The End of m.p.s.v.

+1
--
This post was created using Opera@USB: http://www.opera-usb.com
Virus Removal Instructions
http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/home
Max's Favorite Freeware
http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/freeware
I'm Max Wachtel and I approve this message.

 

Max Wachtel didn't write:

Ironically, techarena and the various "banter.com" sites might be the
only place to keep carrying the microsoft.public groups.

If there is a single person to blame for many independent servers to
stop carrying microsoft.public groups, it's a worm known as Julien
ÉLIE. He can be found in news.admin.hierarchies, news.admin.misc,
microsoft.public.news.server, microsoft.public.msnewservers. He's going
to send out the check-group and rm-group messages - not Microsoft.

 

I totally agree. I know people who've banned whole domains like
groups.google.com or webtv.

 

For me, this is a step backwards - the same thing has just happened with
myIP/ISP - said the newsgroups were not popular, but that was because it was
so difficult to find the groups on their web site. If somebody didnt tell
you they existed you would not know. All help etc was directed to the
'forum'. A bit like MS not clearly indicating they had newsgroups - it was
only through help from an MVP that I found they existed. Also, there are
the normal probs with slow paging/time-outs etc due to a crxp web site.
The help now is almost non-existant - most of the IP/ISP techs seem to have
disappeared - 70% problems dont get answered - most of the non-IP/ISP
helpers are not in the forums either.
So if the MS newsgroups are going to disappear, then perhaps the only
difference will be that one's probs will get a reply from an MS Tech plus I
would hope, all the WVP and other good helpers.
Will we be using the current web based discussion groups or will the service
be new. If its the old, then god help us.

R.I.P Newsgroups.

 

You thought Microsoft's one NNTP server comprised the entire worldwide
mesh network of Usenet? Bwaahaahaahaa!!! Whether or not your NSP drops
the microsoft.* newsgroups is their choice, not Microsoft's. Microsoft
is leaving Usenet along with their pretend forums (aka "Communities")
that use a webnew-for-boobs gateway to Usenet because they don't have
any control over Usenet. They still don't.

Your NSP dropping the microsoft.* newsgroups will only be as an excuse
to reduce bandwidth and disk consumption, not because they have to.
Some NSPs have already used this excuse (which means you probably want
to find a different NSP, anyway). Giganews has stated that they will
not be dropping those newsgroups, and Google Groups won't drop them,
either. There are other free NSPs besides Microsoft to visit the
microsoft.* newsgroups (I'm using one right now for this reply).

I asked my NSP as to their intentions regarding the microsoft.*
newsgroups. Below is a snippet of their response:

----------
[Me] Does Albasani have any plans on removing or discontinuing carrying
of the microsoft.public.* newsgroups?

[Them] No. I have disabled processing of Julien Élie's control messages
and intend to treat microsoft.* similar to alt.* and free.*.
----------

I have seen mention in other newsgroups regarding Julien's 'rmgroup'
control messages. Whether an NSP honors control messages has always
been their own choice, not Microsoft's.

<snipped the *spam* signature>

 

What does Microsoft's closure have to do with Usenet {use net}?

See TOU [note that this part posted here is allowed specifically
elsewhere in Microsoft's materials AND by following that and applicable
Law]:

http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Copyright/Default.aspx

"ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS.

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES.

PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION.
"Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and
non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit,
display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works
from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services
obtained from the Services.""

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

 

That many posters have alluded or outright claimed that the microsoft.*
newsgroups must disappear simply because Microsoft chooses to kill their
own particular NNTP server.

All of which deal with *Microsoft's* services. Microsoft doesn't own
Usenet nor the services of all other NSPs. It is not a copyright or
trademark infringment to use Microsoft's company name or their product
names as titles for books, news articles, or even for newsgroup names.
No ones needs Microsoft's permission to talk about Microsoft.

 

No, and entirely baseless as an argument.
The Notice and everything else applying to usage, deals with and
defines the public's ability to use any of Microsoft's property. These
groups, the hierarchy, and presentation are Microsoft's property.
Usenet has no authority or right to them; you, personally, have ONLY
those usage rights as Microsoft has defined; no one has any right to
them EXCEPT as has been defined by Microsoft. That is the Law.

