pcbutts!
in [Spyware]
|
Prev: free hosting
Next: Discover System Updater
From: Rhonda Lea Kirk on 14 Oct 2007 14:29 jaydeflix(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 14, 5:30 am, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Leythos wrote: >>> In article <fercbj$bq...(a)blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,pcbutts1 >>> @leythosthestalker.com says... >>>> You can't find it becausePcbutts1is not my real name. I use my >>>> real name in the MS groups complete with my MVP sig. >> >>> And yet all of your posts asPCBUTTS1were banned because of your >>> unethical actions. >> >> IIRC, he was banned because he refused to comply with the Microsoft >> TOS, not because of "unethical actions." The only server from which >> his posts are filtered are the Microsoft server. If he posts using a >> different NNTP provider (as I do), those posts will be available on >> all usenet servers but the Microsoft server. > > You are correct. I never cared about his ethics. I had complaints > about the content of his posts, I investigated the situation, I > explained them to him, he refused to follow the rules, and I blocked > him *solely* from Microsoft's servers. I wanted to make sure that > when we canceled a message, we did not ship that cancel message off to > USENET as a whole. We (well, Microsoft.. I'm putting my MS hat back > on) don't own USENET. We own our servers, and we had full right to > remove what we wanted from our own servers. I'm not doing it anymore, > my Newsgroup Admin role ended back in 2005 and I am not currently > employed by Microsoft. > >> Microsoft has a dubious history when it comes to banning and >> censorship, so if I were you, I would not use butts' banning from >> its server as a data point in support of the case against him. > > You are more than welcome to question me with regards to anything > regarding the newsgroup servers between, roughly, 2003 and 2005. That > was my job and I took pride in ensuring that *only* ToS violators and > true USENET spammers were banned. To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to the contrary. Moreover, it was not my intention to take a swipe at you. In addition to the memory detailed above, I have another recollection that you were a hands-on and responsive administrator in maintaining the Microsoft groups. I do, however, stand by the assertion that being banned by a newsgroup administrator is not sufficient evidence to establish the state of one's ethical compass. (Not that I think Butts' has an ethical compass--given some of his antics, it's a pretty obvious he does not.) >> I reported the Sharon Franks ID the first time I saw it (June 2006, >> when he posted one of his infamous links), but nothing was done then >> and nothing has been done since. > > That was after my time, so I can't speak about that. "After your time" was the "dubious history" to which I was specifically referring above. If it will make you more comfortable, I'll say "dubious recent history." > You can feel free to believe I'm not really the John Eddy who was in > charge of the servers. I well know how irritating it can be to be told one is not who or what one is, so I'll take your word that you are who you say you are. > You can feel free to believe what PCButts1 has said about his > interactions with me, none of which have been true. You can rest assured that if Butts says it, I will assume it's untrue until I'm provided with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. > .... > And, since it is now stuck in my head, let me get it stuck in yours > too.... > You can dance if you want to. > You can leave your friends behind.... > > -jd Foolproof get rich quick scheme: Invent a firewall to block the dreaded earworm trojan. :) -- Rhonda Lea Kirk AUK Galactic Killfile, 15 May 2007 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/23766545e259d53c Winner, Golden Killfile, April 2007 Co-Office Holder, Ministry of Circle Jerks, April and May 2007 Member, Human O-Ring Society, March 2003 NCB#16 BJDS#2 INAC#77 PSLCK#1 SBG#1 A-29204 Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant, as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle
