Microsoft has removed 500+ groups, including 21 Windows-98 groups

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...
0
98
12/11/2009 1:28:38 AM
win98.gen_discussion 237 articles. 0 followers. Follow

90 Replies
1217 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 59

On 12/10/2009 08:28 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
> 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...

 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
___---
0
MEB
12/11/2009 3:21:21 AM
In message <#kkyEDheKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB 
<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>On 12/10/2009 08:28 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
>> 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?

> 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)Ar@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.)
0
J
12/11/2009 8:42:14 AM
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <#kkyEDheKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB 
><MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>>On 12/10/2009 08:28 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
>>> 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.

>> 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
Slattery_T@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
0
Tim
12/11/2009 1:58:37 PM
On 12/11/2009 08:58 AM, Tim Slattery wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> In message <#kkyEDheKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB 
>> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On 12/10/2009 08:28 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
>>>> 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.
> 
>>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/11/2009 5:03:06 PM
I doubt this group will close for a while because it still seems to get a 
fair amount of posts.

"Tim Slattery" wrote:

> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >In message <#kkyEDheKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB 
> ><MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
> >>On 12/10/2009 08:28 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
> >>> 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.
> 
> >> 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
> Slattery_T@bls.gov
> http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
> .
> 
0
Utf
12/11/2009 7:20:01 PM
"MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:%23kkyEDheKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> 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) 


0
Sunny
12/11/2009 10:44:31 PM
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:28:38 -0500, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>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.

If the end result is that all the English language Win98 traffic is
consolidated into one group, then this will be a good thing, IMO.

- Franc Zabkar
-- 
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
0
Franc
12/12/2009 5:50:11 AM
Franc Zabkar wrote:
>> 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.
>
> If the end result is that all the English language Win98 traffic is
> consolidated into one group, then this will be a good thing, IMO.

There are 22 Win98-specific newsgroups on the MS newsserver, 14 of them are 
English-language newsgroups.  There were 43 of them on 14 Feb-07; 32 of them 
were English-language newsgroups.

Not too shabby for an OS that hasn't been supported since July 2006. 

0
PA
12/12/2009 7:35:06 AM
I proposed to MS earlier this year that defunct W95 and W98 groups should be 
purged, and I provided a list of the best candidates.  I didn't get a direct 
confirmation that they were thinking that way, but I did get a response that 
indicated the idea was being considered, whether as a result of my 
suggestion or not.

It was about the time that MS was posting in some newsgroups that priority 
technical support would no longer be provided in any Usenet group, but only 
through the MS-managed web forums. This meant that MS could properly 
validate the people entitled to priority support, which they couldn't do in 
a Usenet group.  And that was about the time the participation by MS staff 
members in Usenet groups took a big dive (although I'm sure some continued 
posting under different names).

Their line of thinking has been clear for some time, but I think any shut 
down will be orderly.
-- 
Jeff Richards
----------------------------------------

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message 
news:9lb6i5l3h3b1uaspsnbshcvj803b39hpcn@4ax.com...
> snip <
>
> If the end result is that all the English language Win98 traffic is
> consolidated into one group, then this will be a good thing, IMO.
>
> - Franc Zabkar
> -- 
> Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. 


0
Jeff
12/15/2009 1:27:48 AM
Top-Poaster and Full-Quoter Jeff Richards wrote:
 
> I proposed to MS earlier this year that defunct W95 and W98
> groups should be purged, and I provided a list of the best
> candidates.  I didn't get a direct confirmation 

I posted the list of win-98 groups that they recently removed.  How does
that list match your "suggestions" ?

> Their line of thinking has been clear for some time, 

As indicated by what?

> but I think any shut down will be orderly.

Calling any shut-down "orderly" is certainly one way to give it a
positive spin.  I don't know what you would call a "dis-orderly"
shutdown.
0
98
12/15/2009 2:32:19 AM
In message <rqj4i5t3l09o91sj1sr1dliu5qfat1onha@4ax.com>, Tim Slattery 
<Slattery_T@bls.gov> writes:
[]
>>In message <#kkyEDheKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB
>><MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
>>> 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)Ar@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)
0
J
12/15/2009 9:26:52 PM
"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4B26F533.925339BE@Guy.com...
> Top-Poaster and Full-Quoter Jeff Richards wrote:
>
>> I proposed to MS earlier this year that defunct W95 and W98
>> groups should be purged, and I provided a list of the best
>> candidates.  I didn't get a direct confirmation
>
> I posted the list of win-98 groups that they recently removed.  How does
> that list match your "suggestions" ?

