ATTENTION all steam lovers... your MASTER photo!

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

to all steam lovers... your master photo!

http://home.comcast.net/~pudmonkey1/steamfornazis.jpg

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam

against steam campaign
http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/

steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
http://www.steamwatch.org/

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

difool wrote:
> to all steam lovers... your master photo!
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~pudmonkey1/steamfornazis.jpg

Is there a particular reason you started two seperate thread for the same
picture?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

>Not sure if it will work though. Borderline irritant. Most ISPs have Terms
>of Service which say you cant spam and cant post anything which violates
>the newsgroups charter. Im not sure it has passed either mark

There is also such a thing as a killfile.

C//

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote in message
news:Xns95F58404CACD2gandalfparker@208.201.224.154...
> Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> wrote in
> news:3euc015r9smn9teh6q0eel77ert2msaiac@4ax.com:
>
>>
>>>Not sure if it will work though. Borderline irritant. Most ISPs have
>>>Terms of Service which say you cant spam and cant post anything which
>>>violates the newsgroups charter. Im not sure it has passed either mark
>>
>> There is also such a thing as a killfile.
>
> I know that many would prefer that killfiles be used rather than reports
> to
> the ISP. And in cases where its not an alt.troll player that is a good
> suggestion.
>
> But since Im an ISP Admin and a Moderator, I feel it rather an obligation
> to not use killfiles myself. And to let other admins or moderators know if
> their users might be breaking their rules. That tends to be true of anyone
> in any position I think. Again Im not sure this case fits the bill. Just a
> general expanation
>
> Gandalf Parker

Killfiles are like bandages over an infected wound. I think in difool's
case we need to use some antibiotics.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

foamy wrote:
> In article <vlxNd.3345$Ub4.165628@news20.bellglobal.com>
> , "Grackle" <nowhere@lalaland.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>"Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote in message
>>news:Xns95F58404CACD2gandalfparker@208.201.224.154...
>>
>>>Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> wrote in
>>>news:3euc015r9smn9teh6q0eel77ert2msaiac@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Not sure if it will work though. Borderline irritant. Most ISPs have
>>>>>Terms of Service which say you cant spam and cant post anything which
>>>>>violates the newsgroups charter. Im not sure it has passed either mark
>>>>
>>>>There is also such a thing as a killfile.
>>>
>>>I know that many would prefer that killfiles be used rather than reports
>>>to
>>>the ISP. And in cases where its not an alt.troll player that is a good
>>>suggestion.
>>>
>>>But since Im an ISP Admin and a Moderator, I feel it rather an obligation
>>>to not use killfiles myself. And to let other admins or moderators know if
>>>their users might be breaking their rules. That tends to be true of anyone
>>>in any position I think. Again Im not sure this case fits the bill. Just a
>>>general expanation
>>>
>>>Gandalf Parker
>>
>>Killfiles are like bandages over an infected wound. I think in difool's
>>case we need to use some antibiotics.
>
>
>
> You guys can try and convince yourself you're acting out of some sense
> of propriety until you're blue in the face, but the fact is you don't_like_
> what he's saying. Which of course could easily be resolved by not reading
> nor responding to his posts.
>
> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the belief in
> freedom of speech. People who would vociferously espouse the principle
> of free speech are often the first to try and limit it. And all because they somehow
> erroneously believe they have a right to_not be offended_and that supposed
> right supersedes another persons legitimate right to expression.
>
> Jim

Haven't been long here, have you?

He has every right to have an opinion, but once he starts associating
people who use and appreciate Steam as Nazis, that's offensive and wrong
and disregards the rights of others as well.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <4206d16c$1@yorrell.saard.net>,
GFree <nickt4001@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>Haven't been long here, have you?

Only about 10 years.

>He has every right to have an opinion, but once he starts associating
>people who use and appreciate Steam as Nazis, that's offensive and wrong
>and disregards the rights of others as well.

What you apparently don't realize is he has every right to post what he did.
Offensive ? Probably to most. Wrong ? Most I suspect would agree. Disregards
the _rights_ of others ? Nonsense--none of the people posting about reporting
him etc, had a single _right_ of theirs violated.

The price individuals under a democracy pay to claim the right to freedom of
speech, is that speech is sometimes offensive. If you don't understand that,
you don't understand the principle.

Jim

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <cu6ksl$j6e$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
acercanto <send.spam@microsoft.com> wrote:

>Free speech is a responsibility as well as a freedom. DiFool has the
>responsibility to be civil (civil=being polite, eg: not calling people
>nazi's). He can say anything he likes (the freedom part) as long as he's
>civil about it (the responsibility part). Since he's foregone the
>responsibility, he loses the associated right. Simple.


