Re: Turn any trip into a diving vacation!!

"Reef Fish" <ElPezNeuvo@aol.com> wrote in message

Dena *did* post over at rec.travel.cruises. She posted on Sept. 24 at 3:57
and had apologized by 7:32 pm.

Where's our apology? We didn't get an apology, only attitude. (wg)

I would have originally apologized if I had first not been rudely
attacked and would not have posted a message here again.

Many of the messages posted here by my attackers are also in serious
violation of the rules of this group as well as Google:

"USENET/Internet Chat
Users may not SPAM newsgroups or chat rooms and MUST COMPLY with the
written charters, FAQs, RULES, or terms of service for those forums the

user chooses to participate. The user is responsible for determining
the
policies of a given group/room before posting to it."

Profanity and personal attacks on people are not allowed as well as
some of the other nasty things that have been said about me on this
board. Many of the things stated and words used against me are much
worse then any message I originally posted. They to can get you in
trouble with your ISP as well as others.

I had not further posted on this board but only replied to a private
message that was e mailed to me by HH. However he displayed his true
colors and saw fit to post my private response to his message on this
board.

Like a stated I had and have no further intention of posting on this
board. If you wish to continue to slander me and defame my business
then so be it and I will respond accordingly. I too can track names
and IP addresses.

"International Woman" <dena@thecruiseplanner.com> wrote in message
news:1128378310.555330.107730@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

>I would have originally apologized if I had first not been rudely
> attacked and would not have posted a message here again.

You just keep asking for it, dontcha?

> Many of the messages posted here by my attackers are also in serious
> violation of the rules of this group as well as Google:

Google? What does Google have to do with my posts? You're losing it.

> Profanity and personal attacks on people are not allowed as well as
> some of the other nasty things that have been said about me on this
> board. Many of the things stated and words used against me are much
> worse then any message I originally posted. They to can get you in
> trouble with your ISP as well as others.

The charter says nothing about profanity and saying nasty things. It does
forbid commercial advertisements. Supernews forbids "exceeding the download
limit on your account, spamming, newsgroup flooding, and unauthorized
posting of copyrighted material." Again, nothing about profanity or nasty
things. For my ISP, "Services provided by QNET may not be used for any
illegal purposes. User shall not transmit any threatening materials.
Materials protected by copyright may not be uploaded or reproduced in any
way without express prior permission from the copyright owner. User may not
use the account for advertising or promotion of commercial products or
services without permission from QNET. All mass mailings such as
distribution lists must first be approved by QNET." Again, not a word about
profanity and nasty things.

Once again, Dena, you illustrate your idiocy and the main reason why no one
in his or her right mind should do business with you. If you can't even
figure out TOS, how are you supposed to interpret fine print on travel
documents?

> Like a stated I had and have no further intention of posting on this
> board. If you wish to continue to slander me and defame my business
> then so be it and I will respond accordingly. I too can track names
> and IP addresses.

Slander [sic] you and your business? Truth is always a defense in
defamation cases. If you're truly stupid and a spammer, it's not libel to
call you a stupid spammer. Besides, I doubt you're smart enough to track my
name.

"Generally, a "SLAPP" is a (1) civil complaint or counterclaim; (2) filed
against individuals or organizations; (3) arising from their communications
to government or speech on an issue of public interest or concern. SLAPPs
are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, government
officials and others against individuals and community groups who oppose
them on issues of public concern. SLAPP filers frequently use lawsuits based
on ordinary civil claims such as defamation, conspiracy, malicious
prosecution, nuisance, interference with contract and/or economic advantage,
as a means of transforming public debate into lawsuits.

"Most SLAPPs are ultimately legally unsuccessful. While most SLAPPs lose in
court, they "succeed" in the public arena. This is because defending a
SLAPP, even when the legal defense is strong, requires a substantial
investment of money, time, and resources. The resulting effect is a "chill"
on public participation in, and open debate on, important public issues.
This "chilling" effect is not limited to the SLAPP target(s): fearful of
being the target of future litigation, others refrain from speaking on, or
participating in, issues of public concern."

