Xref: utcsri ont.general:22971 tor.arts:825 tor.general:18490 Newsgroups: tor.general,tor.arts,ont.general,io.general Path: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!uunet!fonorola!infoshare!whome!telly!evan From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) Subject: Re: Bob Allisat's Account on Internex *LOCKED* Message-ID: Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario References: <3do5lk$a0l@ionews.io.org> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 15:38:06 GMT Lines: 109 A couple of observations regarding this mess. My opinions only throughout. After having verbally tangled with Bob from his first racist rant about whites fleeing Toronto because of Caribana, I think I'm aware of his abnormally high heat-to-light ratio. Still, I find myself in the strange position of defending him. DID BOB SAY ANYTHING THAT WARRANTED ACTION BY INTERNEX? Based on what I've seen, no. It is still not yet a crime to be obnoxious, even extremely so. I have not yet read any accusations of Bob engaging in spams, totally out-of-the-norm use of resources, forgeries, control-message wars, or any similar things which I would consider actionable misuse of resources. Bob appears not to use more of IO's own resources any more than any other individual with the time and inclination to post the same number of postings as he has. Bob's hasty Nazi comparisons are indeed offensive, and of little value other than to get a rise out of readers. Still, they constitute little actual crime other than to offend. Yeah, the old "I disagree with what you say, but defend your right to say it" stuff, still as valid today as ever. Even moreso, it seems. The lines between offensiveness, harassment and assault have become so blurred by political agendae that genuine criticism and satire is at risk. The same protection offered to visionaries must be extended to loonies, for only history will really know the difference between them. Bob has offended many. According to any evidence I have seen, he has harassed and assaulted none. Neither has he incited anyone else to harass or assault. At the very least, Bob Allisat has stood up for himself, not hiding behind the aliases of the unsure or the sheer cowardice of anonymity. He has stood to take the flak that follows his words, probably basking in the knee-deep pile of insults (many of them deserved) that seem to follow everything he says. But that does not constitute reason for yanking an account from a system that pretends to merely offer a resource. 2) DOES INTERNEX HAVE THE RIGHT TO PURGE ITSELF OF BOB ALLISAT? Absolutely, though such action undermines any claims IO might have to be an impartial common-carrier type operation. Neither IO nor any other service provider owes Bob a soapbox, and to suggest that the denial of such soapboxes constitutes censorship is to throw up an inaccurate smoke-screen. Were Bob to print his rants, nobody would call it censorship if the local print shop refused to take the job to make copies of his drivel. At the same time, though, IO's perception of its own responsibilities lead one to a possibly-undesired conclusion. By dealing with a user such as Allisat based on content, the administrators of IO seem to think of their role as one of publisher, not mere provider of services. In the muddy world of the information dirt road, IO's legal status is uncertain; the direction the IO's keepers has charted, however, is not. Any claim it wishes to establish in the future of being a "common carrier", only to act upon its users when forced by law, has been compromised. If anything, this route opens the door to *more* potential liability for Internex than had it gone the other route. It has set the precedent of booting someone based on content -- will others who are offended by future IO users come to *expect* or even demand similar actions? Frankly, I'm unnerved by IO's desire to *take on* more liability by demonstrating a willingness -- if not desire -- to play content cop. And, as I shop for an Internet service provider of my own, I must consider the fact that something I say will some day offend somebody, and that this somebody's complaint of my words would lead to my being (at very least) investigated. Internex's actions have protected nobody, least of all itself. In a society which has become obsessed with (depending who you talk to) either the spread or the elimination of what has come to be called "political correctness", one becomes acutely aware of arbitrary controls on one's ability to offend. There must be resistance against any limitation of speech to that which offends nobody. Some of the greatest ideas of mankind have at sometime been considered extremely offensive. Not to say that any shred of Allisat's thought patterns could be considered to have even a glimmer of greatness; yet, because of circumstance, there he is, at the centre of it, just as he likes it. In summary, I am saddened by the decision of Internex's keepers and advisors, but it *is* theirs to make. I am all the more saddened to know that such actions merely feed the attention-hungry, logic-free, conspiracy-seeking psyches of the world's Bob Allisats. Despite all the drivel, rantings and other incoherence that Bob has produced in his time on the