It's pretty close - AFAICT everything I nominated is there, plus many others 
(which I didn't consider).

>> Their line of thinking has been clear for some time,
>
> As indicated by what?

By the examples I just gave - no more priority support through Usenet, and 
MS staffers either not participating or (if they are there) using an alias.

>> but I think any shut down will be orderly.
>
> Calling any shut-down "orderly" is certainly one way to give it a
> positive spin.  I don't know what you would call a "dis-orderly"
> shutdown.

I don't know why you would think that shutting down _any_ MS newsgroups 
would be a positive move, but if it's going to happen then I would prefer it 
to be based on feedback they receive, consultation with their staff who deal 
directly with Usenet participants and an analysis of traffic, rather than 
some arbitrary executive decision.

-- 
Jeff Richards
---------------------------------------- 


0
Jeff
12/16/2009 1:10:25 AM
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

> 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.
0
98
12/16/2009 2:10:19 AM
On 12/15/2009 09:10 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
> 
>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/16/2009 6:02:04 AM
"MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:%23nu7hThfKHA.5568@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> 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

> As for honored; no, likely it was propagated under the impression
> Microsoft created it.

Who cares, Usenet servers around the World are "honouring" it



0
Sunny
12/16/2009 6:15:03 AM
On 12/16/2009 01:15 AM, Sunny wrote:
> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:%23nu7hThfKHA.5568@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 
>> 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
> 
>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/16/2009 6:52:24 AM
"MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:e07DqvhfKHA.1112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> On 12/16/2009 01:15 AM, Sunny wrote:
>> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23nu7hThfKHA.5568@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>> 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.




0
Sunny
12/16/2009 7:57:10 AM
MEB wrote:

> > > 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.

> > 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.
0
98
12/16/2009 1:40:36 PM
MEB <MEB-not-here@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@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
0
Tim
12/16/2009 1:43:02 PM
On 12/16/2009 08:43 AM, Tim Slattery wrote:
> MEB <MEB-not-here@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.
> 

 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
___---
0
MEB
12/16/2009 5:35:07 PM
On 12/16/2009 08:40 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
> MEB wrote:
> 
>>>> 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.
> 
>>> 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.

 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
___---
0
MEB
12/16/2009 5:37:10 PM
"MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ePmxzWnfKHA.5792@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> 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?) 


0
Sunny
12/16/2009 11:42:15 PM
"MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:eJEF9XnfKHA.5792@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> On 12/16/2009 08:40 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
>> MEB wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> 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.
>
> 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.

>
> 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.

> 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.


0
Sunny
12/17/2009 12:24:01 AM
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?

> 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.

> 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.
0
98
12/17/2009 2:26:02 AM
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.

> 
>> 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.
> 
>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/17/2009 7:41:59 PM
On 12/16/2009 06:42 PM,  Sunny wrote:
> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:ePmxzWnfKHA.5792@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/17/2009 7:43:02 PM
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
0
John
12/17/2009 8:57:05 PM
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
___---
0
MEB
12/17/2009 9:22:59 PM
"MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:eb1F961fKHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 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

Big deal, so gracious of 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.

Each Usenet site makes its own decisions about the set of groups available 
to its users; this set differs from site to site. (

> 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.


> 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, 


0
Sunny
12/17/2009 10:22:27 PM
In message <OBS0MC1fKHA.5500@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB 
<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>On 12/16/2009 09:26 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
[]
>> 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.
>
> 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.
[]
>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).

> 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.
>
> 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.

>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)Ar@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
0
J
12/17/2009 10:39:19 PM
On 12/17/2009 05:22 PM, Sunny wrote:
> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:eb1F961fKHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> 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
> 
> 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,

> 
>> 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.

> 
>> 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...

> 
>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/17/2009 10:46:16 PM
"MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:%23GL9Ip2fKHA.1536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
<snip>
> 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,

You have no idea who I am, what I have achieved and what I do.
Your opinion is just that "your opinion" and you are entitled to express 
it, however, your reversion to name calling and bullshit to back it up 
makes it irrelevant.


>
> 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.

More of your self opinionated crap.
Microsoft raised some newsgroups and offered them to the public (Usenet) 
and they are now available for Usenet to do with as they please.

Microsoft may be big, but it aint big enough to take on the "World"
How about you quote "your law" that would allow Microsoft to stop free 
speech or any mention of Microsoft's products in any public discussion?