"In California, a new law to protect people from SLAPPs, Code of Civil
Procedure section 425.16, took effect in 1993. The law allows a judge to
decide at the outset of the suit whether the SLAPP has a "probability" of
winning. If the judge finds that it does not, the SLAPP must be dismissed,
and the SLAPP target wins his or her legal defense costs and attorneys'
fees. "The expressive activity which is protected under the new California
law is broad. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 states that activity
which is protected under the law includes: any written or oral statement or
writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any
other official proceeding authorized by law; any written or oral statement
or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by
a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding
authorized by law; or any written or oral statement or writing made in a
place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of
public interest."

See the last part Dena? "Respond accordingly." Go ahead and make my day.
I'll SLAPP you silly. If you can't afford legitimate advertising, how the
hell are you going to pay my attorneys' fees? And since the bankruptcy laws
are changing effective 10/5/05, you won't be able to hide.

"International Woman" <dena@thecruiseplanner.com> wrote in message
news:1128378310.555330.107730@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> I would have originally apologized if I had first not been rudely
> attacked and would not have posted a message here again.

Dena, Dena, Dena . . .shaking my head . . .

>
> Many of the messages posted here by my attackers are also in serious
> violation of the rules of this group as well as Google:
>
> "USENET/Internet Chat
> Users may not SPAM newsgroups or chat rooms and MUST COMPLY with the
> written charters, FAQs, RULES, or terms of service for those forums the
>
> user chooses to participate. The user is responsible for determining
> the
> policies of a given group/room before posting to it."

Dena, read the last sentence aloud please. Now think about it. Did you, as
"the User" determine the policies of a given group/room before posting to
it? No, you did not. Further, you had already learned at
rec.travel.cruises that you were doing the wrong thing and had apologised
for it before anyone here even responded to you.

>
> Profanity and personal attacks on people are not allowed as well as
> some of the other nasty things that have been said about me on this
> board. Many of the things stated and words used against me are much
> worse then any message I originally posted. They to can get you in
> trouble with your ISP as well as others.

Then you were alternately teased and warned about your spamming ways here at
rec.scuba.locations, but you still didn't get it. You still didn't realize
that all you needed to do was apologize and mend your ways or disappear
immediately.

> I had not further posted on this board but only replied to a private
> message that was e mailed to me by HH. However he displayed his true
> colors and saw fit to post my private response to his message on this
> board.

That's interesting. Why don't you return the favor by posting his email to
you. If HH solicited your email, then he is misrepresenting here and that's
not fair to you either.

> Like a stated I had and have no further intention of posting on this
> board. If you wish to continue to slander me and defame my business
> then so be it and I will respond accordingly. I too can track names
> and IP addresses.

No one is slandering you or defaming your business, that I've noticed.
You've done most of the damage to yourself. We have each been trying to tell
you somethings that you seem a bit too thick to understand. This last post
of yours just goes further to prove our position.

You may not like how we say it, but the fact remains, you are the one that
did wrong. You are the one that has potentially hurt your business by your
conduct here.

With regard to reporting to your employers and/or ISP's, etc., I have
already said it in this thread but I will say again, I think that was the
wrong thing to do at this stage.

Dena, the internet can be a good tool, but it can also be dangerous. You
should do more research before you get yourself into any more trouble or
cause yourself anymore stress. *And* if you are going to be in business,
you need to toughen up and learn what to let slide off your back.
Responding here the way you have to those posts that you didn't like, has
done nothing but make you look bad. If you'd handled the whole matter with
apology and humor, you'd have made the rest look bad instead.

POSTED AND CC'ed to Dena


Dena "International Woman" <dena@thecruiseplanner.com> wrote:

> I would have originally apologized if I had first not been rudely
> attacked and would not have posted a message here again.