net, today it is Internex management's collective turn to be even more offensive by this single act. But, just like Bob, it has the right to be offensive, a right that cannot be denied on a whim. -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario Novell Unix Master Reseller / evan@telly.on.ca / (905) 452-0504 A happy traveller on the information sidewalk Xref: utcsri ont.general:23161 tor.arts:856 tor.general:18690 Newsgroups: tor.general,tor.arts,ont.general,io.general Path: utcsri!info.physics.utoronto.ca!utzoo!telly!evan From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) Subject: Re: Bob Allisat's Account on Internex *LOCKED* Message-ID: Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario References: <3do5lk$a0l@ionews.io.org> <3f35rp$gak@ionews.io.org> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 14:34:06 GMT In article <3f35rp$gak@ionews.io.org>, Brian Tao wrote: >In article , Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>It is still not yet a crime to be obnoxious, even extremely so. >If it were, Bob would have landed his keester in jail. Instead, >he lost only his account on Internex. No one is accusing Bob of >committing a crime. Let me rephrase. I do not consider anything Bob has done to be an "offense" against Internex. Obviously the keepers of IO have perceived such an offence, since Bob's being punished. He didn't spam, cross-post beyond reason, forge anything or post into inappropriate groups. Think about it. You are freezing the account not because of what *he* did, but because of what the complainers did. The complainers are not all users on your system, but Allisat *is* (or was). To whom do you owe (at least) the benefit of the doubt, those who pay you or those who don't? Based upon your criteria, I could get together a bunch of chums, and get *any* randomly-chosen IO user kicked off if we all complained long and loud enough. >Since people are so fond of compring ISP's to the "real world", >would it be all that unusual to have the same thing happen outside the >context of the Internet? If you start making loud screaming and >gurgling noises at night in your place of residence, would it not be >reasonable for your neighbour to call the police and ask you to stop? Absolutely wrong analogy. You compare apples (the *means* of expression) to oranges (the content of what one expesses). If I communicate outside the bounds of societal norms, than people may have a complaint. That means if the *manner* I use to communicate, be it spamming or yelling outside at night, is unsociable then complaints will be taken seriously. However, if I put up a lawn sign saying "the Holocaust was a hoax", I will still attract complaints, not for the manner in which I communicate but what I am saying. Such complaints would be ignored by the police and politicians; though they may find what I say distasteful, they respect my desire to say them. See the difference? Both actions will generate complaints, but one set of complaints is totally unreasonable. >Locking out Allisat's account is clearly a drastic occurrence, but >the circumstances were also drastic. An opinion Brian and I certainly do not share. >We are not talking about just >*one* person complaining about his posts. Or even four or five >people. Dozens have complained about the subject of his postings, >both in public and in private. So what? Christie Blatchford offends hundreds, maybe thousands of people with the column she regularly writes in the Sun. Not only does the Sun reply to the many letters of complaint by either ignoring or publicly ridiculing them, but it even pays Blatchford to keep going! There are people out there, some of them very learned and respected people, who say things many would consider insulting. That they draw response is merely an indication of their ability to provoke, and I suggest that you should not yank people merely based on their ability to pull the chains of others. Say you gave Mordechai Richler an account, and he posted another of his critique of Quebec's language laws. Surely you would be innundated with complaints and demands to yank his account by angry francophones, who routinely bitch about his comments every time he opens his mouth. Would you lock Mordechai Richler's account? Based on the precedent set with Allisat, you would be compelled to. If IO can't be bothered to tell the difference between justified complaints (breaches of netiquette, abuse of the informal structure of the net, forgeries, security breaches or spam-like activity) and those who would just silence someone with whom they disgaree, then IMO it can't be trusted to guarantee *any* user's ability to truly speak his mind. Sorry, but I don't want to be concerned when I write, about whether I will cross some arbitrary threshold of numbers of people offended. Good thing I didn't have to depend on an account on IO when I started rec.arts.erotica. You would have had me booted off nanoseconds after I began (judging by the complaints received by telly's admin account)! >Don't be afraid to say something >because you think it may offend one or two people. No decent provider >will cut your access because of that. If you really want to stir up a >hornet's nest, then you should be prepared for the