...His account that is.

Many important issues, and some not-so important ones, are discussed here
on the net on a daily basis.  I have just been informed of what I feel is
one of the most important things that we could ever discuss -- The 
out-and-out censorship of one of our fellow posters because some people
don't like what he says or thinks.

We have all seen the postings here by AJ Teel.  Although many of us have
not agreed with their content, I'm sure most of us have been at least
somewhat interested in them.  I, for one, am greatful to live (I thought)
in a country where people like Mr. Teel are allowed to say what they please.
If I don't wan't to read it, I can just skip on by, or unsuscribe.  But,
unfortunately, some people cannot let others live and let live.  They feel
an overwhelming need to snuff out the little bastards.  Now it seems that
Mr. Teel will be with us no more, due mainly to our brother, and cheif
net police, Ted Frank.


PLEASE HELP AJ TEEL REGAIN NET (POST) ACCESS AND CORRECT THIS INJUSTICE. 

                      ARE YOU ON TED'S HIT LIST?  
                      ARE YOUR THOUGHTS CORRECT?  
                        IS YOUR ACCOUNT SAFE?
         HAS YOUR SYSADMIN BEEN CONTACTED BY THE THOUGHT POLICE?

I thought the NLG and the ACLU supported people with diverse opinions. NOT!

 
Please read the following forwarded messages from AJ Teel so that 
you may understand this vial act for what it is...

------------------------------ forwarded ---------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Officer Ted Frank, Thought Police Badge Number NWO-666
Summary: Ted wins the argument by killing his opponent!
Expires: 
Distribution: 
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Keywords: NWO Ted Frank

Well, well, well... Thanks to eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) and
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank), my account is to be axed.
I guess that the information I am presenting is just toooo difficult
for them to deal with. They (ONLY Ted and Mark) have complained to my
sysadmin some unknown number of times to get me off the net. (In his
defense, Mark sent only one message and it was not THAT bad; it has
been posted in one of the newsgroups; However, it *was* not directed
at me as would be common practice and I am VERY good at responding
via netmail...)

While I disagree with Ted, I would not send mail to his sysadmin
to get him axed. Name-calling was not enough; jumping on every post
I made was not enough; ignoring specific points when they were not
what the desired picture was not enough; SIMPLY IGNORING ME IF I
AM SUCH A KOOK WAS NOT ENOUGH. Even now I do not wish to have him
axed, but I do wish to express my disgust about this. "Argumentum
ad silence-your-opponent-um"?! I would have thought he would have
wanted me to stay around just to have someone to yell about and
seem sooo wise... (to himself, I think).

The issue that seems to be: "Is the following an advertisement?"
Apparently, Ted and Mark think so...

1) I Posted an article from around one year ago as it was taken 
	*off the net* from last year. If reposting an article
	constitutes posting an ad, then I am guilty. This post
	did have a name and address and, yes, a price. If one
	had posted the address and subscription price of "Newsweek",
	would that be an ad? I get nothing from showing this stuff.
2) I Posted a list of documents showing examples of the kind of
	"proof" that was REQUESTED BY TED FRANK. He then complains
	to my sysadmin saying that I am advertising and, lo and
	behold, "poof", there goes my account. This one had an
	address in it! Oh, no! I Guess that means it is an ad!

If you value the alternative view I have been discussing, or VALUE
ITS DISCUSSION even if you do not agree with it, I ask that you send
a note saying as much to me to show to the sysadmin. They rarely get
"Ya know, that user on your net was real helpful..." or whatever; they
only get "I don't like what that user is doing because...".
Please do not send the note to the sysadmin. I need to take it to them
in a manner that has at least a chance of getting through.

In my files here are hundreds of responses from people saying "Thanks for
the info" or "Could you send me such and such?" or "Your posts are
very interesting... keep it up." and only a handfull of "Go aways". But,
I guess the fact that I have decided not to waste my time trying to
convince Ted is a Net Offense[TM] of such magnitude as to warrant
a message complaining about me. (Knock, knock..."My name is Ted and
and this is Mark... We're from the thought police. Seems you have
some pretty dangerous ideas here, and we're here to confiscate them...")
NWO Indeed!

Guess I will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with
a new plan... Thanks Ted and Mike. Hope you are happy.
I will be on for a few more days and then... that's all folks!
Your comments and support are requested. I can no longer post
to news. I ask what this has accomplished... Is there some benefit
from making alternative views simply vanish? Not in my book. 
Seems the easiest way to win an argument is to make the opposing side
shut up. Images of Waco.... ah, but alas... And all this when I am in the
process of typing in a letter to me from the Tax Collector saying that
a lien was removed due to a letter that I wrote challenging jurisdiction.
Oh, well... It takes time to come up with the info requested, and I
was just getting started.