From: jaydeflix on 14 Oct 2007 16:19 On Oct 14, 11:29 am, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> You can't find it becausePcbutts1is not my real name. I use my > >>>> real name in the MS groups complete with my MVP sig. > > >>> And yet all of your posts asPCBUTTS1were banned because of your > >>> unethical actions. > > >> IIRC, he was banned because he refused to comply with the Microsoft > >> TOS, not because of "unethical actions." The only server from which > >> his posts are filtered are the Microsoft server. If he posts using a > >> different NNTP provider (as I do), those posts will be available on > >> all usenet servers but the Microsoft server. > > > You are correct. I never cared about his ethics. I had complaints > > about the content of his posts, I investigated the situation, I > > explained them to him, he refused to follow the rules, and I blocked > > him *solely* from Microsoft's servers. I wanted to make sure that > > when we canceled a message, we did not ship that cancel message off to > > USENET as a whole. We (well, Microsoft.. I'm putting my MS hat back > > on) don't own USENET. We own our servers, and we had full right to > > remove what we wanted from our own servers. I'm not doing it anymore, > > my Newsgroup Admin role ended back in 2005 and I am not currently > > employed by Microsoft. > > >> Microsoft has a dubious history when it comes to banning and > >> censorship, so if I were you, I would not use butts' banning from > >> its server as a data point in support of the case against him. > > > You are more than welcome to question me with regards to anything > > regarding the newsgroup servers between, roughly, 2003 and 2005. That > > was my job and I took pride in ensuring that *only* ToS violators and > > true USENET spammers were banned. > > To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to the contrary. > Moreover, it was not my intention to take a swipe at you. In addition to > the memory detailed above, I have another recollection that you were a > hands-on and responsive administrator in maintaining the Microsoft > groups. I tried to be. And I didn't feel swiped at personally. It's a generic swipe at a company without a face, something I have no problems with people doing. I figured if I could field any questions now that I'm no longer working there, I'd do it. =) > I do, however, stand by the assertion that being banned by a newsgroup > administrator is not sufficient evidence to establish the state of one's > ethical compass. (Not that I think Butts' has an ethical compass--given > some of his antics, it's a pretty obvious he does not.) Hmmmm. To establish? No. To provide a bit of evidence, yes. It's like picking an MVP. A large number of posts is not sufficient evidence to establish that someone should be an MVP. But it's a clue. It should be enough to make someone think 'Why is this? Why should that have happened? Perhaps I should investigate this more...' > >> I reported the Sharon Franks ID the first time I saw it (June 2006, > >> when he posted one of his infamous links), but nothing was done then > >> and nothing has been done since. > > > That was after my time, so I can't speak about that. > > "After your time" was the "dubious history" to which I was specifically > referring above. If it will make you more comfortable, I'll say "dubious > recent history." I've been sad about what's become of the server. Some of the newsgroups that have been rubber stamped for creation have left me ill. > > You can feel free to believe I'm not really the John Eddy who was in > > charge of the servers. > > I well know how irritating it can be to be told one is not who or what > one is, so I'll take your word that you are who you say you are. I could be a dog =) I hear collies have exceptional typing skills. > > You can feel free to believe whatPCButts1has said about his > > interactions with me, none of which have been true. > > You can rest assured that if Butts says it, I will assume it's untrue > until I'm provided with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, he's managed to besmirch my name by implying that he got me fired. And since I don't avoid having my name out there (if I could remember how to get Google Groups to put my name on the From line, I'd go fix it), but he does, it's sort of a one way street. C'est la vie. I stand by everything I've ever done. > > .... > > And, since it is now stuck in my head, let me get it stuck in yours > > too.... > > You can dance if you want to. > > You can leave your friends behind.... > > Foolproof get rich quick scheme: Invent a firewall to block the dreaded > earworm trojan. :) Frontal Lobotomy. =)
From: Rhonda Lea Kirk on 14 Oct 2007 18:02 jaydeflix(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 14, 11:29 am, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: <snipped> >> To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to the contrary. >> Moreover, it was not my intention to take a swipe at you. In >> addition to the memory detailed above, I have another recollection >> that you were a hands-on and responsive administrator in maintaining >> the Microsoft groups. > > I tried to be. And I didn't feel swiped at personally. It's a > generic swipe at a company without a face, something I have no > problems with people doing. I figured if I could field any questions > now that I'm no longer working there, I'd do it. =) If there had been any doubt in my mind that you're John Eddy, there would be none now. As for taking a swipe at a company without a face, I guess that's the same as saying I took a