can never
admit to being wrong, so you will just keep on arguing even when you are
proven wrong. Microsoft doesn't own anything on Usenet and it can't
tell other Usenet server operators how to organize their discussion
groups. Ignorance is bliss so you must indeed be a very happy man.
Bye!
WRONG. The distinct intention is to defraud Microsoft and the world
into the false belief the newsgroup "microsoft.public.it.windows7" is,
in fact, from Microsoft. There IS NO support for this fraud.
As I previously stated, the individual HAS the right to create other
similar newsgroups, such as the alt.windows98 that this is being
CROSS-POSTED TO. NO ONE has the right to intentionally and falsely
portray being Microsoft.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
98 Guy
2009-12-19 19:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
WRONG. The distinct intention is to defraud Microsoft and the world
into the false belief the newsgroup
"microsoft.public.it.windows7" is, in fact, from Microsoft.
Your logic is flawed for this reason:

Currently, and for at least the past decade, it has been possible to
read and post to any microsoft.* group from many non-microsoft servers.
Microsoft does not, and can not, act as a central collection and
dissemination point for posts to those groups. You only need to look at
the PATH header line for any post to see which servers it actually
traversed through between the sender and you (the receiver).

Your assertion that it would be fraud for these groups to exist without
the continued peering of Microsoft's servers ignores the fact that
Microsoft never had any authoritative or controlling effect on those
groups, just as no NNTP server ever does have any such role for any
usenet newsgroup.

Your argument is also specious because simply moving the entire existing
microsoft hierarchy into an existing hierarchy - eg;

microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
\
\
-> comp.microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion

Throws your argument on it's head. Regardless how you argue that such a
move is either "legal" or "illegal", it would not be congruent with any
arguable position regarding the continued existance of these microsoft
groups in their current form in the absence of participation by
Microsoft.

And you fail to address something more relavent and valuable than a
newsgroup name - which is a domain name.

If a domain name containing a trademarked or registered name can be
LEGALLY registered by a third party, then that in effect is an
acknowledgement that these names are not automatically the defacto
property of the registered entity in the eyes of the law.
Post by MEB
NO ONE has the right to intentionally and falsely portray
being Microsoft.
Usenet is a distributed messaging system - a messaging protocal. You
can't accuse a protocal of fraud.

Newsgroup names exist as catagories or channels for information. There
is nothing implied in the name that denotes who controls or sponsors it
(activities which can't exist on usenet in the first place).

Your argument is equivalent to saying that I can't send someone an
e-mail that contains "Microsoft" in the subject line because the
receiver might think that the e-mail was sanctioned or approved by
Microsoft itself, even if the receiver knows that I sent it.

Microsoft can no more control what I put in the subject line of e-mail
that I send to a third party any more than it can control the names that
I assign to the newsgroups that I carry on my usenet server.
MEB
2009-12-19 20:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
WRONG. The distinct intention is to defraud Microsoft and the world
into the false belief the newsgroup
"microsoft.public.it.windows7" is, in fact, from Microsoft.
Currently, and for at least the past decade, it has been possible to
read and post to any microsoft.* group from many non-microsoft servers.
Microsoft does not, and can not, act as a central collection and
dissemination point for posts to those groups. You only need to look at
the PATH header line for any post to see which servers it actually
traversed through between the sender and you (the receiver).
Your assertion that it would be fraud for these groups to exist without
the continued peering of Microsoft's servers ignores the fact that
Microsoft never had any authoritative or controlling effect on those
groups, just as no NNTP server ever does have any such role for any
usenet newsgroup.
Your argument is also specious because simply moving the entire existing
microsoft hierarchy into an existing hierarchy - eg;
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
\
\
-> comp.microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Throws your argument on it's head. Regardless how you argue that such a
move is either "legal" or "illegal", it would not be congruent with any
arguable position regarding the continued existance of these microsoft
groups in their current form in the absence of participation by
Microsoft.
And you fail to address something more relavent and valuable than a
newsgroup name - which is a domain name.
If a domain name containing a trademarked or registered name can be
LEGALLY registered by a third party, then that in effect is an
acknowledgement that these names are not automatically the defacto
property of the registered entity in the eyes of the law.
Post by MEB
NO ONE has the right to intentionally and falsely portray
being Microsoft.
Usenet is a distributed messaging system - a messaging protocal. You
can't accuse a protocal of fraud.
Newsgroup names exist as catagories or channels for information. There
is nothing implied in the name that denotes who controls or sponsors it
(activities which can't exist on usenet in the first place).
Your argument is equivalent to saying that I can't send someone an
e-mail that contains "Microsoft" in the subject line because the
receiver might think that the e-mail was sanctioned or approved by
Microsoft itself, even if the receiver knows that I sent it.
Microsoft can no more control what I put in the subject line of e-mail
that I send to a third party any more than it can control the names that
I assign to the newsgroups that I carry on my usenet server.
WRONG ARGUMENT AGAIN.