You won't be able to, which shows that a lot of your legal "advice" is 
bullshit, and IMHO just another venue for you to display your over 
inflated opinion of your worth. 


0
Sunny
12/17/2009 11:10:55 PM
On 12/17/2009 05:39 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <OBS0MC1fKHA.5500@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On 12/16/2009 09:26 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
> []
>>> 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...

> 
> 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.

>>
>> 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.
> []
>> 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?

> 
>> 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.

>>
>> 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.

> 
>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/17/2009 11:23:32 PM
MEB wrote:

      ( Regarding "microsoft.public.it.windows7" )

 > 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.
0
Etal
12/18/2009 3:02:03 AM
On 12/17/2009 10:02 PM, Etal wrote:
> MEB wrote:
> 
>      ( Regarding "microsoft.public.it.windows7" )
> 
>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/18/2009 9:50:23 AM
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.
0
98
12/18/2009 2:01:28 PM
John John - MVP wrote:

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.
0
98
12/18/2009 2:23:56 PM
MEB wrote:
> On 12/17/2009 10:02 PM, Etal wrote:
>> MEB wrote:
>>
>>      ( Regarding "microsoft.public.it.windows7" )
>>
>>> 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.
0
John
12/18/2009 2:33:50 PM
On 12/18/2009 09:23 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
> John John - MVP wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
>> 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.
> 
>> 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.

> 
> 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.

> 
> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/18/2009 6:21:38 PM
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
___---
0
MEB
12/18/2009 6:25:05 PM
On 12/18/2009 09:33 AM, John John - MVP wrote:
> MEB wrote:
>> On 12/17/2009 10:02 PM, Etal wrote:
>>> MEB wrote:
>>>
>>>      ( Regarding "microsoft.public.it.windows7" )
>>>
>>>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/18/2009 6:33:03 PM
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
----------------------------------------


0
Jeff
12/18/2009 10:14:18 PM
"MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:O7hLKABgKHA.5500@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> On 12/18/2009 09:33 AM, John John - MVP wrote:
>>
>> 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

> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:urzPG$3fKHA.2260@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>HAHAHAHA, and WHO started the name calling you friggin worthless POS.

You did.

 >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





0
Sunny
12/18/2009 11:00:58 PM
MEB wrote:

> Etal wrote:

>>      ( 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.
0
Etal
12/18/2009 11:14:38 PM
On 12/18/2009 05:14 PM, Jeff Richards wrote:
> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/19/2009 1:01:26 AM
On 12/18/2009 06:14 PM, Etal wrote:
> MEB wrote:
> 
>> Etal wrote:
> 
>>>      ( 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
___---
0
MEB
12/19/2009 1:03:53 AM
On 12/18/2009 06:00 PM, Sunny wrote:
> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:O7hLKABgKHA.5500@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> On 12/18/2009 09:33 AM, John John - MVP wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.

> 
>> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:urzPG$3fKHA.2260@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> 
>> HAHAHAHA, and WHO started the name calling you friggin worthless POS.
> 
> You did.
> 
>  >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
___---
0
MEB
12/19/2009 1:05:51 AM
"MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:uyAHlbEgKHA.2104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> On 12/18/2009 06:00 PM, Sunny wrote:
>>
>> 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. 


0
Sunny
12/19/2009 1:18:39 AM
On 12/18/2009 08:18 PM, Sunny wrote:
> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:uyAHlbEgKHA.2104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> On 12/18/2009 06:00 PM, Sunny wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/19/2009 1:49:28 AM
"MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:%23oW28zEgKHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> On 12/18/2009 08:18 PM, Sunny wrote:
>> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uyAHlbEgKHA.2104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> On 12/18/2009 06:00 PM, Sunny wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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?

>
> Now what was it you wanted Troll?

Do you find it odd, that you are the only one voicing that opinion? 


0
Sunny
12/19/2009 2:20:50 AM
On 12/18/2009 09:20 PM, Sunny wrote:
> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:%23oW28zEgKHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> On 12/18/2009 08:18 PM, Sunny wrote:
>>> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uyAHlbEgKHA.2104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> On 12/18/2009 06:00 PM, Sunny wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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...

> 
>>
>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/19/2009 4:46:50 PM
MEB wrote:
> On 12/18/2009 06:14 PM, Etal wrote:
>> MEB wrote:
>>
>>> Etal wrote:
>>>>      ( 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?

