Google's reply to my complaint

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:07:50 -0800, William Graham wrote:


"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:VIiRd.95309$0u.71575@fed1read04...

"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news
Got to wonder about this company's ethics.

Read this:

Original message:

Thank you for your note. While we are sympathetic to your request, we are
not able to help in this instance. Google is a provider of information,
not a mediator. We make no claims about the content of the more than 1
billion posts in our archive. We suggest addressing your concern directly
to the author of the post in question. For more information, please see
our Terms of Use at
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/t...f_service.html

We are not equipped to assess the truth or falsity of statements posted
to
our site by third parties. Instead, such determinations must be made by a
court of law or other government entity. Accordingly, it is our policy,
consistent with United States federal law (Section 230(c) of the
Communications Decency Act), not to remove postings that are alleged to
be
defamatory. If you choose to pursue legal action against this author, we
are prepared to abide by any orders involving the postings in question.

Regards,
The Google Team


When the law isn't enforced by legal authority and/or private sector
entities with legal power and ability to do so, it is reasonable to
contemplate acting as one's own "protective authority" and take serious,
direct measures against offenders. If ever there was reasonable cause for
vigilante justice, this looks like it.

Google is no more than a recorder of the scene, just as the telephone
company is no more than a transmitter of information. To sue Google over
something that they record is the same as suing the telephone company over
something that was said over one of their telephone lines. People have to be
responsible for themselves and their own actions. They cannot expect either
the government and/or service companies to take that responsibility. It is
unfortunate that there are people who push the edge of compatibility, and
make life hard for the rest of us, but I have had to live with that my
entire life, and I have long since given up on anyone in authority making
life any easier for me. In each instance, I have had to decide what to do,
and what actions to take on my own, without any help from anyone else. I
have long since learned to stop gnashing my teeth over things that I cannot
do anything about.

Google are responsible for allowing the perpetrators of this crimen
injuria to continue their activities using Googles systems without fear of
repurcussion. That's not fair play in my book.

--
My real name is not Roxy d'Urban. I have been forced to conceal my
identity because a company called Google allowed a person to use their
usenet access to slander me without repercussion. Google doesn't care
about my rights or my dignity. Do you think they deserve your support?

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:25:36 -0800, george_corinne wrote:



Roxy d'Urban wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 01:39:04 -0800, Mark² wrote:


"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news Got to wonder about this company's ethics.

=========
For more information, please see
our Terms of Use at
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/t...f_service.html

We are not equipped to assess the truth or falsity of statements
posted to
our site by third parties. Instead, such determinations must be
made by a
court of law or other government entity. Accordingly, it is our
policy,

consistent with United States federal law (Section 230(c) of the
Communications Decency Act), not to remove postings that are
alleged to be
defamatory. If you choose to pursue legal action against this
author, we
are prepared to abide by any orders involving the postings in
question.

Regards,
The Google Team
==============================

(1) When the law isn't enforced by legal authority and/or private
sector entities with legal
power and ability to do so, it is reasonable to contemplate acting
as one's own
"protective authority" and take serious, direct measures against
offenders. If ever there
was reasonable cause for vigilante justice, this looks like it.
================
You've got "The Key" to this issue, i.e. "The Rule of Law",
and...Google's Own Policies, BUT...NEITHER ARE BING ENFORCED.
----

(2) Somebody mentioned something about a usenet "death penalty" for
Google.

I am very interested in pursuing this route and would appreciate any
advice on how to go about lobbying to get this done.
-----
O.K. let's talk.

(3) That somebody is permitted to use the Google groups service to
propagate slander, hate speech or whatever they bloody well feel like
without repurcussion is just not on.
-----
OK. Let's talk.

(4) I am prepared to throw as much effort as I can against Google in
this regard and I am prepared to financially assist anyone prepared to
take
this to the next level legally.
---
O.K. and I hope you mean "effort"...I am not interested in the money.
--
==================
For some background first:

(A) I only came to this group because I saw all the posts that Steve
Young made on News.groups..There were 400 posts and by the time I was
able to read all of them (2 days) the discussion was stopped and a
known "Usenet Flamer" who I call..Usenet Gangs, asked Steve to go to
another group to discuss this further.