There is NOTHING ANYWHERE that supports your contentions.

THE SOLE activity that is allowed per the case that was mentioned, is
that newsgroups EXTERNAL to those NOT OWNED may be created. And that is
what you USENUTTERS fail to grasp... and, in part, WHY Usenet support is
being dropped by many of the former carriers and corporations.
Usenet IS BOUND BY LAW, it isn't some magical ether-like thing. And
there are NUMEROUS cases which show that...
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
MEB
2009-12-19 20:26:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
WRONG. The distinct intention is to defraud Microsoft and the world
into the false belief the newsgroup
"microsoft.public.it.windows7" is, in fact, from Microsoft.
Currently, and for at least the past decade, it has been possible to
read and post to any microsoft.* group from many non-microsoft servers.
Microsoft does not, and can not, act as a central collection and
dissemination point for posts to those groups. You only need to look at
the PATH header line for any post to see which servers it actually
traversed through between the sender and you (the receiver).
Your assertion that it would be fraud for these groups to exist without
the continued peering of Microsoft's servers ignores the fact that
Microsoft never had any authoritative or controlling effect on those
groups, just as no NNTP server ever does have any such role for any
usenet newsgroup.
Your argument is also specious because simply moving the entire existing
microsoft hierarchy into an existing hierarchy - eg;
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
\
\
-> comp.microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Throws your argument on it's head. Regardless how you argue that such a
move is either "legal" or "illegal", it would not be congruent with any
arguable position regarding the continued existance of these microsoft
groups in their current form in the absence of participation by
Microsoft.
And you fail to address something more relavent and valuable than a
newsgroup name - which is a domain name.
If a domain name containing a trademarked or registered name can be
LEGALLY registered by a third party, then that in effect is an
acknowledgement that these names are not automatically the defacto
property of the registered entity in the eyes of the law.
Post by MEB
NO ONE has the right to intentionally and falsely portray
being Microsoft.
Usenet is a distributed messaging system - a messaging protocal. You
can't accuse a protocal of fraud.
Newsgroup names exist as catagories or channels for information. There
is nothing implied in the name that denotes who controls or sponsors it
(activities which can't exist on usenet in the first place).
Your argument is equivalent to saying that I can't send someone an
e-mail that contains "Microsoft" in the subject line because the
receiver might think that the e-mail was sanctioned or approved by
Microsoft itself, even if the receiver knows that I sent it.
Microsoft can no more control what I put in the subject line of e-mail
that I send to a third party any more than it can control the names that
I assign to the newsgroups that I carry on my usenet server.
WRONG ARGUMENT AGAIN.
There is NOTHING ANYWHERE that supports your contentions.
THE SOLE activity that is allowed per the case that was mentioned, is
that newsgroups EXTERNAL to those NOT OWNED may be created.
That may be misinterpreted.. sorry.. the meaning is owned EXISTING
forums/newsgroups created BY, as in this instance, Microsoft, are a
"property right" protected by Law. One could go further in that this
activity being discussed MIGHT be considered as, potentially, criminal
attempts.

And that is
Post by MEB
what you USENUTTERS fail to grasp... and, in part, WHY Usenet support is
being dropped by many of the former carriers and corporations.
Usenet IS BOUND BY LAW, it isn't some magical ether-like thing. And
there are NUMEROUS cases which show that...
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
98 Guy
2009-12-19 23:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
There is NOTHING ANYWHERE that supports your contentions.
Except for pure logic, which constantly escapes you.
Post by MEB
THE SOLE activity that is allowed per the case that was
mentioned, is that newsgroups EXTERNAL to those NOT OWNED
may be created.
You seem to think that just because Microsoft originally created these
groups on it's own NNTP server, that such an event constitutes ownership
of them regardless where they subsequently exist.