0
John
12/19/2009 5:41:24 PM
On 12/19/2009 12:41 PM, John John - MVP wrote:
> MEB wrote:
>> On 12/18/2009 06:14 PM, Etal wrote:
>>> MEB wrote:
>>>
>>>> Etal wrote:
>>>>>      ( 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
___---
0
MEB
12/19/2009 5:56:43 PM
MEB wrote:
> On 12/19/2009 12:41 PM, John John - MVP wrote:
>> MEB wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2009 06:14 PM, Etal wrote:
>>>> MEB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Etal wrote:
>>>>>>      ( 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!
0
John
12/19/2009 6:06:47 PM
On 12/19/2009 12:56 PM, MEB wrote:
> On 12/19/2009 12:41 PM, John John - MVP wrote:
>> MEB wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2009 06:14 PM, Etal wrote:
>>>> MEB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Etal wrote:
>>>>>>      ( 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 ---
>From : *****@****.com
Sent : Saturday, December 19, 2009 1:37:17 AM UTC
To : CNTUS.GNCS.NA.00.EN.000.000.CS.CMR.CUS.00.WB@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
___---
0
MEB
12/19/2009 6:14:56 PM
On 12/19/2009 01:06 PM, John John - MVP wrote:
> MEB wrote:
>> On 12/19/2009 12:41 PM, John John - MVP wrote:
>>> MEB wrote:
>>>> On 12/18/2009 06:14 PM, Etal wrote:
>>>>> MEB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Etal wrote:
>>>>>>>      ( 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
___---
0
MEB
12/19/2009 6:21:21 PM
Full-Quoter MEB wrote:

> here is a copy of the questions posed to Microsoft earlier this
> morning:
> 
> To:
> CNTUS.GNCS.NA.00.EN.000.000.CS.CMR.CUS.00.WB@css.one.microsoft.com

Where the hell did you find that e-mail address?
0
98
12/19/2009 7:24:00 PM
On 12/19/2009 02:24 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
> Full-Quoter MEB wrote:
> 
>> here is a copy of the questions posed to Microsoft earlier this
>> morning:
>>
>> To:
>> CNTUS.GNCS.NA.00.EN.000.000.CS.CMR.CUS.00.WB@css.one.microsoft.com
> 
> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/19/2009 7:48:41 PM
MEB wrote:

> 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.

> 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.
0
98
12/19/2009 7:53:02 PM
On 12/19/2009 02:53 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
> MEB wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/19/2009 8:12:28 PM
On 12/19/2009 03:12 PM, MEB wrote:
> On 12/19/2009 02:53 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
>> MEB wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>> 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
> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/19/2009 8:26:14 PM
Full-Quoter MEB wrote:

> There is NOTHING ANYWHERE that supports your contentions.

Except for pure logic, which constantly escapes you.

> 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.
0
98
12/19/2009 11:28:03 PM
On 12/19/2009 06:28 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
> Full-Quoter MEB wrote:
> 
>> There is NOTHING ANYWHERE that supports your contentions.
> 
> Except for pure logic, which constantly escapes you.
> 
>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/20/2009 2:40:02 AM
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
----------------------------------------

"MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:OPWOiaNgKHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> snip <
>
> Oh, here is a copy of the questions posed to Microsoft earlier this
> morning:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>>From : *****@****.com
> Sent : Saturday, December 19, 2009 1:37:17 AM UTC
> To : CNTUS.GNCS.NA.00.EN.000.000.CS.CMR.CUS.00.WB@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.


0
Jeff
12/20/2009 4:34:34 AM
On 12/19/2009 11:34 PM, Jeff Richards wrote:
> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/20/2009 4:54:59 AM
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>


"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message 
news:u4PR92SgKHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 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
> ----------------------------------------
>
> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:OPWOiaNgKHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> snip <
>>
>> Oh, here is a copy of the questions posed to Microsoft earlier this
>> morning:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>>From : *****@****.com
>> Sent : Saturday, December 19, 2009 1:37:17 AM UTC
>> To : CNTUS.GNCS.NA.00.EN.000.000.CS.CMR.CUS.00.WB@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.
>
> 


0
Sunny
12/20/2009 4:59:47 AM
On 12/19/2009 11:59 PM, Sunny wrote:
> 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.

