Microsoft has removed 500+ groups, including 21 Windows-98 groups
in [Windows 98]
|
From: Tim Slattery on 16 Dec 2009 08:43 MEB <MEB-not-here(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> 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 Slattery_T(a)bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
From: John John - MVP on 17 Dec 2009 15:57 MEB wrote: > On 12/16/2009 09:26 PM, 98 Guy wrote: >> MEB wrote: >> >>>> 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. >> >>> 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
From: MEB on 17 Dec 2009 16:22 On 12/17/2009 03:57 PM, John John - MVP wrote: > MEB wrote: >> On 12/16/2009 09:26 PM, 98 Guy wrote: >>> MEB wrote: >>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>>> 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 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 ___---
From: 98 Guy on 18 Dec 2009 09:01 Full-Quoter MEB wrote: > 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.
From: MEB on 18 Dec 2009 13:25
On 12/18/2009 09:01 AM, 98 Guy wrote: > Full-Quoter MEB wrote: > >> 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 ___--- |