You don't seem to realize that when Microsoft created those groups on
it's own server, it's server was not peered with the rest of usenet. It
was an isolated NNTP server. Some unknown third party arranged an
automated process to retrieve posts from the Microsoft server and inject
them into the same newsgroups on the collective usenet. In order to
perform this "sucking" and injection, a duplicate set of newsgroups had
to be created on the world-wide usenet (the required group-create and
checkgroup messages DID NOT ORIGINATE FROM MICROSOFT). So this
"sucking" formed a bridge between microsoft's isolated NNTP server and
the world-wide usenet.

At some point later (at least 10 years ago) Microsoft began a *real*
peering relationship with the world-wide usenet, and the third-party
message-sucking was no longer required.

So:

1) Microsoft did nothing when a parallel set of groups was created on
the world-wide usenet that mirrored it's own internal set of groups,

2) Microsoft took no steps to stop the "sucking" of messages from it's
server for the purpose of re-injection back into the separate world-wide
usenet,

3) Microsoft recognized the legitamacy of those external usenet groups
by peering with usenet in a cooperative manner, and

4) Microsoft has never tried to exert any control or influence on the
microsoft.* hierarchy of groups as they exist on Usenet by issuing
external group-create, group-delete or check-group commands. The recent
deletion by microsoft of some 500+ groups on it's own server was an
internal house-keeping event. Microsoft issued NO parallel control
messages to the rest of the public usenet to carry out those same
group-removals on other servers.

Each of those 4 facts are indicative of the realization by Microsoft
that it knows it has no legal claim or rights over the microsoft.*
hierarchy of usenet groups as they exist on world-wide usenet servers.
When taken together, the evidence is clear that Microsoft has no
interest in the future of those groups as they exist on usenet because
it never owned or controlled them in the first place.
MEB
2009-12-20 02:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
There is NOTHING ANYWHERE that supports your contentions.
Except for pure logic, which constantly escapes you.
Post by MEB
THE SOLE activity that is allowed per the case that was
mentioned, is that newsgroups EXTERNAL to those NOT OWNED
may be created.
You seem to think that just because Microsoft originally created these
groups on it's own NNTP server, that such an event constitutes ownership
of them regardless where they subsequently exist.
And THAT *FACT* is the *ONLY* relevant matter. Microsoft created the
groups and OWNS THEM.

THEY ARE MICROSOFT'S PROPERTY where ever they exit. AND THAT is the
ONLY thing that any court, and/or prosecutor, and/or government, would
consider, the rest of your spewed crap is PURE IDIOCY from a fool.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
98 Guy
2009-12-20 05:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
You seem to think that just because Microsoft originally created
these groups on it's own NNTP server, that such an event
constitutes ownership of them regardless where they subsequently
exist.
And THAT *FACT* is the *ONLY* relevant matter. Microsoft created
the groups and OWNS THEM.
Then why did they not object when those groups were created on other
servers?

Why did they not object to the "sucking" of posts from their servers and
injection into the other servers?

Why did they not broadcast group-delete and check-group messages to the
rest of usenet when they remove some groups from their server?

Why are you evading answering those questions?

Microsoft's actions are not consistent with your assertion that their
control of these groups extend to servers beyond their own.
MEB
2009-12-20 05:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
You seem to think that just because Microsoft originally created
these groups on it's own NNTP server, that such an event
constitutes ownership of them regardless where they subsequently
exist.
And THAT *FACT* is the *ONLY* relevant matter. Microsoft created
the groups and OWNS THEM.
Then why did they not object when those groups were created on other
servers?
Not relevant.
Post by 98 Guy
Why did they not object to the "sucking" of posts from their servers and
injection into the other servers?
Not relevant.
Post by 98 Guy
Why did they not broadcast group-delete and check-group messages to the
rest of usenet when they remove some groups from their server?
Microsoft did.
Post by 98 Guy
Why are you evading answering those questions?
They are and were answered, stupid.
Post by 98 Guy
Microsoft's actions are not consistent with your assertion that their
control of these groups extend to servers beyond their own.
Wrong, Microsoft's actions are consistent with ownership and control.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
98 Guy
2009-12-20 15:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Then why did they not object when those groups were created on
other servers?
Not relevant.
They gave up any legal rights or protections to their property
(according to your theory) by not taking steps to protect it. For more
than 10 years.
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Why did they not object to the "sucking" of posts from their
servers and injection into the other servers?
Not relevant.
Same argument.
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Why did they not broadcast group-delete and check-group messages
to the rest of usenet when they remove some groups from their
server?
Microsoft did.
They did not. That is a lie on your part.