swipe at corporate policy. I'd like to add, however, that I do think it is sometimes the case that individuals go above and beyond (in a bad way), and I'm also taking a swipe at them, whoever they might be. It just so happens that they're not you (as evidenced by the timeline). >> I do, however, stand by the assertion that being banned by a >> newsgroup administrator is not sufficient evidence to establish the >> state of one's ethical compass. (Not that I think Butts' has an >> ethical compass--given some of his antics, it's a pretty obvious he >> does not.) > > Hmmmm. To establish? No. To provide a bit of evidence, yes. Below is a link that is NSFW (or anywhere else, for that matter). I post it so you will have no doubt that I, personally, have all the evidence about Butts' character that I will ever need. :) http://www.pcbutts1.com/rlk/rlk.htm My point, however, is that people get banned for a lot of different reasons, and while it may be a data point, it's not a conclusion. For example, I was briefly banned from the MS server over the WGA debacle (along with several others), until someone realized that disagreement with policy is not TOS abuse (by the terms of the TOS). I have also been banned in other places for similar reasons. In addition, I've had several posts to the MS server selectively censored because of naughty word use or because I quoted a post (from a non-MS server) that contained a naughty word. > It's like picking an MVP. A large number of posts is not sufficient > evidence to establish that someone should be an MVP. But it's a > clue. It should be enough to make someone think 'Why is this? Why > should that have happened? Perhaps I should investigate this more...' I agree with the point you're trying to make, but I have a not-topical issue with the example you've used to make it, so I'm not going to address it further. (I will say that if all MVPs were Malke, it would be a happy world.) <snipped> >> "After your time" was the "dubious history" to which I was >> specifically referring above. If it will make you more comfortable, >> I'll say "dubious recent history." > > I've been sad about what's become of the server. Some of the > newsgroups that have been rubber stamped for creation have left me > ill. I'm sorry. But that's pretty much the story all over usenet, so most of us who have been around for more than a few years are ill right along with you. <snipped> >> I well know how irritating it can be to be told one is not who or >> what one is, so I'll take your word that you are who you say you are. > > I could be a dog =) > > I hear collies have exceptional typing skills. My cat will give you a run for your money. :) <snipped> >> You can rest assured that if Butts says it, I will assume it's untrue >> until I'm provided with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. > > Unfortunately, he's managed to besmirch my name by implying that he > got me fired. And since I don't avoid having my name out there (if I > could remember how to get Google Groups to put my name on the From > line, I'd go fix it), but he does, it's sort of a one way street. > C'est la vie. I stand by everything I've ever done. No one who is not a rank newbie believes anything that Butts says. (That's one of the reasons I wish Leythos would stop replying to him, because it gives him unwarranted attention. The sig is a perfectly adequate way to get the message across without addressing Butts directly.) As for Google, go here: http://groups.google.com/groups/mysubs?hl=en >>> .... >>> And, since it is now stuck in my head, let me get it stuck in yours >>> too.... >>> You can dance if you want to. >>> You can leave your friends behind.... >> >> Foolproof get rich quick scheme: Invent a firewall to block the >> dreaded earworm trojan. :) > > Frontal Lobotomy. =) <takes out two virtual glasses, pours generous shot into each> Bottle in front of me. Sl�inte! -- Rhonda Lea Kirk AUK Galactic Killfile, 15 May 2007 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/23766545e259d53c Winner, Golden Killfile, April 2007 Co-Office Holder, Ministry of Circle Jerks, April and May 2007 Member, Human O-Ring Society, March 2003 NCB#16 BJDS#2 INAC#77 PSLCK#1 SBG#1 A-29204 They must find it difficult... Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority. Gerald Massey
From: Peter van der Goes on 14 Oct 2007 22:11 "pcbutts1" <pcbutts1(a)leythosthestalker.com> wrote in message news:ferhec$mp2$1(a)blackhelicopter.databasix.com... > No for obvious reasons. > Ah, yes, that obvious reason being that your assertion is false, and/or that you can't stand up and simply say who you are because your activities under this pcbutts1 persona would damage you if the association were to become public knowledge. I guess the notion that behaving honestly and honorably would relieve you of having to hide behind a pseudonym is completely lost on you, eh?