consequences. Interesting you would mention "being afraid", because the more I think about it, the more I think that the term "cowardly" describes Internex's actions in this regard. Indeed, to me this issue has never been one of rights or censorship, rather one of courage and principles. It takes courage to stand up to the would-be censors around the net, and defend the interests of your own paying customers over those who do not pay you but use up your time anyway. To give the complainers their victory is the easy way out. In this case it's also the lazy way out, since the target of this action is little more than a well-known crank. >I don't think that IO's decision will affect an ISP's eventual >inclusion into the "common carrier" definition. Not ISPs in general, but certainly IO in particular. It, and no other Toronto ISP, has bounced someone merely because what he wrote (staying generally within netiquette and the bounds of the law) offended "enough" people. >You simply cannot >compare an ISP with Canada Post or Bell Canada. If you look at a >typical news article, take note of three things: the From address, >the Organization line, and the signature. Then change the news software so that it removes the Organization: header, or allow users to have their own by default. Trivial to do. >There is no noticeable >association between the contents of someone's letter and Canada Post. >This is certainly not true of e-mail or news. Valid or not, people >will think "Oh, it's another one of those users from Internex again". This of course, goes to the heart of the matter. Internex IMO has sacrificed some very important principles (not rights) in order to achieve a 'polite' image within its community. Consider this: Valid or not, whenever I think of Internex from now on, I will think of it as The Politically Correct ISP, the one from which users dare not post anything that may piss off any significant number of people. (Hell, it doesn't even have to be *significant*, if "dozens" of complaints from within a net.population of hundreds of thousands are enough to get an account locked.) Judging by the amount of e-mail I have received in reply to my original post, I am not alone in this sentiment. I suggest to you that this little exercise of image-building has backfired. -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario Novell Unix Master Reseller / evan@telly.on.ca / (905) 452-0504 A happy traveller on the information sidewalk -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario Novell Unix Master Reseller / evan@telly.on.ca / (905) 452-0504 A happy traveller on the information sidewalk Xref: utcsri ont.general:23285 tor.arts:889 tor.general:18837 Newsgroups: tor.general,tor.arts,ont.general,io.general Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!fonorola!infoshare!whome!telly!evan From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) Subject: Re: Bob Allisat's Account on Internex *LOCKED* Message-ID: Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario References: <3do5lk$a0l@ionews.io.org> <3f35rp$gak@ionews.io.org> <1995Jan15.052806.1798@tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 07:24:14 GMT Lines: 386 In article <1995Jan15.052806.1798@tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca>, Timothy D. Kuehn wrote: >In evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >>I do not consider anything Bob has done to be an "offense" against Internex. >>Obviously the keepers of IO have perceived such an offence, since Bob's >>being punished. >You really got to hand it to people who equivalence "take your business >some place else" with "punishment." If a person is not a member of an >organization, then that organization has no/zero/zip power of that person. >Hence, there is no way they could 'punish' them. The maximum authority any organization has *is* to tell someone to "take their business elsewhere". That *is* punishment, the ultimate they can exact, though it may be referred to in other terms. Look up a definition of "punish". >This wording also brings up the image of a parent disciplining a child, >and hence makes the 'punisher' out to be some kind of parochial figure, >which we ALL know is 'evil.' Well, we do have a situtaion where the account is locked *before* Allisat was given a chance to plead his case. Guilty unless proven innocent. Sounds parochial to me... >>He didn't spam, cross-post beyond reason, forge anything or post into >>inappropriate groups. >Gee....looks like content restrictions to me Still can't make a distinction between what you say and how you say it? If one is setting up an AUP, in such a manner as to be as air-tight and un-arbitrary as possible, one can enumerate and specifically detail the unallowed behavior. Spamming and forgeries can be explicitly prohibited. The AUP, if you can call it that, that Allisat was booted for breaking was so broad and wide open as to allow admins to arbitrarily boot off anyone whose opinions they strongly disagreed with. What is necessary is an AUP that avoids terms like "warranted" or "legitimate" or other forms of arbitrary nature than can be manipulated against people because of their opinions. >...maybe 'free speech' isn't totally free after all? I never said this was a free speech issue. Why