That's why Julien ÉLIE has taken it upon himself to do it. Do you know
who he is Meb?
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Why are you evading answering those questions?
They are and were answered, stupid.
You have not answered them before, and the answers you give now are
either incomplete or wrong.

Explain why Microsoft's inaction is not relevant.
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Microsoft's actions are not consistent with your assertion
that their control of these groups extend to servers beyond
their own.
Wrong, Microsoft's actions are consistent with ownership
and control.
How is it consistent to allow your property to be used and duplicated by
others for more than a decade and NOT take action to stop that behavior?

You of all people should know that the first thing you do when your
property is used by others without consent or compensation is to take
immediate legal action to stop the activity, lest your INACTION be seen
and taken as tacit approval.
MEB
2009-12-20 17:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Then why did they not object when those groups were created on
other servers?
Not relevant.
They gave up any legal rights or protections to their property
(according to your theory) by not taking steps to protect it. For more
than 10 years.
Wrong, there is no adverse possession involved.
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Why did they not object to the "sucking" of posts from their
servers and injection into the other servers?
Not relevant.
Same argument.
Stupid. You use the arguments of an 8 year old. Not relevant.
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Why did they not broadcast group-delete and check-group messages
to the rest of usenet when they remove some groups from their
server?
Microsoft did.
They did not. That is a lie on your part.
They did, and it was received by the services.
Post by 98 Guy
That's why Julien ÉLIE has taken it upon himself to do it. Do you know
who he is Meb?
At the moment?
This party is being fostered across Usenet as the one who will
supposedly issue the control messages for removal. The failure here is
the control messages have already been sent BY MICROSOFT as part of the
normal maintenance protocol messages within NNTP using standard
procedures, AND NOT BY this supposed party; received EVEN within my own
NNTP service... and reader, which removed groups and messages marked as
irremovable.
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Why are you evading answering those questions?
They are and were answered, stupid.
You have not answered them before, and the answers you give now are
either incomplete or wrong.
You are stupid. The answers WERE EXPLAINED IN DETAIL.
Post by 98 Guy
Explain why Microsoft's inaction is not relevant.
Didn't occur, not relevant.
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Microsoft's actions are not consistent with your assertion
that their control of these groups extend to servers beyond
their own.
Wrong, Microsoft's actions are consistent with ownership
and control.
How is it consistent to allow your property to be used and duplicated by
others for more than a decade and NOT take action to stop that behavior?
You of all people should know that the first thing you do when your
property is used by others without consent or compensation is to take
immediate legal action to stop the activity, lest your INACTION be seen
and taken as tacit approval.
Wrong. There is no adverse possession {which is what you're attempting
to invoke} involved here; it doesn't even remotely come into play.

READ what Usenet is;
READ Microsoft's Policy statements, TOS statements, NNTP/Services
statements, and other statements;
READ the applicable Laws;
READ in entirety, the rulings pursuant these applicable activities;
READ, READ, READ, and not the crap spewed by most of these USENUTTERS
that haven't a friggin clue what they are talking about...

When you get done with that [in about 10 years] come back and talk to
me. Otherwise, you are a stupid ignorant fool spouting nothing relevant
or which applies. That is EXACTLY the way you and the others who have
posted your DA crap have proceeded in this.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
98 Guy
2009-12-20 18:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
They gave up any legal rights or protections to their property
(according to your theory) by not taking steps to protect it.
For more than 10 years.
Wrong, there is no adverse possession involved.
Adverse possession is an established principle in law.

However, not even domain-name rights are clearly defined in law, and I
continue to raise that point and you continue to be silent about it.

Domain names are the closest example of internet-name-space objects that
could be analogous to usenet group-names. And as I've stated many
times, owners of registered copyrighted trade or busines names do not
automatically have the rights to similar domain names.

