On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 02:14:01 -0400, HughElmwood wrote
(in article <trhh1894mbftu9to55er4flat0b34ubuof@4ax.com>):
>
>>
>> "HughElmwood" <nothing@nothing.com> wrote in message
>> news:4d0e18lko0olifoq41aaedhgd7h8omr7ln@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:17:49 -0400, DOOM. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30 Jul 2012 00:35:21 -0500, oldguard@groups.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 14:27:39 -0400, HughElmwood <nothing@nothing.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Time for another poster or two to pick up the torch as I am done. I
>>>>>> just received a nasty little terms of service violation warning from
>>>>>> my newgroup provider for posting copyrighted material. Now I'm sure I
>>>>>> could continue and maybe nothing would happen, but sadly the anonimity
>>>>>> ends with the billing and if someone really wanted to come after
>>>>>> someone they could. Supposedly, I was flagged by the copyright holder
>>>>>> for one post, but I tend to think one of the trolls in here was the
>>>>>> one who managed to ruin the fun for the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>> The trolls have always been the death of Usenet (see "Joe Blob" at
>>>>> the seniors/older women groups). But, in truth, Usenet is dead anyway.
>>>>> The vast majority of posts are from spammers and very few groups exist
>>>>> that are worth a look.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't blame you one bit for making this decision. What's the point,
>>>>> anymore? Remember Usenet 20 years ago? Nospam groups that actually
>>>>> were. That was the "good times". Now it's all pretty much a wasteland.
>>>>> I wonder how long the spammers and dickheads will continue on
>>>>> Usenet...after we are all gone?? That is the only redeeming factor for
>>>>> me...spammers and trolls posting to NOBODY! LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>> Be well, Buddy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not on vacation, wish it was bullshit, but alas it is not believe what
>>> you will I really don't care at this point. The facts are that I was
>>> notified by the newserver that I use to post (as all can see without
>>> too much trouble, Astraweb) that a complaint was received for one of
>>> the sets I posted. Now I'm pretty sure it wasn't the model or one of
>>> her representatives because, it was not the first time her stuff was
>>> posted here by a long shot. If I did think that I just wouldn't post
>>> her stuff and take my chances, but when other posts from the same
>>> Charm weren't flagged that went up a day or two prior, well it looks
>>> like it was someone here who was the rat. For anyone who has Astraweb,
>>> if you try to download Vanilla Cream #222, instead of the pics what
>>> you'll now get is a text message that states "Content removed due to
>>> DMCA."
>>> For anyone who gets their content from another server, the pics are
>>> probably still there untouched.
>>
>> Okay - there are lots of other news servers.... - I say we should all
>> pitch-in, and send Hugh some $$$ to switch providers...
>> ... say a years' subscription to Gigganews (or any other) - I know that I'd
>> pay for a month of it... only 12 of us could keep Hugh going for another
>> year...
>>
>> Hugh! - what's your address for sending bucks via Paypal???
>>
>>
> While a nice offer, I don't really think ill solve anything as I could
> try numerous servers to post from and still have the same problem.
> That is I don't think this DMCA report had anything to do with SC, but
> rather was some asshat that wants to wreck the group, as it seems
> Blueman was reported as well. Thus, no matter what server I decided to
> post from that party would probably decide to file a complaint and it
> is not worth the hassle.
this sounds like something joe blob would do. He just killed the high heels
groups and is bragging about his"power" to boot which does not exist.
joe blob is an anti porn activist that is on a mission to prevent seeing good
porn.
|
|