drag it in? >>Think about it. You are freezing the account not because of what *he* >>did, but because of what the complainers did. >Bull #1. If he hadn't made those kinds of posts and provoked people like >that, not to mention sully IO's reputation, then this probably never >would've happened. "Sully IO's reputation"? Please. We're not talking about a girl at her first school dance. The "reputation" defence is a total smokescreen. IO did not post the offensive stuff, one of its users did. *Unless* an ISP makes the pretense of scanning everything its users produce, or make an effort to check on their appropriateness, it can't be held accountable for the works of its users, certainly not before the fact. Many organizations which have employees or others posting from their sites require disclaimers in the signatures of all posts (I've even seen some disclaimers in headers) which make it clear that the user does not speak for the organization. If the IO admins were so concerned about reputation it would have required such a disclaimer from day one from every user. >>The complainers are not >>all users on your system, but Allisat *is* (or was). To whom do you owe >>(at least) the benefit of the doubt, those who pay you or those who don't? >How about the ones who make them money. If an ISP customer is costing >more than they're worth in profit, then where's the point of keeping >them around? And the complainers only "cost" IO as much as IO allows them to. A capable admin can go through hundreds of messages in a matter of minutes and sift the wheat from the chaff. In the instance of Allisat, Pax wrote that IO admins received "dozens" of complaints -- they probably spent more time wringing their hands then reading the complaints. >Commerical enterprises don't exist to support your favorite >social engineering experiment, they're there to make $$$ by providing a >service or a product. Seems like IO has engaged in its own social experiments by deeming which opinions it considers too offensive to be posted from its site. Certainly it is entitled to do so, as I am entitled to object publicly to its actions. >>Based upon your criteria, I could get together a bunch of chums, and >>get *any* randomly-chosen IO user kicked off if we all complained long >>and loud enough. >Bull #2. Any reasonably intelligent ISP would take a look at the >complaints, and the activities of the person in question, and react >accordingly, and not at just the complaints alone. The reasonableness of the IO decision has yet to be proven, it certainly has not by the evidence presented so far. Merely stating "bull" does not offer much of a rebuttal. >If the actions >of the complained-against user wasn't of the type and character that >the complainers were making noise about, then the ISP's only reasonable >response would be to tell the whiners to get a life someplace else and >leave the ISP alone. >If the complaints are legit, then there's reason to do something about it. Then we come down the the issue of what is legit. Fair enough. Did Allisat break any laws? Did he assault or harass anyone beyond stating opinions some found offensive? That's a very basic point. It has yet to be demonstrated that the complaints were 'legit'. Is any complaint by someone who is offended by a post 'legit'? Does it matter who makes the complaint? About what content the offense was taken? What phase of the moon we're in? >I really doubt any ISP worth their invoicing will kick someone off due >to some kind of organized, unwarrented campaign against a given user. I don't believe that *any* "organized campaign against a given user" is warranted. If the user does not break the law, or *specific* prohibitions of the ISP, then it is not warranted. Period. >>If I communicate outside the bounds of societal norms, than people may >>have a complaint. That means if the *manner* I use to communicate, be it >>spamming or yelling outside at night, is unsociable then complaints will >>be taken seriously. >Bull #3. This assumes that the manner of communication is totally >seperate from the message being communicated. Yup, it is. Especially in Usenet, it's a *very* well-established distinction. The manner of communication is described in the header, the message is in the body. >Ever hear of "tone of voice", Oh, you mean like saying "bull" and "sowhat" and "bzzt" in place of rational argument? Yes, I've seen people resort to that; quite recently, in fact. >>However, if I put up a lawn sign saying "the Holocaust was a hoax", I >>will still attract complaints, not for the manner in which I communicate >>but what I am saying. Such complaints would be ignored by the police and >>politicians; though they may find what I say distasteful, they respect >>my desire to say them. >Bull #4. While they may respect your desire to say them, but if that >message was of a slanderous/libelous nature towards someone who took >exception, then someone will probably take extreme interest and move >to have your 'message' removed. And we have a nice and expensive system of courts through which to do that. What court has required IO to freeze Allisat's account? Which judge has considered Allisat's words libellous? >Bull #4.5. Applying this to the "Alisat question", this would assume >you own