And you will note that the USPTO does not register domain names, and
certainly not usenet newsgroup names.
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Why did they not broadcast group-delete and check-group messages
to the rest of usenet when they remove some groups from their
server?
Microsoft did.
Post by 98 Guy
They did not. That is a lie on your part.
They did, and it was received by the services.
On what date were these control messages originated by Microsoft?

Can you post an example of such a message?
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
That's why Julien ÉLIE has taken it upon himself to do it.
Do you know who he is Meb?
This party is being fostered across Usenet as the one who will
supposedly issue the control messages for removal. The failure
here is the control messages have already been sent BY
MICROSOFT as part of the normal maintenance protocol
If they were already sent by Microsoft, then why has Julien taken on the
responsibility for himself to do it?

Why would he perform a task that you claim has already been carried out?
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
How is it consistent to allow your property to be used and
duplicated by others for more than a decade and NOT take
action to stop that behavior?
Wrong. There is no adverse possession {which is what you're
attempting to invoke} involved here;
You haven't explained why adverse possession can't be invoked (if this
was real property, it certainly could be).

You still haven't answered why Microsoft would allow this behavior to
continue for over 10 years. It would not help their legal argument if
they had to explain to a judge why they took no action for so long.
Even the issuance of warnings, cease-and-desist, would strengthen their
case.
MEB
2009-12-20 18:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
They gave up any legal rights or protections to their property
(according to your theory) by not taking steps to protect it.
For more than 10 years.
Wrong, there is no adverse possession involved.
Adverse possession is an established principle in law.
However, not even domain-name rights are clearly defined in law, and I
continue to raise that point and you continue to be silent about it.
Domain names are the closest example of internet-name-space objects that
could be analogous to usenet group-names. And as I've stated many
times, owners of registered copyrighted trade or busines names do not
automatically have the rights to similar domain names.
And you will note that the USPTO does not register domain names, and
certainly not usenet newsgroup names.
Not relevant. The issue at hand is whether Microsoft owns and controls
the groups consistent with ownership. The findings are that it does.
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
Why did they not broadcast group-delete and check-group messages
to the rest of usenet when they remove some groups from their
server?
Microsoft did.
Post by 98 Guy
They did not. That is a lie on your part.
They did, and it was received by the services.
On what date were these control messages originated by Microsoft?
Can you post an example of such a message?
Not relevant. The messages were sent and received. You are attempting
to make a useless and immaterial extension of the discussion.
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
That's why Julien ÉLIE has taken it upon himself to do it.
Do you know who he is Meb?
This party is being fostered across Usenet as the one who will
supposedly issue the control messages for removal. The failure
here is the control messages have already been sent BY
MICROSOFT as part of the normal maintenance protocol
If they were already sent by Microsoft, then why has Julien taken on the
responsibility for himself to do it?
Haven't a clue??? Likely this party is a dumb as you.
Post by 98 Guy
Why would he perform a task that you claim has already been carried out?
Post by MEB
Post by 98 Guy
How is it consistent to allow your property to be used and
duplicated by others for more than a decade and NOT take
action to stop that behavior?
Wrong. There is no adverse possession {which is what you're
attempting to invoke} involved here;
You haven't explained why adverse possession can't be invoked (if this
was real property, it certainly could be).
You still haven't answered why Microsoft would allow this behavior to
continue for over 10 years. It would not help their legal argument if
they had to explain to a judge why they took no action for so long.
Even the issuance of warnings, cease-and-desist, would strengthen their
case.
YOU haven't read anything relevant to the discussion... had you done
so, you would find your supposed arguments HAVE NO BEARING, ARE
IMMATERIAL, HAVE NO VALUE, and are baseless.

Microsoft need explain nothing, it has proceeded as required.

The SERVICES will be required should they fail to comply, AS WELL AS
the party who falsely injected the group into microsoft.public. with
criminal intent [should that be addressed].

