From: frice@raids.org (Fredric L. Rice)
Subject: Has anyone tried to track the sporgers?
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:25:47 GMT

On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 01:30:16 +0100, in alt.religion.scientology you wrote:

"Dave Bird.....><_'>...<_\"...." <dave@xemu.demon.co.uk> > In article <SL6U2.8935$oH.2539962@news3.mia>, Diode44 writes: >> We'll be launching lawsuits and criminal complaints against the >> individuals (who may not be Scientologists) and the people who >> are controlling them (who may not be the Scientology crime >> syndicate.) > > I am just a lurker on this newsgroup, but this one made me ask: what have > the sporgers done that's illegal? Isn't this "open forum"? I'm just curious.

Well, let's start by explaining why it's immoral and who is wronged: I don't think it is or should be a crime against the general good, but I sure think some particular people are wronged and should sue. The Internet as an activity only works at all because people show a certain amount of good sense and consideration for others. Like the roads would be unworkable under their present traffic load if nobody at all bothered with sides of the road, traffic lights, roadworthyness standards of vehicles, etc.

The 'Net rejects any central control of what is or isn't heard. Writers can say what they want, though they can't have as of right the size of audience they want without persuading people to listen; and readers do the work for themselves of sorting out what interests them from the huge piles of junk.

There are two really insulting things you can do to readers.... One is to try to steal their right to choose what content to read, if you don't like that content, by removing articles on the basis of content. But the other most obvious form of social cheating is to "steal attention" -- one way or other you attack the readers choice by repeating the identical message over & over in different ways or contexts. You hope that endlessly repeating the same thing will get your message undeserved attention, and in the extreme will drown out the other guy's message (in the extreme you might just use a flood of zero-content babble rather than your own positive message).

And in doing this you do actual financial damage to ISPs, who should have the right to sue for their costs of cleaning up your mess: you have gone beyond the exchange of services you contracted for. You cost them a great deal in machine usage and skilled work which they never agreed to your having. So you should be sued. Simple.

>It's not illegal to babble profusively in the food court at the mall, so why >is it illegal to babble profusively on a public newsgroup??

It's not illegal to drive a trolley with a loose wheel down the wrong side of the aisle in a supermarket. But you try doing the same thing with a car on the freeway, and you'll soon see why context makes __so__ much difference.

                                            |~/           |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P |      Woof Woof, Glug Glug               ||____________||      0  | P
O |   Who Drowned the Judge's Dog?          | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O |         answers on                  *---|_______________  @__o0  | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP5

Click here for some additional truth about the Scientology crime syndicate: XENU.NET

Further facts about this criminal empire may be found at Operation Clambake and FACTNet.