the services required for the propagation of your message. Why? I certainly don't assume that. >>Christie Blatchford offends hundreds, maybe thousands of people >>with the column she regularly writes in the Sun. Not only does the Sun >>reply to the many letters of complaint by either ignoring or publicly >>ridiculing them, but it even pays Blatchford to keep going! >SoWhat #1: This is the Sun's choice, and they probably do it because >the very nature of the controversial writings and editorial ridicule >gives the Sun more publicity which translates into more sales, not to >mention affords the maschoists of the Sun's readership something to >be publicly abused by. So, we agree that someone can be controversial and generate complaints and yet *not* "sully the reputation" of her publisher? Or, rather, does it mean that "reputation" is in the eye of the beholder? >>There are people out there, some of them very learned and respected >>people, who say things many would consider insulting. That they draw >>response is merely an indication of their ability to provoke, and I >>suggest that you should not yank people merely based on their ability >>to pull the chains of others. >So racism is now merely a 'chain' to pull on someone else? Racism, too, can be in the eye of the beholder. I also happen to believe that some forms of racism can be positive. Does the expression of that belief make my opinions unwelcome at IO? The word "racist" has been knocked around so many times, along with its compatriots "homophobe" and "misogynist", so as to be useless. Forget the pidgeonholes. Let the ideas come out, and either be trashed, debated or accepted on their merits. Even our hate speech legislation, which I now believe to be a Bad Thing, requires that legally hateful speech muct incite hatred against a specific group. Until Allisat's speech is legally determined to be prohibited, it may indeed be no more than than a chain to pull. How is it more? >What are >you going to come with next??? Will you label verbal/emotional abuse >as merely a form of expression as well? Nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head to read what's posted here. Someone who subscribes to alt.politics.nationalism.white and is surprised to read racist beliefs is a fool. As Elenor Roosevelt said, nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent. >Let's get real here! If all >Alisat was doing was yanking people's chains, then I daresay he would >probably still have an account on IO. But he wasn't 'just' yanking >chains, and as a result has been told to take his business someplace >else. Please state the case, specifically, regarding what Allisat said that constitutes abuse. At the same time, let's hear where one draws that metaphysical line between opinion and verbal abuse. >>Would you lock Mordechai Richler's account? Based on the precedent set >>with Allisat, you would be compelled to. >Bull #6: You are ascribing to IO a motive and diminished level of >maturity which I have yet to see them exhibit. The only risk by >right of precedent that MR would have to fear having his account >pulled would be if he acted in the same manner Alisat's acted in. >If he didn't then there's nothing for him to fear wrt keeping his >account around. In the same manner? We've already established that Richler generates large volumes of complaints; many believe him to be a racist and an anti-French bigot. He has been blunt in his insults and specific in his criticisms. Based on many criteria he *is* "acting in the same manner". Where would one draw the line? Because Richler has a better writing style? Because he's been published? Because they teach his novels in English class? This is *exactly* the bind IO creates for itself with the arbitrariness of Allisat's expulsion. >You guys seem bent on making IO out to be the epitome of censorship >and patriarchial control -- all over the removal of ONE (1) user. Pardon? Where in anything I have said have I accused anyone of censorship? As for control, IO certainly *has* done so by locking the account. Patriarchial? Perhaps; as the defense of its position is forced to refer to matters of "tone of voice" and "legitimacy", and confuses offensive or insulting text on a screen with emotional abuse, perhaps the term "patriarchal" (or did Wayne mean "parochial"?) is not so ill-suited after all. >There's no systematic opeation going on here. Multiple users have >NOT been given the boot. Hence you really are making a "lot ado >about nothing." I see. So this becomes a problem only once multiple users *are* given the boot? Perhaps the end-result of this discussion is that IO will consider a non-arbitrary AUP so that this episode *cannot* be repeated. Such actions such as IO's *must* be examined the first time, for they set a precedent for future actions. If they go unchallenged now, IO will have the false perception that its actions have the tacit approval of the community. Since reputation appears so important to this whole matter, I would suggest that such approval is greatly desired. >>If IO can't be bothered to tell the difference between justified >>complaints (breaches of netiquette, abuse of the informal structure of the >>net, forgeries, security breaches or spam-like activity) and those who >>would just silence someone with whom they disgaree, >Bull #7: Your definition of 'justified complaints' is just as arbitrary >as the alleged 'threshold level' you're accusing IO of having. Not necessarily. One could make header-tampering a punishable action, while refusing to act on anything said in a message body that does not contravene the law. Done in greater detail, such an AUP could state specifically what is acceptable and what is not, without leaning on the arbitrariness crutch of words like "legitimate" or "reasonable" or "unwarranted". >there must be reasonable cause for IO to dump Alisat >for the kind of posts he's been making which violated IO's threshold of >what they would tolerate in the name of free speech vs their growing >reputation as a harbor of racist bigots. As I've stated, the negative reputation IO has received by dumping Allisat may be even worse than the bad publicity for harbouring racist bigots. The choice of actions is in IO's hands. How the community/market perceives such actions is not. >>then IMO it can't >>be trusted to guarantee *any* user's ability to truly speak his mind. >Would you raise the same spectre if some rapist psycho got an >Internet account on IO and started posting their dark desires of what >they'd like to do to some poor innocent? Or what if they started posting >classified material which could threaten the security of this country? If such speech breaks the law of the land, then it is actionable, and the complaint would/could take the form of a Court Order. Otherwise, let 'em talk. I don't trust your judgement (or mine, or anyone else's), to determine if this "rapist psycho" is just an innocent fantasy or the real thing. >>Good thing I didn't have to depend on an account on IO when I started >>rec.arts.erotica. You would have had me booted off nanoseconds after >>I began (judging by the complaints received by telly's admin account)! >If posting of erotica was restricted under the AUP which you were >granted service under, then probably so. As it is, the existing IO AUP is ambiguous. One admin might consider it restricted, another might not. But stating that even under *some* circumstances my actions would be enough to get my account yanked says plenty about IO's suitability as an ISP for anyone whose postings generate any controversy. >>Interesting you would mention "being afraid", because the more I think >>about it, the more I think that the term "cowardly" describes Internex's >>actions in this regard. Indeed, to me this issue has never been one of >>rights or censorship, rather one of courage and principles. >Bzzzt #1: It could just as well be a matter of keeping their house clean >and not gaining a further reputation as a harbor of racist bigots. >Reputation is part of growing a commerical enterprise, and like Intel >discovered recently with their arrogant and parochial handling of the >Pentium Problem (tm), associating a name with something detestible >is NOT a way to Make Friends and Influence People, much less make a >profit. Fair enough. Based upon what I have seen so far, I have already considered IO an unacceptable ISP for myself and anyone I am asked to recommend service for. I do not deem IO an acceptable ISP based on the reputation they have established in my opinion. What is the poorer reputation today? Harbouring racists or being politically correct? Neither is truly fair, but the actions IO takes will determine which way it is seen. >>This of course, goes to the heart of the matter. Internex IMO has >>sacrificed some very important principles (not rights) in order to >>achieve a 'polite' image within its community. >>Consider this: >>Valid or not, whenever I think of Internex from now on, I will think of >>it as The Politically Correct ISP, the one from which users dare not >>post anything that may piss off any significant number of people. (Hell, >>it doesn't even have to be *significant*, if "dozens" of complaints from >>within a net.population of hundreds of thousands are enough to get an >>account locked.) >This assumes that that's the only reason that Alisat got booted. I >seriously doubt that this is the full reasoning behind the decision, I work with the evidence at hand. If IO wished to establish a "reputation" for fairness or evenhandedness of its AUP application, it certainly hasn't demonstrated it publicly. >and for you to say that that was the only reasoning behind why Alisat >got nuked, then I'd like a pointer to your telepathy helmet so I can >use it too. That's the bugaboo of reputations and images, they never truly reflect reality. Just as one painting of IO as a festering den of rapists and racists is nowhere near the truth, neither is a perception of it as looking over everyone's postings. The two are extremes, but they are the ones that will stick. The same actions that make IO valuable to you make it worthless to me. The market will decide whether IO's admins made the right tradeoffs. I happen to believe that the situation might have been handled better from the start, and *neither* bad reputation would be incurred. Is it too late? -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario Novell Unix Master Reseller / evan@telly.on.ca / (905) 452-0504 A happy traveller on the information sidewalk