As for adverse possession and abandonment of property [the two supposed
arguments you have raise] neither apply because neither happened... nor
does the First Amendment or free speech [the supposed other arguments
broached in the discussion] because there is no infringement involved.
These were the ONLY matters which MIGHT have brought arguable issues;
since they don't apply as they were at no time an issue, there is no
argument anyone can raise of value or which would bring standing for claim.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
unknown
2009-12-20 21:25:14 UTC
Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
MEB
2009-12-19 18:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by John John - MVP
Post by MEB
Post by MEB
Post by Etal
( Regarding "microsoft.public.it.windows7" )
Are corporations now disallowing humanity to organize its
discussions in
logical ways?
It can do what it wishes, YOU on the other hand, have ZERO right to use
Microsoft's microsoft.public. hierarchy. Call it anything you want, but
don't try to foster fraud by forging Microsoft's forums... which it
holds legal right to.
It (corporations) can do as it wishes on their own servers yes. And i
guess we can agree that i have zero right to create or remove various
newsgroups on their NNTP-servers.
However, if i setup my own NNTP server, i might create a group
'microsoft.public.knitting'. If anyone wants to configure their
newsclient so it connects to my server to lurk or post to that group
they can do so - if i let them. I will have the ability to filter/censor
any posts not related to knitting, or if i so choose filter any post
that are. It wouldn't be running on 'msnews.microsoft.com', or somehow
pretending to, so how is that fostering fraud?
NO. Check the Law if it really interests you. Usenet is NOT above any
Law nor are the parties that use it.
Maybe the 'Peoples' Counsel' should check the law himself, the US
Supreme Court has already ruled that the Internet and Usenet is
protected by the First Amendment. Is the 'Peoples' Counsel' not
familiar with the challenge from the Church of Scientology? Do you
remember what happened with that? Did they succeed in preventing the
use of their name in newsgroup names?
HAHAHAHA, wrong argument.
The case [and there are others] you mention deals with SPECIFIC issues
to the individual NOT the theft or fraud associated with attempting to
falsely portray being Microsoft *IN ITS OWN NEWSGROUPS*.
Keep searching, direct your searches more towards property rights, and
rulings pursuant issues of theft, fraud, and the other that would and is
occurring by the false presentation of being Microsoft IN ITS OWN
NEWSGROUPS.
Oh, here is a copy of the questions posed to Microsoft earlier this
morning:

--- Original Message ---
Sent : Saturday, December 19, 2009 1:37:17 AM UTC
To : ***@css.one.microsoft.com
Subject : Microsoft's removal of newsgroups

CONTACT INFORMATION
First Name: Maurice Edward, Brahier

PRODUCT
Not Applicable

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
Message: LEGAL QUESTIONS:

Whether Microsoft intends to allow Usenet to continue fostering the
fraudulent continuance of the newsgroups recently removed, and whether
Microsoft intends to allow its newsgroups microsoft.public. to be used
in a manner inconsistent with its policies. Further, whether Microsoft
intends to allow the false and distinctly fraudulent creation of
newsgroups it has not created upon and within microsoft.public. news
groups.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
98 Guy
2009-12-19 19:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
here is a copy of the questions posed to Microsoft earlier this
Where the hell did you find that e-mail address?
MEB
2009-12-19 19:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by MEB
here is a copy of the questions posed to Microsoft earlier this
Where the hell did you find that e-mail address?
It is the verification... care to continue showing your ignorance...
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Jeff Richards
2009-12-20 04:34:34 UTC
Permalink
And we can confidently predict it will be as effective as you previous
effort.

http://www.us-cert.gov/reading_room/before_you_plug_in.html
seems to be unchanged. How could that be?
--
Jeff Richards
----------------------------------------
snip <
Oh, here is a copy of the questions posed to Microsoft earlier this
--- Original Message ---
Sent : Saturday, December 19, 2009 1:37:17 AM UTC
Subject : Microsoft's removal of newsgroups
CONTACT INFORMATION
First Name: Maurice Edward, Brahier
PRODUCT
Not Applicable
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
Whether Microsoft intends to allow Usenet to continue fostering the
fraudulent continuance of the newsgroups recently removed, and whether
Microsoft intends to allow its newsgroups microsoft.public. to be used
in a manner inconsistent with its policies. Further, whether Microsoft
intends to allow the false and distinctly fraudulent creation of
newsgroups it has not created upon and within microsoft.public. news
groups.
MEB
2009-12-20 04:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Richards
And we can confidently predict it will be as effective as you previous
effort.
http://www.us-cert.gov/reading_room/before_you_plug_in.html
seems to be unchanged. How could that be?
REALLY< are you going on official record with that...