Steve then back-downed and actually was saying some things both on the
400-thread and the other group, that indicated that he felt "Some"
flaming etc. was just the work of some people "having fun". Several of
the News.group Moderators immediately picked up on this and all of
Steve's arguments were dead and he was ridiculed and demeaned by them.

(B) The FACT IS: if you go to news.group and get the posts made by
these so-called "Usenet Moderators" and click on to the "Get other
Messages from this author", (if your reader can do this...or just do a
Google search on them, you will find that "THEY ARE ALSO USENET
FLAMERS", consequently, these so-called "Professional Usenet
Moderators"..DO NOT WANT AND WILL NOT... IMPROVE USENET, BECAUSE THEY
ARE "THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH USENET".

(C) I, like thousands of others on Usenet, became a "victim" of these
Usenet Gangs and my computer was hacked and now broken. I had an old
webtv which I set up and am currently using; I also don't think that it
can be destroyed since webtv doesn't work by using a computer with a
hard drive...Also there is No ISP, other then the home base for Webtv,
so the "gig" would be up if the hackers tried to get to me through MSN
(Microsoft Network) which is suing hackers all over the place.

(D) I am a retired criminal investigator/paralegal and I have been
working on "THIS ISSUE" for the past 4 months.

I am offering my assistance to you, free of charge and with no strings
other than, when I am ready I will be asking You, Roxy, to provide the
information that will be necessary for you to collect, so I can add it
to what I have been collecting.

This information will then be used to "PROVE OUR CASE" of "Malicious
Harassment and abuse", etc. I don't know what you or your group has
gone through, but I have collected information from other posters and
groups that proves these Usenet Gangs are very well organized and in
fact, have been doing this for the past 20 years.. In Legal language,
this is called a "Pattern of Conduct", i.e. this conduct is
"Intentional" and not merely some kids "playing around". This
"Intention", forms the basis of the elements required to take "Legal
Action".

So here is the plan Roxy. I need you to e-mail me at
legalhelp20 at webtv.net. Tell me what took place that caused you to
file a complaint, in fact, send me a copy of your complaint and the
Response. (I already made a copy of what you posted here, but I would
like to a clean copy and with Google's headers, for evidence.)

Upon receipt of this e-mail I will send you some of the information
(legal) I have already collected and suggestions on what you can do to
help.

I will also provide you more information about myself to prove to you
"Who I am and What I have been doing". This will be my one and only
contact with you on the internet.
LH

I will mail you sometime during the course of the day. Please bear in mind
that I am posting to you from South Africa, but I am prepared to do
whatever I can to assist in your investigation.

Just out of interest, on Friday I received a letter from a large local
bank in SA, advising me that my debit card, linked to my personal cheque
account, is ready for collection. I was quite astounded to hear this
because firstly I don't bank with said bank, and secondly, I don't have a
personal cheque account. I also seem to be having a great deal of
difficulty establishing an internet connection from home these days.

Co-incidence?

--
?

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:f2vRd.95354$0u.90419@fed1read04...

"William Graham" wrote in message
...

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:VIiRd.95309$0u.71575@fed1read04...

"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news Got to wonder about this company's ethics.

Read this:

Original message:

Thank you for your note. While we are sympathetic to your request, we
are
not able to help in this instance. Google is a provider of
information,
not a mediator. We make no claims about the content of the more than 1
billion posts in our archive. We suggest addressing your concern
directly
to the author of the post in question. For more information, please
see
our Terms of Use at
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/t...f_service.html

We are not equipped to assess the truth or falsity of statements
posted to
our site by third parties. Instead, such determinations must be made
by a
court of law or other government entity. Accordingly, it is our
policy,
consistent with United States federal law (Section 230(c) of the
Communications Decency Act), not to remove postings that are alleged
to be
defamatory. If you choose to pursue legal action against this author,
we
are prepared to abide by any orders involving the postings in
question.

Regards,
The Google Team


When the law isn't enforced by legal authority and/or private sector
entities with
legal power and ability to do so, it is reasonable to contemplate
acting as one's own
"protective authority" and take serious, direct measures against
offenders. If ever
there was reasonable cause for vigilante justice, this looks like it.