> 
> "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message 
> news:u4PR92SgKHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> 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
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:OPWOiaNgKHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> snip <
>>>
>>> Oh, here is a copy of the questions posed to Microsoft earlier this
>>> morning:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>> >From : *****@****.com
>>> Sent : Saturday, December 19, 2009 1:37:17 AM UTC
>>> To : CNTUS.GNCS.NA.00.EN.000.000.CS.CMR.CUS.00.WB@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
___---
0
MEB
12/20/2009 5:26:28 AM
MEB wrote:

> > 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.
0
98
12/20/2009 5:30:52 AM
On 12/19/2009 11:54 PM, MEB wrote:
> On 12/19/2009 11:34 PM, Jeff Richards wrote:
>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/20/2009 5:37:40 AM
On 12/20/2009 12:30 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
> MEB wrote:
> 
>>> 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.

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

 Not relevant.

> 
> 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.

> 
> Why are you evading answering those questions?

 They are and were answered, stupid.

> 
> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/20/2009 5:45:13 AM
"MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:uWtWHATgKHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
<snip>
> 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.


0
Sunny
12/20/2009 5:46:22 AM
"MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:u6%23OtRTgKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> On 12/19/2009 11:59 PM, Sunny wrote:
>> 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.. 


0
Sunny
12/20/2009 6:00:30 AM
On 12/20/2009 12:46 AM, Sunny wrote:
> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:uWtWHATgKHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> <snip>
>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/20/2009 6:01:44 AM
"MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:eexwZlTgKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> On 12/20/2009 12:46 AM, Sunny wrote:
>> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uWtWHATgKHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> <snip>
>>> 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.




0
Sunny
12/20/2009 6:15:59 AM
On 12/20/2009 01:00 AM,  Sunny wrote:
> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:u6%23OtRTgKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> On 12/19/2009 11:59 PM, Sunny wrote:
>>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/20/2009 6:29:09 AM
On 12/20/2009 01:15 AM, Sunny wrote:
> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:eexwZlTgKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> On 12/20/2009 12:46 AM, Sunny wrote:
>>> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uWtWHATgKHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> <snip>
>>>> 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.
> 

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
___---
0
MEB
12/20/2009 6:30:19 AM
MEB wrote:

> > 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.

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

Same argument.  

> > 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 �LIE has taken it upon himself to do it.  Do you know
who he is Meb?

> > 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.

> > 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.
0
98
12/20/2009 3:00:28 PM
On 12/20/2009 10:00 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
> MEB wrote:
> 
>>> 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.

> 
>>> 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.

> 
>>> 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.

> 
> That's why Julien �LIE 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.

> 
>>> 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.

> 
> Explain why Microsoft's inaction is not relevant.

 Didn't occur, not relevant.

> 
>>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/20/2009 5:30:54 PM
MEB wrote:

> > 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.

> > 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.

On what date were these control messages originated by Microsoft?

Can you post an example of such a message?

> > That's why Julien �LIE 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?

> > 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.
0
98
12/20/2009 6:04:04 PM
On 12/20/2009 01:04 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
> MEB wrote:
> 
>>> 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.

> 
>>> 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.
> 
> 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.

> 
>>> That's why Julien �LIE 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.

> 
> Why would he perform a task that you claim has already been carried out?
> 
>>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/20/2009 6:35:19 PM
In message <uOmv992fKHA.2260@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, MEB 
<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
>>> 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.)
>
> 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 (-:.
[]
>>> 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.
>>
>>> 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.)
>>>
>>> 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.

>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.
>>
>>> 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)Ar@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?
0
J
12/20/2009 8:44:58 PM
In message <usteUpMgKHA.5020@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB 
<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
> 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"?
[]
>>> 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

>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.
>
> 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)Ar@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?
0
J
12/20/2009 8:52:59 PM
On 12/20/2009 03:52 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <usteUpMgKHA.5020@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
> []
>> 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"?
> []
>>>> 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
> 
>> 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.
>>
>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/20/2009 9:02:39 PM
In message <eN0r1cbgKHA.2164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB 
<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
> 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.
>
> 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)Ar@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?
0
J
12/20/2009 9:17:09 PM
On 12/20/2009 03:44 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <uOmv992fKHA.2260@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
> []
>>>> 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...

>>
>> 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.

> []
>>>> 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...

>>>
>>>> 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.

>>
>> 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.

>>>>
>>>> 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.
> 
>> 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.

>>>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/20/2009 9:18:55 PM
On 12/20/2009 04:17 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <eN0r1cbgKHA.2164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
> []
>> 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.
>>
>> 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 (-:

 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
___---
0
MEB
12/20/2009 9:30:51 PM
In message <udgH4lbgKHA.4872@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB 
<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
>>>>> USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the
[]
>>>> (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".)
[]
> 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!
>>>
>>> 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".
[]
>>>>> 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?