The documents at CERT are CUED for modification. AND AS I NOTED, that
document DOES NOT REFLECT what you attempted to state. IT SAYS
INITIALLY. The document, as I specifically NOTED in the relevant
discussion, could ONLY be mis-interpreted by someone WITHOUT the ability
to comprehend what it FULLY STATES.
You need to brush up on your reading skills. AND you should read the
rest of the recommended materials at the site. That is, unless you want
to remain a fool.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
MEB
2009-12-20 05:37:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by Jeff Richards
And we can confidently predict it will be as effective as you previous
effort.
http://www.us-cert.gov/reading_room/before_you_plug_in.html
seems to be unchanged. How could that be?
REALLY< are you going on official record with that...
The documents at CERT are CUED for modification. AND AS I NOTED, that
document DOES NOT REFLECT what you attempted to state. IT SAYS
INITIALLY. The document, as I specifically NOTED in the relevant
discussion, could ONLY be mis-interpreted by someone WITHOUT the ability
to comprehend what it FULLY STATES.
You need to brush up on your reading skills. AND you should read the
rest of the recommended materials at the site. That is, unless you want
to remain a fool.
And so the rest of the parties understand what Jeff SUPPOSEDLY made a
point of...
The referral was to a discussion wherein Jeff linked to the article and
posting in here as a purported *finite statement* to support HIS
position that firewalls are not required when behind a router. EVEN
THOUGH the document is FOR INITIAL SETUP *only*, and later recommends a
firewall, as do other documents on CERT, and AFTER I directed him to
these FACTS. Shows how bright this Jeff Richards character really is...
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Sunny
2009-12-20 05:46:22 UTC
Permalink
"MEB" <MEB-not-***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
<snip>
Post by MEB
You need to brush up on your reading skills. AND you should read the
rest of the recommended materials at the site. That is, unless you want
to remain a fool.
How about you shove your egotistical advice where the sun don't shine.
MEB
2009-12-20 06:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunny
<snip>
Post by MEB
You need to brush up on your reading skills. AND you should read the
rest of the recommended materials at the site. That is, unless you want
to remain a fool.
How about you shove your egotistical advice where the sun don't shine.
OOOPPPSSSS, there ya go being a friggin troll again,,,

Why don't you make an effort to increase your intelligence Sunny, might
give something better to post rather than your same troll crap...
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Sunny
2009-12-20 06:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
<snip>
Post by MEB
You need to brush up on your reading skills. AND you should read the
rest of the recommended materials at the site. That is, unless you want
to remain a fool.
How about you shove your egotistical advice where the sun don't shine.
OOOPPPSSSS, there ya go being a friggin troll again,,,
Why don't you make an effort to increase your intelligence Sunny, might
give something better to post rather than your same troll crap...
And you are not a troll with your :

"unless you want to remain a fool"
"make an effort to increase your intelligence"
etc etc.
You resort to degrading remarks to anyone who dares to question your
"facts" and you have the effrontery to call anyone a "troll"
Get a life.
MEB
2009-12-20 06:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
<snip>
Post by MEB
You need to brush up on your reading skills. AND you should read the
rest of the recommended materials at the site. That is, unless you want
to remain a fool.
How about you shove your egotistical advice where the sun don't shine.
OOOPPPSSSS, there ya go being a friggin troll again,,,
Why don't you make an effort to increase your intelligence Sunny, might
give something better to post rather than your same troll crap...
"unless you want to remain a fool"
"make an effort to increase your intelligence"
etc etc.
You resort to degrading remarks to anyone who dares to question your
"facts" and you have the effrontery to call anyone a "troll"
Get a life.
Ah, no, those are statements of fact based upon what they were posted
against...
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Sunny
2009-12-20 04:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Well I though Maurice was a tad strange, now I know he is. :-)