Google is no more than a recorder of the scene, just as the telephone
company is no more
than a transmitter of information. To sue Google over something that
they record is the
same as suing the telephone company over something that was said over
one of their
telephone lines. People have to be responsible for themselves and their
own actions.
They cannot expect either the government and/or service companies to
take that
responsibility. It is unfortunate that there are people who push the
edge of
compatibility, and make life hard for the rest of us, but I have had to
live with that
my entire life, and I have long since given up on anyone in authority
making life any
easier for me. In each instance, I have had to decide what to do, and
what actions to
take on my own, without any help from anyone else. I have long since
learned to stop
gnashing my teeth over things that I cannot do anything about.

When Google becomes a source for continual defamation (via ever-present
search hits from
one's name which yield libel and slander), they become a conscious enabler
of active crime
which extends into the future. Google is unique in the sense that it is a
recorder/publisher of sorts, with the difference being that it is
"re-published"
constantly. It is actively re-distributed with the effect being the
continual crime of
defamation, libel, and slander. When criminal statements are continually
distributed
directly as a result of your company's policies, then the company becomes
a part of the
activity...and a part of on-going libel/slander. These activities can
create real damages
to real people. This is not needless "gnashing of teeth." It is a
recognition that one
compmany--above all others--is facilitating known, present, and on-going
criminal
activity.

I am not saying that present-day law is on my side here, because it
doesn't seem to be.
What I AM saying is that law needs to be brought into the 21st century.
This means some
accomodations in the law must be made in order to address the new tools of
crime.


Wow do you have a poor grasp of the law.

Defamation is not a "crime." It is merely a civil wrong that may (but need
not) be redressed through the courts. Reprinting defamatory statements,
i.e., accurately publishing the statements of others, as statements of
others, is neither defamatory or libelous. It isn't slander because, to be
slander, a statement must be made orally. Of course, Google could, if they
wanted, refuse to post any statements that you don't like, but they
apparently are not concerned enough to waste their time and resources to
eliminate posts that you,or others, don't like.

What Google has said, if I may interpret, is, "If you want to go after them,
go ahead. When we get a court order to identify the source of the posts,
we'll identify the source of the posts." Actually, I interpret Google's
statement as encouragement for you to pursue legal action and stop
complaining to them about it, i.e., "put up or shut up."

YOU have the power my man, so stop bitching about why no-one else is doing
anything about it.

Oh yeah, and please stop feeding the trolls.

Eric Miller

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
...

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:f2vRd.95354$0u.90419@fed1read04...

"William Graham" wrote in message
...

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:VIiRd.95309$0u.71575@fed1read04...

"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news Got to wonder about this company's ethics.

Read this:

Original message:

Thank you for your note. While we are sympathetic to your request, we
are
not able to help in this instance. Google is a provider of
information,
not a mediator. We make no claims about the content of the more than 1
billion posts in our archive. We suggest addressing your concern
directly
to the author of the post in question. For more information, please
see
our Terms of Use at
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/t...f_service.html

We are not equipped to assess the truth or falsity of statements
posted to
our site by third parties. Instead, such determinations must be made
by a
court of law or other government entity. Accordingly, it is our
policy,
consistent with United States federal law (Section 230(c) of the
Communications Decency Act), not to remove postings that are alleged
to be
defamatory. If you choose to pursue legal action against this author,
we
are prepared to abide by any orders involving the postings in
question.

Regards,
The Google Team


When the law isn't enforced by legal authority and/or private sector
entities with
legal power and ability to do so, it is reasonable to contemplate
acting as one's own
"protective authority" and take serious, direct measures against
offenders. If ever
there was reasonable cause for vigilante justice, this looks like it.

Google is no more than a recorder of the scene, just as the telephone
company is no more
than a transmitter of information. To sue Google over something that
they record is the
same as suing the telephone company over something that was said over
one of their
telephone lines. People have to be responsible for themselves and their
own actions.
They cannot expect either the government and/or service companies to
take that
responsibility. It is unfortunate that there are people who push the
edge of
compatibility, and make life hard for the rest of us, but I have had to
live with that
my entire life, and I have long since given up on anyone in authority
making life any
easier for me. In each instance, I have had to decide what to do, and
what actions to
take on my own, without any help from anyone else. I have long since
learned to stop
gnashing my teeth over things that I cannot do anything about.