Yet another fictionalized claim from Dena.

People were on to you from the start, Dena: IIRC, the very first
response was from Dillon, who asked you if you were going to Spam all of
the newsgroups.



> Many of the messages posted here by my attackers are also in serious
> violation of the rules of this group as well as Google:

Perhaps they are, but:

(A) These other people are not your responsibility.

and:


> "USENET/Internet Chat
> Users may not SPAM newsgroups or chat rooms and MUST COMPLY with the
> written charters, FAQs, RULES, or terms of service for those forums the
> user chooses to participate. The user is responsible for determining
> the policies of a given group/room before posting to it."


(B): The AUP quoted above is from *YOUR* ISP. Your ISP's rules apply
to your ISP's customers. For those of us who don't use that ISP, it is
simply not applicable.


What does apply to all of us here collectively is the Charter:


CHARTER: rec.scuba.locations
The purpose of this group will be to exchange information
(preferably first-hand) about dive sites, dive locations
(including live-aboards), dive operations at these locations,
how to get yourself and your gear there, and where to stay/
eat/play once you do. Commercial advertisements are not
appropriate.



> Profanity and personal attacks on people are not allowed...

Nowhere in the above Charter does it prohibit profanity.

Nowhere in the above Charter does it prohibit personal attacks.

Nowhere in the above Charter does it prohibit simply being rude.



> ... as well as some of the other nasty things that have
> been said about me on this board.
> Many of the things stated and words used against me are much
> worse then any message I originally posted. They to can get you in
> trouble with your ISP as well as others.


Sorry, but you, Dena, lack the credentials to make any such a value
judgement claim on what is "better" or "worse" within <r.s.l>:

You clearly haven't bothered to read the FAQ, Charter, Emily Postnews or
many other sources of advice on how to participate in USENET, for
otherwise you would realized that the social customs and rules are
community-specific, and by lurking (as is invariably recommended), you
would have figured this out.


In essence, all you're trying to do is to mimic the strategy of the
Kidnapper who tries to obtain leniency by pointing at the Murderer next
to them as being "worse". However, that approach often backfires.



> I had not further posted on this board but only replied to a private
> message that was e mailed to me by HH. However he displayed his true
> colors and saw fit to post my private response to his message on this
> board.


Yes, it is generally in bad taste to post private email. There are
exceptions, though, and "I would have originally apologized if I had
first not been rudely attacked" is a more than adequate excuse for you.

Note: I reserve the right to reproduce for public disclosure all email
ever sent to me; sender's use of my email address connotes consent.

If you have anything else to say to me, I recommend that you say it
directly by posting on the <r.s.l> USENET group.


> Like a stated I had and have no further intention of posting on this
> board. If you wish to continue to slander me and defame my business
> then so be it and I will respond accordingly. I too can track names
> and IP addresses.


Any damage that may have been done was of your own making, Dena.

Just remember that you came here looking for customers...and that
regardless of what you think, the customer is always right.


-hh

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:11k3d371uoa3ic6@corp.supernews.com...
> "International Woman" <dena@thecruiseplanner.com> wrote in message
> news:1128378310.555330.107730@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

>> Many of the messages posted here by my attackers are also in serious
>> violation of the rules of this group as well as Google:
>
> Google? What does Google have to do with my posts? You're losing it.

I don't know what Google has to do with anything either, but the premise of
her comment is well founded. The "rules" as they exist for this group say
that in order to keep the "heat" of the group down one should report the
spammer to the offending party's postmaster.

It's pretty clear that ignoring it or mailing their info to their Postmaster
are the two methods of dealing with spam that the Charter/FAQ indicate.

Given those conditions, there exists no difference between your harping and
her spamming ---- regardless that harping is more effective than reporting.

>> Profanity and personal attacks on people are not allowed as well as
>> some of the other nasty things that have been said about me on this
>> board. Many of the things stated and words used against me are much
>> worse then any message I originally posted. They to can get you in
>> trouble with your ISP as well as others.
>
> The charter says nothing about profanity and saying nasty things. It does
> forbid commercial advertisements.