The only thing simple is your analysis of what constitutes
freedom of speech. No constitution of any country which
guarantees the right of freedom of speech, includes the
addendum,"..as long as that speech is civil ".

Jim

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

He He.. Ya have a right to say whatever ya want but that doesn,t mean
anyyone has to listen.... Ya'll miss the point...




"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with
the intention of arriving safely in an attractive
and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways, cigarette in one hand, favorite beverage in
the other, body thoroughly used up,
totally worn out,and screaming
WOO HOO - What a Ride!"

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <Xns95F5C080C4DB7gandalfparker@208.201.224.154>
, Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:

>bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote in news:h0ANd.303143$6l.46102@pd7tw2no:
>
>> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the
>> belief in freedom of speech.
>
>Freedom of Speech does not apply. This is Internet. Internet is run by a
>democracy which rules a million small tyrannys. You can "cast your vote" to
>his SysAdmin, and thats who will decide. Period.
>Gandalf Parker


Yikes, the great Gandalf has declared the debate over. That " Period " is
intimidating and so authoritative.

You can report him to your heart's content, the fact you would however,
speaks volumes as to your character and level of tolerance of others who
don't happen to be as morally superior as yourself.

Jim

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <mnmd01dg07ha6pp9rvprboimhouqvipk49@4ax.com>
, bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau) wrote:

>That only works if you don't have to receive his postings to begin with.
>Most ISPs that run newsservers do not have killfiles and have to download
>those posts anyway, which in turn takes up disk space that could be used
>for something more valuable (e.g. alt.binaries.*).

I sincerely don't understand the above. I've never plonked anyone, and have
had no problem not reading posts or threads I didn't want to.

>One individual off-topic posting isn't a problem. However, multiply that
>by the number of repeated off-topic postings. Then multiply that by the
>number of news servers attached to the internet. It won't take long before
>the total disk space occupied by the spamming run to fill up a small hard
>drive.

But off-topic is a function of the participants, not some usenet bible dictating
what can or can't be discussed, isn't it ? The newsgroup I spend almost all
my usenet time on, is the Canucks hockey newsgroup. Over the years, the
regulars and semi-lurkers alike have determined nothing is off topic. It's a vibrant
community, especially when the damn NHL is actually playing. :-)

There will be many threads or posts I'm not particularly excited about, and will
simply pass over on them. I guess it's because of this that I see the current flap
over the anti-steam poster as no big deal.

>There is no limitation on freedom of speech on usenet. You can say
>whatever you want, as long as it is within the proper forums and does not
>abuse the Internet. This 'shallowness' does not exist.

I would be willing to bet no one reporting the poster comes to the table with
clean hands. Nary a single off-topic or abusing or insulting or offensive post
in their lives ?

In the group I mentioned above, we've found ignoring, or mockery and humor
does a hell of a better job in dissuading jerk behavior from continuing than threats
of being reported.

Jim

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"foamy" wrote

> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the
> belief in
> freedom of speech.

'Freedom of speech' does not mean 'right to offend'.

The 'Freedom' is never absolute anyway. There are lots of things you would
not be allowed to transmit on TV whatever country you're in.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <uKENd.16270$68.8606@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>, "Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>"foamy" wrote
>
>> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the
>> belief in
>> freedom of speech.
>
>'Freedom of speech' does not mean 'right to offend'.

Of course it does. If you tried to restrict speech based upon the subjective
determination of whether what you said was offensive specific to ' each
listener ', few of us could ever say anything. That's why the freedom lies
pre facto with the speaker, even if offensive, and tools such as libel laws
are available post facto to determine if the offense taken was justified.

>The 'Freedom' is never absolute anyway. There are lots of things you would
>not be allowed to transmit on TV whatever country you're in.

You're right, and governments are constantly trying to place more and more
restrictions on expression. The contemporary crop of ' hate ' laws in vogue
around the world are a fine example, where not only actions but speech can
be labeled as such.

Jim

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

acercanto <send.spam@microsoft.com> abagooba zoink larblortch
news:cu6ksl$j6e$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu:

> Free speech is a responsibility as well as a freedom. DiFool has the
> responsibility to be civil (civil=being polite, eg: not calling people
> nazi's). He can say anything he likes (the freedom part) as long as
> he's civil about it (the responsibility part).

Wrong, utterly and completely wrong. Cite the SPECIFIC LAW that says that
one can be legally denied ANY AND ALL COMMUNICATION merely for being rude.
Of course, since you're an idiot and/or lying pig, you will fail to do so.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

difool <john.difool@mail.telepac.pt> abagooba zoink larblortch
news:ac5e01dbeo1620ltvj7e94kkuqv7aqo8ne@4ax.com:

> i don't see it that way at all
> what you have there is simple
> you pick a person photo, someone who is doing IMMENSE HARM to many
> people someone who is acting like an ARROGANT MONOPOLISTIC DICTATOR
> and edit the photo by including "universal" EVIL symbology

Dear moron: How you "see" it is irrelevant. The only thing that matters
is how a judge will "see" it if it ever comes to a defamation civil suit.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.]
On 2005-02-06, Stoned Monkey <tenny2k@NOSPAMrtennant.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> I would but I now think he should be silenced for being abusive, its really
> not on, at first it was funny now he had just become completely offensive
> does anyone know how to report his abuse?