When Google becomes a source for continual defamation (via ever-present
search hits from
one's name which yield libel and slander), they become a conscious enabler
of active crime
which extends into the future. Google is unique in the sense that it is a
recorder/publisher of sorts, with the difference being that it is
"re-published"
constantly. It is actively re-distributed with the effect being the
continual crime of
defamation, libel, and slander. When criminal statements are continually
distributed
directly as a result of your company's policies, then the company becomes
a part of the
activity...and a part of on-going libel/slander. These activities can
create real damages
to real people. This is not needless "gnashing of teeth." It is a
recognition that one
compmany--above all others--is facilitating known, present, and on-going
criminal
activity.

I am not saying that present-day law is on my side here, because it
doesn't seem to be.
What I AM saying is that law needs to be brought into the 21st century.
This means some
accomodations in the law must be made in order to address the new tools of
crime.


Wow do you have a poor grasp of the law.

Defamation is not a "crime." It is merely a civil wrong that may (but need
not) be redressed through the courts. Reprinting defamatory statements,
i.e., accurately publishing the statements of others, as statements of
others, is neither defamatory or libelous. It isn't slander because, to be
slander, a statement must be made orally. Of course, Google could, if they
wanted, refuse to post any statements that you don't like, but they
apparently are not concerned enough to waste their time and resources to
eliminate posts that you,or others, don't like.

What Google has said, if I may interpret, is, "If you want to go after them,
go ahead. When we get a court order to identify the source of the posts,
we'll identify the source of the posts." Actually, I interpret Google's
statement as encouragement for you to pursue legal action and stop
complaining to them about it, i.e., "put up or shut up."

YOU have the power my man, so stop bitching about why no-one else is doing
anything about it.

Oh yeah, and please stop feeding the trolls.

When YOU become a target of trolls who create a permanently recorded, and searchable
statements that you are a criminal, we'll see if you still refer to your own displeasure
as "bitching."

Jerk.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:GeqSd.97263$0u.21341@fed1read04...

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
...

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:f2vRd.95354$0u.90419@fed1read04...

"William Graham" wrote in message
...

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:VIiRd.95309$0u.71575@fed1read04...

"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news Got to wonder about this company's ethics.

Read this:

Original message:

Thank you for your note. While we are sympathetic to your request,
we
are
not able to help in this instance. Google is a provider of
information,
not a mediator. We make no claims about the content of the more
than 1
billion posts in our archive. We suggest addressing your concern
directly
to the author of the post in question. For more information, please
see
our Terms of Use at
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/t...f_service.html

We are not equipped to assess the truth or falsity of statements
posted to
our site by third parties. Instead, such determinations must be
made
by a
court of law or other government entity. Accordingly, it is our
policy,
consistent with United States federal law (Section 230(c) of the
Communications Decency Act), not to remove postings that are
alleged
to be
defamatory. If you choose to pursue legal action against this
author,
we
are prepared to abide by any orders involving the postings in
question.

Regards,
The Google Team


When the law isn't enforced by legal authority and/or private sector
entities with
legal power and ability to do so, it is reasonable to contemplate
acting as one's own
"protective authority" and take serious, direct measures against
offenders. If ever
there was reasonable cause for vigilante justice, this looks like
it.

Google is no more than a recorder of the scene, just as the telephone
company is no more
than a transmitter of information. To sue Google over something that
they record is the
same as suing the telephone company over something that was said over
one of their
telephone lines. People have to be responsible for themselves and
their
own actions.
They cannot expect either the government and/or service companies to
take that
responsibility. It is unfortunate that there are people who push the
edge of
compatibility, and make life hard for the rest of us, but I have had
to
live with that
my entire life, and I have long since given up on anyone in authority
making life any
easier for me. In each instance, I have had to decide what to do, and
what actions to
take on my own, without any help from anyone else. I have long since
learned to stop
gnashing my teeth over things that I cannot do anything about.