"Whether Microsoft intends to *allow Usenet* to continue fostering the
fraudulent continuance of the newsgroups recently removed" <snip>
Post by Jeff Richards
And we can confidently predict it will be as effective as you previous
effort.
http://www.us-cert.gov/reading_room/before_you_plug_in.html
seems to be unchanged. How could that be?
--
Jeff Richards
----------------------------------------
snip <
Oh, here is a copy of the questions posed to Microsoft earlier this
--- Original Message ---
Sent : Saturday, December 19, 2009 1:37:17 AM UTC
Subject : Microsoft's removal of newsgroups
CONTACT INFORMATION
First Name: Maurice Edward, Brahier
PRODUCT
Not Applicable
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
Whether Microsoft intends to allow Usenet to continue fostering the
fraudulent continuance of the newsgroups recently removed, and whether
Microsoft intends to allow its newsgroups microsoft.public. to be used
in a manner inconsistent with its policies. Further, whether Microsoft
intends to allow the false and distinctly fraudulent creation of
newsgroups it has not created upon and within microsoft.public. news
groups.
MEB
2009-12-20 05:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunny
Well I though Maurice was a tad strange, now I know he is. :-)
"Whether Microsoft intends to *allow Usenet* to continue fostering the
fraudulent continuance of the newsgroups recently removed" <snip>
What part of *allow* do you not understand.
Post by Sunny
Post by Jeff Richards
And we can confidently predict it will be as effective as you previous
effort.
http://www.us-cert.gov/reading_room/before_you_plug_in.html
seems to be unchanged. How could that be?
--
Jeff Richards
----------------------------------------
snip <
Oh, here is a copy of the questions posed to Microsoft earlier this
--- Original Message ---
Sent : Saturday, December 19, 2009 1:37:17 AM UTC
Subject : Microsoft's removal of newsgroups
CONTACT INFORMATION
First Name: Maurice Edward, Brahier
PRODUCT
Not Applicable
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
Whether Microsoft intends to allow Usenet to continue fostering the
fraudulent continuance of the newsgroups recently removed, and whether
Microsoft intends to allow its newsgroups microsoft.public. to be used
in a manner inconsistent with its policies. Further, whether Microsoft
intends to allow the false and distinctly fraudulent creation of
newsgroups it has not created upon and within microsoft.public. news
groups.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Sunny
2009-12-20 06:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
Well I though Maurice was a tad strange, now I know he is. :-)
"Whether Microsoft intends to *allow Usenet* to continue fostering the
fraudulent continuance of the newsgroups recently removed" <snip>
What part of *allow* do you not understand.
Your presumption that Microsoft could for one second *allow* or *deny*
USENET from doing anything.
Confirms the fact that you have no idea what Usenet is.
Usenet is not an identity that "fosters" anything.

It would be like trying to stop one grain of sand from touching another
grain of sand.
"Microsoft" is not that good..
MEB
2009-12-20 06:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
Post by Sunny
Well I though Maurice was a tad strange, now I know he is. :-)
"Whether Microsoft intends to *allow Usenet* to continue fostering the
fraudulent continuance of the newsgroups recently removed" <snip>
What part of *allow* do you not understand.
Your presumption that Microsoft could for one second *allow* or *deny*
USENET from doing anything.
Confirms the fact that you have no idea what Usenet is.
Usenet is not an identity that "fosters" anything.
It would be like trying to stop one grain of sand from touching another
grain of sand.
"Microsoft" is not that good..
Microsoft can {as anyone can, should either choose to do so} directly
address the SERVICES offering to participate in what amounts to a any
number of civil and criminal involvement related to this activity, up to
and including criminal conspiracy... Usenet is bound by Law.
I have an excellent knowledge of what Usenet actually is, you
apparently don't... it takes servers and services for YOU to access
Usenet, and ALL are registered and/or known... try it, put up your own
Usenet server. The MOMENT you connect to anyone or they to you, you are
known and located...
As for the grain of sand crap you Usenutters always use, that holds no
water... that's a pun and a statement... it can be stopped in numerous
ways, and even YOU found, and quite easily.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Sunny
2009-12-11 22:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by MEB
Microsoft has no intention of opening its Win7 or later OSs and
applications to Usenet. It does supply forums [as these were originally]
and other communities via direct access.
Who cares, Usenet News group alt.windows7.general is up and running with
"Usenetters" giving valued advice (including some MVP)
unknown
2010-01-16 19:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunny
Post by MEB
Microsoft has no intention of opening its Win7 or later OSs and
applications to Usenet. It does supply forums [as these were originally]
and other communities via direct access.
Who cares, Usenet News group alt.windows7.general is up and running with
"Usenutters" giving valued advice (including some MVP) = 0<<<<
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...