What part of *Intellectual Property* and *Copyright*, and *Terms of
Use* are you having difficulty with...any usage outside of the defined
constraints is (a) civil and/or criminal violation of the Laws, unless
otherwise authorized BY Microsoft. Microsoft has no documents which
indicate any external usage or ability to use this particular property
in any other fashion.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

 

Let me make that a bit clearer, the "rights" are actually defined
*allowances*, any other usage is NOT allowed.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

 

Been only a short time since Microsoft let you out of their special
training cave. The newsgroups are NOT Microsoft's property. If
anything, the property remains that of the authors who submitted the
posts and none of those came from Microsoft. Sorry, but Microsoft
doesn't get to claim the content of those newsgroups is their property
on resources owned by others, including myself for my copies of those
posts.

Perhaps YOU should go back and read that article. It only refers to
resources owned by Microsoft and referred to as the "services". You can
try to scare all the noobs all you want with your claim of expertise as
a lawyer. No one believes you. Good by wannabe Microsoft lawyer.

 

WRONG, you can spread your garbage and find those who will likely fall
into your trap. However, what you spread is pure trash... and smells up
the entire world... and will likely find those who believe you *outside*
of Law.

Now YOU read the article again... *ALL of it*, including what materials
are supplied by others and that effect. READ the TOU for the new forums,
and read all the other applicable.

*You* are a wannabe intelligent person, you have a long way to go, in
fact, you may never be one.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

 

Sorry, you're wrong.

MS only owns the groups that reside on MS's own hardware/network, all
others (as in every other server that contains them) are the property
and domain of the company that runs that usenet server.

 

MS does not "Own" or "Control" anything that is on other vendors,
companies servers, they can only control what is on their servers.

Yes, MS does own/control what is on THEIR OWN SERVERS, but, MS can not
order other vendors/companies to discontinue hosting MS groups.

 

Sorry your entirely wrong. Since any other "vendors", "companies" or
other, even individual users are BOUND by Microsoft's allowance of
usage, any other usage is illegal.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

 

From: "MEB" <>



| Sorry your entirely wrong. Since any other "vendors", "companies" or
| other, even individual users are BOUND by Microsoft's allowance of
| usage, any other usage is illegal.

No, not true at all!

Take the Adobe.* hierarchy. Adobe did they same thing to Usenet more thn a year ago.
First Adobe made it a unidirectional feed to Usenet. Then in 2009 they cut all ties to
Usenet. Yet, the Adobe.* Usenet hierachy lives on.

 

Not a good argument.
What Adobe did has no relevance to what Microsoft does and has done,
which includes the legal notice to close these groups. THAT and
Microsoft's documents and applicable Law are what control this/these
issues, and the Law and Microsoft say close the groups Microsoft OWNS.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

 

These two documents were posted to misc.legal.moderated. The
moderator(s) or other party is apparently bent upon deliberately
continuing public deception and has not posted the further response by
me [at least not yet]; these two supply the answers you apparently
ignorant people need.
Note this presentation here is also legally covered under my own site's
Notice, which is attached and directed to in every posting done in and
by me in this entity when discussing matters of potential or real
import, just as it has been included here.

Reproduced in relevant part from peoplescounsel.org under MY authority
as found in the *LEGAL AND LAWFUL NOTICES* [copyright applies]:

" *NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT*
*NOTICE:* Any and or all parties, organizations, entities, or otherwise,
grant right to publish without confinement and or further restraint any
and or all: responses, e-mails, proceedings, documents and other which
they might submit and or create and or author, concerning materials on
this site; and or, to or of the author of this site; and or, to or of
the ISP of this site; and or, to or of the parties mentioned upon the
documents contained within this site; and or, to or of the individuals
and or agents mentioned upon this page or elsewhere upon this site and
or web and its inclusions.""