When Google becomes a source for continual defamation (via ever-present
search hits from
one's name which yield libel and slander), they become a conscious
enabler
of active crime
which extends into the future. Google is unique in the sense that it
is a
recorder/publisher of sorts, with the difference being that it is
"re-published"
constantly. It is actively re-distributed with the effect being the
continual crime of
defamation, libel, and slander. When criminal statements are
continually
distributed
directly as a result of your company's policies, then the company
becomes
a part of the
activity...and a part of on-going libel/slander. These activities can
create real damages
to real people. This is not needless "gnashing of teeth." It is a
recognition that one
compmany--above all others--is facilitating known, present, and
on-going
criminal
activity.

I am not saying that present-day law is on my side here, because it
doesn't seem to be.
What I AM saying is that law needs to be brought into the 21st century.
This means some
accomodations in the law must be made in order to address the new tools
of
crime.


Wow do you have a poor grasp of the law.

Defamation is not a "crime." It is merely a civil wrong that may (but
need
not) be redressed through the courts. Reprinting defamatory statements,
i.e., accurately publishing the statements of others, as statements of
others, is neither defamatory or libelous. It isn't slander because, to
be
slander, a statement must be made orally. Of course, Google could, if
they
wanted, refuse to post any statements that you don't like, but they
apparently are not concerned enough to waste their time and resources to
eliminate posts that you,or others, don't like.

What Google has said, if I may interpret, is, "If you want to go after
them,
go ahead. When we get a court order to identify the source of the posts,
we'll identify the source of the posts." Actually, I interpret Google's
statement as encouragement for you to pursue legal action and stop
complaining to them about it, i.e., "put up or shut up."

YOU have the power my man, so stop bitching about why no-one else is
doing
anything about it.

Oh yeah, and please stop feeding the trolls.

When YOU become a target of trolls who create a permanently recorded, and
searchable
statements that you are a criminal, we'll see if you still refer to your
own displeasure
as "bitching."

Jerk.



An appropriate signature.

If you don't feed the trolls, they starve and die. Of course, there are
plenty of stupid people out there who just can't resist feeding them and so
trolls live on and prosper. I suspect that any troll would sit back with a
broad grin of satisfaction on his/her face with the knowledge that they got
under someones skin so much that the target, in this case, you, proclaim
your frustrations in failing to convince anyone to do anything about the
attacks. Surely nothing would encourage a troll more.

As children most kids were taught to say "sticks and stones, etc..." when
the grown ups got tired of hearing about them complaining about being talked
about and to fight back when the grown ups got tired of hearing a child
whining about being picked on physically. I guess this is the adult
equivalent. Poor you, you are the perfect target.

BTW, I haven't even heard of a company that does its criminal background
checks on the Usenet.

Eric Miller

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
.. .

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:GeqSd.97263$0u.21341@fed1read04...

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
...

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:f2vRd.95354$0u.90419@fed1read04...

"William Graham" wrote in message
...

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:VIiRd.95309$0u.71575@fed1read04...

"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news Got to wonder about this company's ethics.

Read this:

Original message:

Thank you for your note. While we are sympathetic to your request,
we
are
not able to help in this instance. Google is a provider of
information,
not a mediator. We make no claims about the content of the more
than 1
billion posts in our archive. We suggest addressing your concern
directly
to the author of the post in question. For more information, please
see
our Terms of Use at
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/t...f_service.html

We are not equipped to assess the truth or falsity of statements
posted to
our site by third parties. Instead, such determinations must be
made
by a
court of law or other government entity. Accordingly, it is our
policy,
consistent with United States federal law (Section 230(c) of the
Communications Decency Act), not to remove postings that are
alleged
to be
defamatory. If you choose to pursue legal action against this
author,
we
are prepared to abide by any orders involving the postings in
question.

Regards,
The Google Team


When the law isn't enforced by legal authority and/or private sector
entities with
legal power and ability to do so, it is reasonable to contemplate
acting as one's own
"protective authority" and take serious, direct measures against
offenders. If ever
there was reasonable cause for vigilante justice, this looks like
it.

Google is no more than a recorder of the scene, just as the telephone
company is no more
than a transmitter of information. To sue Google over something that
they record is the
same as suing the telephone company over something that was said over
one of their
telephone lines. People have to be responsible for themselves and
their
own actions.
They cannot expect either the government and/or service companies to
take that
responsibility. It is unfortunate that there are people who push the
edge of
compatibility, and make life hard for the rest of us, but I have had
to
live with that
my entire life, and I have long since given up on anyone in authority
making life any
easier for me. In each instance, I have had to decide what to do, and
what actions to
take on my own, without any help from anyone else. I have long since
learned to stop
gnashing my teeth over things that I cannot do anything about.