>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_.

>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.
[]
>>> Microsoft CAN control what it owns, and it does OWN the
>>> microsoft.public. hierarchy.

Within its own servers, certainly.
>>>
>> 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.
[]
>> (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?
[]
> 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)Ar@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?
0
J
12/21/2009 1:17:45 AM
On 12/20/2009 08:17 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <udgH4lbgKHA.4872@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
> []
>>>>>> USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the
> []
>>>>> (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".)
> []
>> 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!
>>>>
>>>> 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".
> []
>>>>>> 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?
> 
>> 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_.
> 
>> 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.
> []
>>>> Microsoft CAN control what it owns, and it does OWN the
>>>> microsoft.public. hierarchy.
> 
> Within its own servers, certainly.
>>>>
>>> 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.
> []
>>> (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?
> []
>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/26/2009 9:22:50 PM
In message <uumQ#EnhKHA.4200@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB 
<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
>> 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)Ar@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- )
0
J
12/28/2009 1:50:41 AM
On 12/27/2009 08:50 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <uumQ#EnhKHA.4200@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
> []
>>> 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
___---
0
MEB
12/28/2009 5:19:00 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Adobe Reader for Windows XP64?
Which version of Adobe Reader should I be using for Windows XP64? The Adobe site is not specific and there does not appear to be a viable way to ask. Thanks Bob AZ The 32-bit Adobe Reader version 9.3.0 will install and run on all x64 version of Windows. Also check out the information @ http://www.pretentiousname.com/adobe_pdf_x64_fix/index.html On 2010-02-08 17:21, Bob AZ wrote: > Which version of Adobe Reader should I be using for Windows XP64? > > The Adobe site is not specific and there does not appear to be a > viable way to ask. > > Thanks &...

Window Security (GP 7.5)
Hello, I would like to limit access to a specific window. I am trying to remove some user access from the Customer Maintenance Options window. This can be accessed using the Options button on the Customer Maintenance window. I cannot find this window listed in the Security Setup window as other windows are. Is it even possible to set access rights to this window? Thanks, -- Jessie Try using By Dictionary in Advanced Security. I don't know if the subwindow can be controlled but the By Dictionary option might give you the granularity you need. -- Charles Allen, MVP "J...

can i transfer money from Windows Millenium to new computer with V
can i transfer money from my old computer (windows millenium) to my new computer by just saving it onto a flash drive? "carol" <carol@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A261D644-7927-4FFC-B4AC-CE57615C0D6D@microsoft.com... > can i transfer money from my old computer (windows millenium) to my new > computer by just saving it onto a flash drive? Yes for the data file; no for the program. ...

Sharing tasks, group task list
I have a team of account people who assign tasks to a production team. I want to create a shared task list that I (and others) can assign tasks to my team that also updates me when progress on the tasks has been made (ex. marked complete). I know I can do this from my personal task list, but is there a way to have a shared task list where items can be assigned and will also be updated through exchange? Public folders maybe...? Using Outlook 2003 on exchange server. Thanks! Chris Set up a shared Mailbox and make Tasks there, Assign them to team members. In that Tasks folder, show t...

Interested in Microsoft CRM
My company is a Financial Services company that is interested in implementing MS CRM. This would initially be done for the Investment Advisory portion of our business and later implemented for the rest of the organization. Are there any MS CRM customers/clients in the Investment Advisory business that can comment on their deployment of MS CRM and there overall experience as far as usage of this solution? Also, can you comment on whether the solution was useful without customization or was there customization to the product. If there was customization, then how much (% amount) and wh...

Error message in windows mail 12-21-09
I just set up my account and the existing messages imported fine, but when I try to send mail I get the following error: Your server has unexpectedly terminated the connection. Possible causes for this include server problems, network problems, or a long period of inactivity. Subject 'new e-mail', Account: 'mail.td-wm.com', Server: 'mail.td-wm.com', Protocol: SMTP, Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No, Socket Error: 10053, Error Number: 0x800CCC0F Please help. Double check that all your account settings are correct. If they are, then e-mail scanning is a likely...

"Configuring Microsoft Office Basic 2007" every time I start
I added memory to my PC and Office 2003 started to misbehave (and it could not find a CAB file that was on the CD) so I removed it and upgraded to Office 2007. Now every time I start my PC it spends time configuring itself. I might add iTunes is the same. It means starting the PC is an even more laborious process than usual. Oh, and I have some annoying update to XML something or other that does not install either, and does not go away. It is ironic that the extra memory was to improve perforamnce. Every step forwards involves two steps back. Apart from swapping to App...