No it doesn't. "not appropriate" does not translate to "forbid"-----not even
by the greatest stretch of a law-hack's imagination.

And anything deemed "not appropriate" (if one could consider your ending
argument relevant to the Charter/FAQ defense) would be protected by your own
cite: "any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the
public"

> Supernews forbids "exceeding the download limit on your account, spamming,
> newsgroup flooding, and unauthorized posting of copyrighted material."
> Again, nothing about profanity or nasty things.

The last available Charter/FAQ reference for this newsgroup is
"news.announce.newusers", not the Supernews FAQ, so regardless of what they
allow, the point of gravity for this discussion is the Charter/FAQ cite and
if you drill down through the available articles and websites you'll find
that profanity is disallowed, as is using the newsgroup itself to challenge
spammers.

It's rather clear the primary intent of the Charter/FAQ is to keep "heat"
down and "light" up. You, handsome brother, wallow in the "heat".

"W.E. O'Neil" <we_o@anesthesiaop.net> wrote in message
news:J_x0f.19$FD5.451@news.uswest.net...
>
(snip)> It's rather clear the primary intent of the Charter/FAQ is to keep
"heat"
> down and "light" up. You, handsome brother, wallow in the "heat".

And now you've just done the same. ;^)

"W.E. O'Neil" wrote

> I don't know what Google has to do with anything either, but the premise
> of
> her comment is well founded. The "rules" as they exist for this group say
> that in order to keep the "heat" of the group down one should report the
> spammer to the offending party's postmaster.

So? That was done.

> It's pretty clear that ignoring it or mailing their info to their
> Postmaster
> are the two methods of dealing with spam that the Charter/FAQ indicate.

You're making this up as you go, right? The fact that a report to the
spammer's ISP is recommended does not, in any way limit one to that single
act, particularly when the spammer comes back and tried to defend what is
indefensible.

> Given those conditions, there exists no difference between your harping
> and
> her spamming ---- regardless that harping is more effective than
> reporting.

There exists no difference between your statement and BS. I deleted it.

"chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> wrote in message
news:eiy0f.80137$oW2.78335@pd7tw1no...
>
> "W.E. O'Neil" <we_o@anesthesiaop.net> wrote in message
> news:J_x0f.19$FD5.451@news.uswest.net...
>>
> (snip)> It's rather clear the primary intent of the Charter/FAQ is to keep
> "heat"
>> down and "light" up. You, handsome brother, wallow in the "heat".
>
> And now you've just done the same. ;^)

That depends on whether or not Handsome Brother is offended. But, in any
case, I believe I already stated that I don't care about such things by
other people and therefore you may "connote" I am unconcerned about doing
it myself.

Remember, I wasn't trying to police this issue, but rather simply lending
context to Dena and Greg's liaison.

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:cyy0f.8031$vw6.2995@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> "W.E. O'Neil" wrote
>
>> I don't know what Google has to do with anything either, but the premise
>> of
>> her comment is well founded. The "rules" as they exist for this group say
>> that in order to keep the "heat" of the group down one should report the
>> spammer to the offending party's postmaster.
>
> So? That was done.
>
>> It's pretty clear that ignoring it or mailing their info to their
>> Postmaster
>> are the two methods of dealing with spam that the Charter/FAQ indicate.
>
> You're making this up as you go, right? The fact that a report to the
> spammer's ISP is recommended does not, in any way limit one to that single
> act, particularly when the spammer comes back and tried to defend what is
> indefensible.

This is an amazing display of arrogance fuled by ignorance.

>> Given those conditions, there exists no difference between your harping
>> and
>> her spamming ---- regardless that harping is more effective than
>> reporting.
>
> There exists no difference between your statement and BS. I deleted it.

Using this post as a reference, I doubt you could find the difference
between the sun and moon.