You should note, of course, that all the usual worthless, baseless, and
merit-less "arguments" have been raised and answered ALREADY; the
Microsoft documents have been linked and/or posted; and other factors
have already been discussed; as has, not uniquely, also occurred in this
group previously. IOW, the same worthless arguments which refuse to
recognized the applicable Law, contract obligation and control, personal
liability, and other controlling factors and elements.


"
article
or set

Microsoft has already done that for the world in its TOS, TOU, other
documentation and legal resource references readily available to all and
to which I directed you [by linked materials] and everyone else to, so
have the U.S. courts, U.S. government and State government. So you
attempt to "claim" ignorance, too bad, as you are well aware "ignorance
of the Law is no excuse". Refusing to abide by it is illegal.
USING Microsoft's property directly or indirectly WITHOUT written
direct authorization has placed all parties under direct violation of
the applicable Laws.
You want to argue the applicability to YOU, then there are the courts.
Good luck and take ALL your money and assets with you.
Right now, you are in direct violation of numerous Laws.
Because you have no right to it.
And thereby, so are you bound BY LAW if you use Microsoft's hierarchy
WITHIN your server [which is YOUR supposed argument point]. You have no
right to it. It is essentially stolen property. Its not yours and never was.

Microsoft, as you do [if not you better get a legal eagle to write one
for you] has a TOU and TOS, and several other controlling aspects and
documents which BIND all parties regardless, mere usage brings those
forward. You didn't read them, so what, you were required to do so. Yes,
you had better have read the TOU, EULA, and ALL other applicable
attached to your Microsoft OS and products as well. You are bound SO
TIGHTLY to and under Law, its a wonder you can breath.

So your [and those without a clue here and elsewhere] ENTIRE purported
legal argument is that you received these and sent these via some other
party and that absolves you of all responsibility for that use, removes
all binding Laws, provides shelter EVEN though you know there are
property right, copyright, and other applicable on EVERYTHING, but not
when in *your* server.
That is the dumbest argument you can possibly raise and you are well
aware of it. If not then you are dumb as a box of rocks or have been
living in a "bubble" somewhere, you might want to look at the "real
world". But guess what, that does NOT relieve you from your illegal
activities. Not here in the U.S.A. or abroad.


** Now I will include the sent responses to the other ludicrous crap,
rejected by the clueless moderator(s).
TO the moderator(s): Hey, *There was NO worthwhile materials to quote
nor worthy of argument.* Why would I quote or include any of that trash.
And you MIGHT look at what I DID quote. Would you like me to make an
issue of this against this group, the moderators AND Robert... I would
have no problem doing so, if that's where you want to go with it. I'll
remind you this IS a moderated group, and SUPPOSEDLY deals with legal
activities and aspects.


they
may end upGuess what, so was I, all of your spouting of your "history" means
nothing to me, because I was there and involved.

Now, regardless of what you have said and would LOVE to claim, "you
have no Laws or other which control you", you do.

So I would say that whatever YOU post or have available, should be
treated as clearly uninformed, baseless, and lacking in any needed
intellect that is required in circumstances as this.

ROTFLMAO

Now had you actually paid attention to the two Bush era Supreme Court
placements on something such as CSpan you would have found the relevance
of the site's materials and their impact. You might also want to
actually look at some of the response/impact in various courts,
congress, and elsewhere.

What can you indicate other than your failure to actually understand
all elements needed for a proper discourse of the actual controlling
facts and factors necessary to the discussions materials and parties
engaged in these activities. This purported response by you certainly
has nothing of actual value.

--MEB

 

They can do what they will with their own servers. Once they peered with
usenet at large, they lost any hopes of controlling content usage.
Usenet being 'in the cloud' as it were, and the way things are stored
and propagated. They can control their "web access to newsgroups"
thingy, but not the groups themselves. Microsoft's IIS NNTP service and
the microsoft groups are not the same thing as usenet.

....and it's "you're" not "your"... Mr. wordsmith.

 

It's a good thing he doesn't teach English, eh? p <BEG>

 

[...]

Usenet is not a site, and its content is not Microsoft's property.