When Google becomes a source for continual defamation (via ever-present
search hits from
one's name which yield libel and slander), they become a conscious
enabler
of active crime
which extends into the future. Google is unique in the sense that it
is a
recorder/publisher of sorts, with the difference being that it is
"re-published"
constantly. It is actively re-distributed with the effect being the
continual crime of
defamation, libel, and slander. When criminal statements are
continually
distributed
directly as a result of your company's policies, then the company
becomes
a part of the
activity...and a part of on-going libel/slander. These activities can
create real damages
to real people. This is not needless "gnashing of teeth." It is a
recognition that one
compmany--above all others--is facilitating known, present, and
on-going
criminal
activity.

I am not saying that present-day law is on my side here, because it
doesn't seem to be.
What I AM saying is that law needs to be brought into the 21st century.
This means some
accomodations in the law must be made in order to address the new tools
of
crime.


Wow do you have a poor grasp of the law.

Defamation is not a "crime." It is merely a civil wrong that may (but
need
not) be redressed through the courts. Reprinting defamatory statements,
i.e., accurately publishing the statements of others, as statements of
others, is neither defamatory or libelous. It isn't slander because, to
be
slander, a statement must be made orally. Of course, Google could, if
they
wanted, refuse to post any statements that you don't like, but they
apparently are not concerned enough to waste their time and resources to
eliminate posts that you,or others, don't like.

What Google has said, if I may interpret, is, "If you want to go after
them,
go ahead. When we get a court order to identify the source of the posts,
we'll identify the source of the posts." Actually, I interpret Google's
statement as encouragement for you to pursue legal action and stop
complaining to them about it, i.e., "put up or shut up."

YOU have the power my man, so stop bitching about why no-one else is
doing
anything about it.

Oh yeah, and please stop feeding the trolls.

When YOU become a target of trolls who create a permanently recorded, and
searchable
statements that you are a criminal, we'll see if you still refer to your
own displeasure
as "bitching."

Jerk.



An appropriate signature.

If you don't feed the trolls, they starve and die. Of course, there are
plenty of stupid people out there who just can't resist feeding them and so
trolls live on and prosper. I suspect that any troll would sit back with a
broad grin of satisfaction on his/her face with the knowledge that they got
under someones skin so much that the target, in this case, you, proclaim
your frustrations in failing to convince anyone to do anything about the
attacks. Surely nothing would encourage a troll more.

As children most kids were taught to say "sticks and stones, etc..." when
the grown ups got tired of hearing about them complaining about being talked
about and to fight back when the grown ups got tired of hearing a child
whining about being picked on physically. I guess this is the adult
equivalent. Poor you, you are the perfect target.

BTW, I haven't even heard of a company that does its criminal background
checks on the Usenet.

Eric Miller

Some "words" can carry weight--whether true or false.
They can also cause real damages under certain circumstances.
You are either extremely naive, or just are not aquainted with what it is I am referring
to.
I am not talking about the profanity and smutt that gets posted.
That is just an annoyance.
Your "sticks and stones" comment points only to the fact that you don't understand what is
at issue here. It is not what you think.
I'm not going to explain it to you.
Neither am I going to further engage you.
Good-bye.

"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news
Got to wonder about this company's ethics.

Read this:

Original message:

Thank you for your note. While we are sympathetic to your request, we are
not able to help in this instance. Google is a provider of information,
not a mediator. We make no claims about the content of the more than 1
billion posts in our archive. We suggest addressing your concern directly
to the author of the post in question. For more information, please see
our Terms of Use at
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/t...f_service.html

We are not equipped to assess the truth or falsity of statements posted to
our site by third parties. Instead, such determinations must be made by a
court of law or other government entity. Accordingly, it is our policy,
consistent with United States federal law (Section 230(c) of the
Communications Decency Act), not to remove postings that are alleged to be
defamatory. If you choose to pursue legal action against this author, we
are prepared to abide by any orders involving the postings in question.

Regards,
The Google Team




--
Save photography - shoot a roll of film today!