Check his headers, email his ISPs abuse department. Stop
following up to him.

BTW, at this point it's obvious he's mentally ill. Try to keep
things in perspective. He definetly needs help.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

foamy <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message 6iONd.313143$8l.232794@pd7tw1no...
> In article <uKENd.16270$68.8606@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk
> >, "Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"foamy" wrote
> >
> >> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the
> >> belief in
> >> freedom of speech.
> >
> >'Freedom of speech' does not mean 'right to offend'.
>
> Of course it does. If you tried to restrict speech based upon the
subjective
> determination of whether what you said was offensive specific to ' each
> listener ', few of us could ever say anything. That's why the freedom lies
> pre facto with the speaker, even if offensive, and tools such as libel
laws
> are available post facto to determine if the offense taken was justified.
>

I think you're right. In such cases, I tend to define "freedom" as "other
people's right to do things I dislike" - it helps me in clarifying the
issues a bit, and especially in deciding how far I want to defend the
particular freedom in question. After all, it's too easy to defend freedom,
if I define it as "my right to do what I like". And not particularly useful
to live together in a civilized way.

> >The 'Freedom' is never absolute anyway. There are lots of things you
would
> >not be allowed to transmit on TV whatever country you're in.
>
> You're right, and governments are constantly trying to place more and more
> restrictions on expression. The contemporary crop of ' hate ' laws in
vogue
> around the world are a fine example, where not only actions but speech can
> be labeled as such.
>
> Jim

Another god point - and again I'm with you 100%.

Alfredo

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Grackle wrote:
>
> "Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote in message
> news:Xns95F58404CACD2gandalfparker@208.201.224.154...
> > Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> wrote in
> > news:3euc015r9smn9teh6q0eel77ert2msaiac@4ax.com:
> >
> >>
> >>>Not sure if it will work though. Borderline irritant. Most ISPs have
> >>>Terms of Service which say you cant spam and cant post anything which
> >>>violates the newsgroups charter. Im not sure it has passed either mark
> >>
> >> There is also such a thing as a killfile.
> >
> > I know that many would prefer that killfiles be used rather than reports
> > to
> > the ISP. And in cases where its not an alt.troll player that is a good
> > suggestion.
> >
> > But since Im an ISP Admin and a Moderator, I feel it rather an obligation
> > to not use killfiles myself. And to let other admins or moderators know if
> > their users might be breaking their rules. That tends to be true of anyone
> > in any position I think. Again Im not sure this case fits the bill. Just a
> > general expanation
> >
> > Gandalf Parker
>
> Killfiles are like bandages over an infected wound. I think in difool's
> case we need to use some antibiotics.

And if that doesn't work, surgery?

--

Personal ambition is for people who can't see 100 years into the future.

"Some of us prefer illusion to despair." - Nelson Muntz

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

acercanto wrote:
>
> Free speech is a responsibility as well as a freedom.

Incorrect.

> DiFool has the
> responsibility to be civil (civil=being polite, eg: not calling people
> nazi's). He can say anything he likes (the freedom part) as long as he's
> civil about it (the responsibility part). Since he's foregone the
> responsibility, he loses the associated right. Simple.

Yes, you must be. Free speech is not required to be civil or polite.
Your tender feelings are less important than the free exchange of ideas.

--

Personal ambition is for people who can't see 100 years into the future.

"Some of us prefer illusion to despair." - Nelson Muntz

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Raymond Martineau wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 02:03:57 GMT, bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:
>
> >
> >You guys can try and convince yourself you're acting out of some sense
> >of propriety until you're blue in the face, but the fact is you don't_like_
> >what he's saying. Which of course could easily be resolved by not reading
> >nor responding to his posts.
>
> That only works if you don't have to receive his postings to begin with.
> Most ISPs that run newsservers do not have killfiles and have to download
> those posts anyway, which in turn takes up disk space that could be used
> for something more valuable (e.g. alt.binaries.*).
>
> One individual off-topic posting isn't a problem. However, multiply that
> by the number of repeated off-topic postings. Then multiply that by the
> number of news servers attached to the internet. It won't take long before
> the total disk space occupied by the spamming run to fill up a small hard
> drive.
>

In that case, from now on I demand that all posts which do not entertain
me personally be persecuted by the thought police. Anyone who creates
more than two such posts shall immediately loss USENET posting
privileges.