Will Publisher 97 work with later versions of windows?
just wondering if publisher 97 will work with later versions of windows such as XP or ME and suchlike? Jon Yes... -- Mary Sauer MS MVP http://dgl.microsoft.com/ http://mvps.org/msauer/ "belly483" <belly483@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:00a801c34c73$dd061820$a101280a@phx.gbl... > just wondering if publisher 97 will work with later > versions of windows such as XP or ME and suchlike? > > Jon Whilst attempting to develop brick-based storage technology, Ed reads a message from belly483 <belly483@hotmail.com> > just wondering if publisher 97 will wo...

Planning Lead time-Item Vendors Maintenance window
Previously used manufacturing and MRP in v9 and the Planning Lead time on the Item Vendors Maintenance window (bottom left corner), we used to enter 7 for the number of days in 1 week. MRP then suggested to place PO's using these 7 days as one week. Now when we enter 35 for example ( V9 calculated 5 weeks for placing the PO) Now since V10 it looks like it is calculating 7 weeks lead time (35 days divided by 5 days) Did something change with V10 on this field and how MRP uses it with the Request Resolution window? thanks! -- Doug The system now looks at calendars and can conside...

Closing Excel Spreadsheet in an Internet explorer window using VBA
Hi I have an excel spreadsheet that is being accessed over our company intranet. The excel document opens up in Internet Explorer. Does anybody know how to close the excel document using vba? I have tried the following and it has not worked - Application.Qui - ActiveWindow.Clos - ActiveWorkbook.Clos - Set appIE = CreateObject("InternetExplorer.Application" appIE.Qui Thanks ...

Outlook 98 e-mails not going to sent items.
This is a weird problem from my behalf, when i send an e-mial no matter to who, the e-mail does not go to the sent items folder. Can anyone help out, thank you. Marcel. ...

Setting up OWA with Windows Certificate
Hi everyone, I need to configure my OWA to make use of a certificate generated by a Windows 2003 server for an Exchnage 2003 server. I know how to do this using third party (Verisign) certs but I need to find a free solution. If you could point me to the correct documentation it would be very much appreciated. Many thanks, Jose One of your options would be to use your own Certificate Authority. You can install this from the Win2k3 Server CD. With that you can generate your own certificate just like verisign. -- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers...

Want Input boxes to accept unicode strings on Standard Windows XP
I have a MFC application that is currently built with MBCS mode. If I run the program on a Chinese OS (Windows XP), the input boxes (Edit Controls) can accept Chinese chars and display correctly. If I run it on a standard English XP, the input boxes won't accept Chinese chars (display as "????") -- please note that I have already installed CKJ on the system and IE and Outlook can display Chinese correctly. Is this just because of different MFC libraries used for the application? Can I force the application running on Standard XP to use the unicode libraries so ...

Excel 2000 running on Windows XP SP2 does not properly open CSV fi
The same file opened in using Excel 2000 running in Windows 2000 Pro open properly. The rows and columns are formatted properly. The same Excel 2000 opening the same CSV file but on Windows XP SP2 will not properly format the rows and columns. Hi check your regionals ettings in Windows ('Start - Control Panel') I'd suspect you have different column delimiters specified (comas versus semicolons for example) -- Regards Frank Kabel Frankfurt, Germany "Oscar" <Oscar@discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4985F8F5-5D33-425E-989C-65529CE63D05@mic...

98 to xp excel
ive been doing work on excel on 98 brought a new pc running xp when i put my floppy in and try to open its all jumbled up can anyone help? How did you open it? First, copy that file from the Floppy to the harddrive (using windows explorer). Then open, modify, save there. Then use windows explorer to copy back to the floppy (if required). (Working directly off removeable media is a bad thing.) Try opening excel, then file|open your file to see if that helps. And if it doesn't, go back to the old pc and get a fresh copy and test it out (from the harddrive). steve wrote: > >...

Windows Mail
I have recently got Windows Mail. I keep getting a message saying to create an association for the program I am trying to open, (Microsoft Powerpoint). Windows Vista. I can get into Set Associations, but dont know what to do after that. Help You really should have opened your own thread . . . . . Go to Start - Default Programs - Set Your Default Programs - see list of programs on left - select Windows Mail - on right, just below the "pane", you should see "This program has all its defaults". If not, select the second green arrow at bottom, "Choose d...