Not a huge surprise, this it the reply I got to my complaint about a
defamatory post about my wife:

"Thank you for your note. Google does not regularly monitor or censor
postings sent to Google Groups, but we do try to prevent wide-scale spam
and other forms of Usenet abuse. Please be assured that the information
you sent to us is being collected and taken into account. While we
understand how annoying off-topic posts can be, we aren't able to pursue
most complaints we receive about them. We are using the information you
provide to make large-scale improvements in preventing abuse. We
appreciate your help in our efforts to increase the quality of Google
Groups.

Replies to this email address will not be received. If you have a general
Google Groups question or wish to report a post that you suspect is
illegal, please write to us at

Regards,
The Google Team"

If they don't acknowledge a problem exists, then they don't have to address
the problem, do they?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news
Got to wonder about this company's ethics.

Read this:

Original message:

Thank you for your note. While we are sympathetic to your request, we are
not able to help in this instance. Google is a provider of information,
not a mediator. We make no claims about the content of the more than 1
billion posts in our archive. We suggest addressing your concern directly
to the author of the post in question. For more information, please see
our Terms of Use at
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/t...f_service.html

We are not equipped to assess the truth or falsity of statements posted to
our site by third parties. Instead, such determinations must be made by a
court of law or other government entity. Accordingly, it is our policy,
consistent with United States federal law (Section 230(c) of the
Communications Decency Act), not to remove postings that are alleged to be
defamatory. If you choose to pursue legal action against this author, we
are prepared to abide by any orders involving the postings in question.

Regards,
The Google Team




--
Save photography - shoot a roll of film today!

Not a huge surprise, this it the reply I got to my complaint about a
defamatory post about my wife:

"Thank you for your note. Google does not regularly monitor or censor
postings sent to Google Groups, but we do try to prevent wide-scale spam
and other forms of Usenet abuse. Please be assured that the information
you sent to us is being collected and taken into account. While we
understand how annoying off-topic posts can be, we aren't able to pursue
most complaints we receive about them. We are using the information you
provide to make large-scale improvements in preventing abuse. We
appreciate your help in our efforts to increase the quality of Google
Groups.

Replies to this email address will not be received. If you have a general
Google Groups question or wish to report a post that you suspect is
illegal, please write to us at

Regards,
The Google Team"

If they don't acknowledge a problem exists, then they don't have to address
the problem, do they?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

X-No-Archive: yes

Mark=B2 lowest even number here wrote:

Your "sticks and stones" comment points only to the fact that you
don't understand what is
at issue here. It is not what you think.
I'm not going to explain it to you.
Neither am I going to further engage you.
Good-bye.

Eric . . I'm not sure how long you've been posting here, but this group
has been the target of a few psychotic individuals. These cretins have
gone above and beyond the description of an Internet troll. They are
ruthless, merciless, and will stop at nothing in order to upset and
humiliate the regular contributors to this group. I was once an active
participant in this group; the cretins drove me away from posting, but
I still lurk daily.

Mark=B2 is referring to a series of anonymous posts made by the cretins
.. . accusing a certain "Mark J Morgan" of photographing minors
indecently (to paraphrase it mildly . . the actual accusations were
stated much more bluntly). These accusations, of course were false and
completely made up. On several occasions, Mark=B2 stated that the
cretins were targeting a totally different man than he, and that "Mark
J Morgan" was not his real name. Furthermore, Mark=B2 has also stated
on several occasions that "Mark Morgan" (without the middle initial J)
was a handle that he used to post as . . but that it was just a
handle.

In summary . . there has been some very bad libel and defamation of
regular contributors to this group . . but if the defamation is
connected to a handle, and not to a real name, then all one needs to do
is change his handle and be done with it.

To those who've been attacked under their REAL names, the matter is
much more serious and personal. I speak from firsthand experience.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:31:07 -0600, Eric Miller wrote:

What Google has said, if I may interpret, is, "If you want to go after them,
go ahead. When we get a court order to identify the source of the posts,
we'll identify the source of the posts." Actually, I interpret Google's
statement as encouragement for you to pursue legal action and stop
complaining to them about it, i.e., "put up or shut up."

Um, Google *IS* the source of the posts, my intellectually challenged
co-poster.

--
?