> >It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the belief in
> >freedom of speech.
>
> There is no limitation on freedom of speech on usenet. You can say
> whatever you want, as long as it is within the proper forums and does not
> abuse the Internet.

Irony alert.


--

Personal ambition is for people who can't see 100 years into the future.

"Some of us prefer illusion to despair." - Nelson Muntz

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Vince wrote:
>
> "foamy" wrote
>
> > It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the
> > belief in
> > freedom of speech.
>
> 'Freedom of speech' does not mean 'right to offend'.

It sure does, because any speech will offend SOMEONE.

>
> The 'Freedom' is never absolute anyway. There are lots of things you would
> not be allowed to transmit on TV whatever country you're in.

You're right about free speech being inadequately protected.

--

Personal ambition is for people who can't see 100 years into the future.

"Some of us prefer illusion to despair." - Nelson Muntz

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

foamy wrote:
>
> You're right, and governments are constantly trying to place more and more
> restrictions on expression. The contemporary crop of ' hate ' laws in vogue
> around the world are a fine example, where not only actions but speech can
> be labeled as such.
>
> Jim

True. A very dangerous movement, that.

--

Personal ambition is for people who can't see 100 years into the future.

"Some of us prefer illusion to despair." - Nelson Muntz

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

RogerM wrote:
> Gandalf Parker wrote:
>
>>bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote in news:UIANd.302520$8l.52900@pd7tw1no:
>>
>>
>>>The price individuals under a democracy pay to claim the right to
>>>freedom of speech, is that speech is sometimes offensive. If you don't
>>>understand that, you don't understand the principle.
>>
>>Democracy? Freedom of Speech? Thats USA.
>
>
> That's just the marketing campaign. If you follow the news, you see many
> cases where speech is constrained or chilled. A lot of that seems to go
> on in colleges and universities, which SHOULD be bastions of free
> speech.

Really? I've never seen this. The only time I've seen colleges cause
problems with free speech is usually related with racism.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

RogerM wrote:

> Does that mean it's okay to limit racist speech? I find racism to be
> horribly ugly and evil, but that still translates as limiting speech
> that is offensive. A free society is endangered far more by those who
> (despite good intentions) limit free speech than by those who spew
> hatred.

Generally, no. However, the reasoning for limiting racist speech is
that it usually leads to violence. Further, college is culpable for
anything that happens on campus, and the violence because of racism is a
no-no.

I think the general problem is that free speech is fine, but what it can
lead to is not...in this litigious society, colleges simply cannot take
those risks anymore.

> http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/ [...] rotest.ap/
>
> What little I've read of this man's opinions have been offensive to me,
> but I would NEVER limit his freedom to make them heard. It is only small
> minds which fear debate and discussion.

Agreed. He should be able to speak. However, I think there are limits
and when he is starting to push a violent agenda (NOT in the first
amendment "...or the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble" ) and
provoke violence, than he has surpassed the first amendment and moved on
towards a realm outside of its perveiw.

Futher, Ward Churchill is a jackass who doesn't even know what the 9th
Amendment means (although he paraphrased it...he made it sound as if the
federal/state government had no law over the people of the United
States...because the Bill of Rights says so...) Ward thinks he is
intelligent and thought provoking, however he is a media whore who only
wishes to make outlandish statements so that he can extent his 15
minutes. He also wishes to provoke those who dislike him to
violence...this goes beyond a peaceable assembly into something else...I
think the Bill of Rights is pretty clear on this point....

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"difool" <john.difool@mail.telepac.pt> wrote in message
news:2uac019lcjtk0cq97covje5imrvvnho2u3@4ax.com...
> to all steam lovers... your master photo!
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~pudmonkey1/steamfornazis.jpg
>

Milton: "Excuse me, I believe you have my stapler..."

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@comcast.ten> wrote in
news:Xns95F6BBA83A785Yarblookie@216.196.97.136:

> acercanto <send.spam@microsoft.com> abagooba zoink larblortch
> news:cu6ksl$j6e$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu:
>
>> Free speech is a responsibility as well as a freedom. DiFool has the
>> responsibility to be civil (civil=being polite, eg: not calling
>> people nazi's). He can say anything he likes (the freedom part) as
>> long as he's civil about it (the responsibility part).
>
> Wrong, utterly and completely wrong. Cite the SPECIFIC LAW that says
> that one can be legally denied ANY AND ALL COMMUNICATION merely for
> being rude. Of course, since you're an idiot and/or lying pig, you
> will fail to do so.

Hmmmm actually I think it would be more along the line of being loud and
rude somewhere like a mall or restaurant. They get asked to take their
buisness elsewhere

Gandalf Parker