From: jaydeflix on 14 Oct 2007 22:50
On Oct 14, 3:02 pm, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > <snipped> > > >> To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to the contrary. > >> Moreover, it was not my intention to take a swipe at you. In > >> addition to the memory detailed above, I have another recollection > >> that you were a hands-on and responsive administrator in maintaining > >> the Microsoft groups. > > > I tried to be. And I didn't feel swiped at personally. It's a > > generic swipe at a company without a face, something I have no > > problems with people doing. I figured if I could field any questions > > now that I'm no longer working there, I'd do it. =) > > If there had been any doubt in my mind that you're John Eddy, there > would be none now. I could make some really bad puns. > As for taking a swipe at a company without a face, I guess that's the > same as saying I took a swipe at corporate policy. I'd like to add, > however, that I do think it is sometimes the case that individuals go > above and beyond (in a bad way), and I'm also taking a swipe at them, > whoever they might be. It just so happens that they're not you (as > evidenced by the timeline). I hope they aren't me. I'm me. They're them. > >> I do, however, stand by the assertion that being banned by a > >> newsgroup administrator is not sufficient evidence to establish the > >> state of one's ethical compass. (Not that I think Butts' has an > >> ethical compass--given some of his antics, it's a pretty obvious he > >> does not.) > > > Hmmmm. To establish? No. To provide a bit of evidence, yes. > > Below is a link that is NSFW (or anywhere else, for that matter). I post > it so you will have no doubt that I, personally, have all the evidence > about Butts' character that I will ever need. :) > > http://www.pcbutts1.com/rlk/rlk.htm > > My point, however, is that people get banned for a lot of different > reasons, and while it may be a data point, it's not a conclusion. For > example, I was briefly banned from the MS server over the WGA debacle > (along with several others), until someone realized that disagreement > with policy is not TOS abuse (by the terms of the TOS). I have also been > banned in other places for similar reasons. In addition, I've had > several posts to the MS server selectively censored because of naughty > word use or because I quoted a post (from a non-MS server) that > contained a naughty word. People hated that word filter. I was happy for its existence. I made a very firm point not to remove articles solely because they were negative against Microsoft. In fact, the OS newsgroups were pretty rife with Linux fans. But, at least one person said I was removing their posts because they were anti-MS. But, again, not everyone is me. <snipped> > >> "After your time" was the "dubious history" to which I was > >> specifically referring above. If it will make you more comfortable, > >> I'll say "dubious recent history." > > > I've been sad about what's become of the server. Some of the > > newsgroups that have been rubber stamped for creation have left me > > ill. > > I'm sorry. But that's pretty much the story all over usenet, so most of > us who have been around for more than a few years are ill right along > with you. Well, true. But I'm more thinking of the names of the groups. Things I'd never have approved. The spam is secondary, especially since I always knew that was an unwinnable battle. <snipped> > >> You can rest assured that if Butts says it, I will assume it's untrue > >> until I'm provided with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. > > > Unfortunately, he's managed to besmirch my name by implying that he > > got me fired. And since I don't avoid having my name out there (if I > > could remember how to get Google Groups to put my name on the From > > line, I'd go fix it), but he does, it's sort of a one way street. > > C'est la vie. I stand by everything I've ever done. > > No one who is not a rank newbie believes anything that Butts says. > (That's one of the reasons I wish Leythos would stop replying to him, > because it gives him unwarranted attention. The sig is a perfectly > adequate way to get the message across without addressing Butts > directly.) True. I just get irked at times and, unlike his 'blog', I can say whatever I want here and get it published. > As for Google, go here: > > http://groups.google.com/groups/mysubs?hl=en Interesting, it looks like I'd have to subscribe to the group in order to set it. Bleh. I don't care that much. =) I do like the ease of which I can set settings for each individual group I'd subscribe to. |