Sending out mass (group) fax
Does anyone know how to set up 2007 Windows XP Pro Version 5.1 Service Pack 3 Fax Console (set up already with the Microsoft Fax Setup Wizard that came with operating system) so that I can send the same fax to about 50 different fax numbers? I already have the letter typed in Word and have it Mail Merged with the list of names and fax numbers as instructed by the "How-to" Microsoft Office Online article to set up form letters, e-mails or faxes; however, Mail Merge seems to have no provision for faxing--only for printing. It has allowed me to insert each fax receiver&#...

Macro to open print window and set to print entire workbook
I need help getitng a macro created to open the print window, then se it to 'print the entire workbook'. Then the macro would stop. At whic the user would then specify additional specs for printing. I.E. # o pages, paper size etc. I am trying to default the 'print entire work book option' withou restricting the user from other print specs. I have a macro that will print once a button is clicked on th spreadsheet but it goes directly to print and does not let the user se other specs. I.E. # of pages, etc. Thanks in advanc -- retseor ---------------------------------------...

Windows 7 x64 msnmsgr.exe crash
When Windows Live Messenger starts up when I log in, I very often get an application crash. Details are: Source Windows Live Messenger Summary Stopped working Date ‎3/‎31/‎2010 19:53 Status Report sent Description Faulting Application Path: C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Live\Messenger\msnmsgr.exe Problem signature Problem Event Name: BEX Application Name: msnmsgr.exe Application Version: 14.0.8089.726 Application Timestamp: 4a6ce533 Fault Module Name: unknown Fault Module Version: 0.0.0.0 Fault Module Timestamp: 00000000 Exception Offset: 10100002 Exceptio...

Center Access2007 Form in the middle of access Main Window
Thank You Is there any easy way to center access 2007 forms in the middle of the screen (Monitor) or access main window. and give me good result Hello, I think there is no built in feature to achieve this goal. You may need to create a new form and configure it as the main window. You could enumerate forms and create buttons etc to open forms from this main form. For example, you could use hte following code enumerate forms in your database: Dim db As Database Set db = CurrentDb Set cntContainer = db.Containers("Forms") For Each doc In cntContainer.Documents Str...

Use of user's group with W2000
Two things: 1-If no MVP can answer a question, someone should tell the questioner so he/she can move on. Frustration is high enough without being ignored. 2-It is grossly unfair that I can't post questions because I have W2000 and am limited to Explorer6. I can't even get to this page. Microsoft should not squeeze us out of the loop. (I borrowed a friend's computer with XP and explorer7 to write this and to post my unaswered question.) ---------------- This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the suggestions with the most votes. To vote for th...

how can i set the outlook express when receive email, the will be stored as a group (like as the newsgroup)
Thanks. Try posting this in an Outlook Express news group - this is not one of them. Outlook is a part of Microsoft Office and is what this group supports. Outlook Express is a part of Internet Explorer and has its own news groups. You can also find some good Outlook Express information here: http://insideoe.tomsterdam.com -- Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook] Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. All unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without reading. After furious head scratching, Win asked: | Thanks. ...

Windows 7 slow LAN connectivity
It's really annoying that when you connect two computers to a WiFi AP and try to copy files between them it takes ages to copy anything and is slow beyond any reason. Even when I connected one of them via wire it's still terribly slow and even freezes from time to time. One of the PCs is XP the other runs 7 Ultimate. I already disabled that thing that checks for connection errors or something but still no joy. yaro yaro137 wrote: > It's really annoying that when you connect two computers to a WiFi > AP and try to copy files between them it takes ages to copy > a...

CRM 4 Advance Finds with Windows 7
I have for some time been using CRM4 with windows 7 (RC and RTM) and have found one problem. Just wondering if anyone else has seen this and found a resolution yet. When in an advance find it will hang when selecting a pick list. For example. Open advanced find, Select Activities and use saved view [new] In the details select ActivityStatus as the Field, select equals and then click the three dots to chose the values. Select any values then click OK. At this point the page still says 'enter value' and alot of the page can not be clicked on. This will always happen on a new adv...

microsoft home publishing
i tried to get to a home publishing site, no luck.....i have had this program since 2000, i tried to load it in a hp computer w/ windows xp, when it['s done and i try to open it tells me one or more parts are missing or broken and then i click on help and it says the wmf grafics filter is missing....is there a fix? how about a web site to down load this software? joanne wrote: > i tried to get to a home publishing site, no luck.....i > have had this program since 2000, i tried to load it in a > hp computer w/ windows xp, when it's done and i try to > open it tells me...