It should be noted that Ted Frank has been accused publicly over 40
times of being an NWO supporter and has never made an statements to the
contrary. Further, what ARE Ted Frank's motivations for getting me axed?
We all know that SOME PEOPLE are getting paid to collect info on people
on the net that are of "interest" to the government, and Ted sure seems
to have a *personal* interest in debunking me. Hmmm... just who does
he work for? The University of Chicago which he "attends"(?) is well
known as one of the biggest NWO supporters...

And finally, if anyone would be able to help me find a new account here
in the Boulder/Denver area, I would greatly appreciate it. I am in the
process of installing Linux and so will be able to do UUCP or maybe
a TC/IP connection. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Since I
am longer be able to post news and will no longer have email VERY
soon, I hope that anyone who wishes to contact me will do so via:

	A. J. Teel, Sui Juris
	c/o USPS Box 19043
	Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.
	Postal Zone: 80308-9043
	
	or leave me voice mail at: c/o (408) 281-0434


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected messages from Ted Frank via sysadmin follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With Explicit Reservation Of All Rights (U.C.C. 1-207)
Regards, -A. J. Teel-, Sui Juris (ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU)


---------------------------

Received: from locutus.cs.colorado.edu by dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU with SMTP id AA14777
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU>); Mon, 5 Apr 1993 14:39:19 -0600
Received: by locutus.cs.colorado.edu with SMTP id AA15908
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <ajteel>); Mon, 5 Apr 1993 14:36:54 -0600
Message-Id: <199304052036.AA15908@locutus.cs.colorado.edu>
To: "Ted Frank" <thf2@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: List of documents 
Cc: cstmr@locutus.cs.colorado.edu, csops@locutus.cs.colorado.edu,
        ajteel@locutus.cs.colorado.edu, vaxops@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
Reply-To: trouble@cs.colorado.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 05 Apr 93 13:29:06 CDT
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 93 14:36:51 -0600
From: barb@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
Status: OR

--------

    Please ask ******* to stop advertising his wares on the network. Thank you.
			[Editor's Note:    ^^^???]
    
    >[START OF DOCUMENT: doclist.txt.lis ]
    >DOCUMENTS NOW AVAILABLE
    >
    >BILL MEDINA, Sui Juris
    >Post Office Box 70400
    >Sunnyvale, California, U.S.A.
    >Postal Zone: 94086-0400
    
    (79 lines deleted).

---------------
  Resolution:
---------------

Thank you.  He has been warned before.  We are taking action.


Barbara J. Dyker                       Department of Computer Science
Manager, Computer Operations           Campus Box 430B, ECEE00-69
barb@cs.colorado.edu                   University of Colorado
(303) 492-2545                         Boulder, CO  80309-0430

--------------------
.cs.colorado.edu Mon Apr  5 15:50:36 1993
Received: from locutus.cs.colorado.edu by dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU with SMTP id AA15809
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU>); Mon, 5 Apr 1993 15:50:34 -0600
Received: by locutus.cs.colorado.edu id AA16069
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ajteel); Mon, 5 Apr 1993 15:50:27 -0600
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 15:50:27 -0600
From: Barbara Dyker <barb@locutus.cs.colorado.edu>
Message-Id: <199304052150.AA16069@locutus.cs.colorado.edu>
Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.87.1)
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.87.1)
To: ajteel@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
Subject: your account
Cc: vaxops@locutus.cs.colorado.edu, usenet@locutus.cs.colorado.edu,
        mozer@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
Status: OR

[...]

I had already warned you that your inappropriate use of
your account here must stop.  You have used your account
here as a soapbox for your political "sui juris" agenda.

[...]



[Editor's note: What commercial advertisemnets are we talking about?]


[...]


[Editor's note: I *wonder* who the other post was from??!]

To: "Ted Frank" <thf2@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Bouncing 

Cc: cstmr@eclipse.cs.colorado.edu, csops@eclipse.cs.colorado.edu
Reply-To: trouble@cs.colorado.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 17 Mar 93 21:05:59 CST
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 93 08:40:15 MST
From: laszlo@eclipse.cs.colorado.edu

--------

    >Bounced names:
    >   garry@research.att.com
    >   bill@kean.usc.mun.ca
    >   jad@hopper.Virginia.EDU
    >   kima@gator.rational.com
    >
    >Hello All:
    >   I am having trouble reaching the following (keeps bouncing).
    >   If you sent me mail and haven't gotten a response, check here.
    >   Also, can anyone tell me why these are bouncing? I used
    >   the reply in elm which should send it right back, right?
    >With Explicit Reservation Of All Rights (U.C.C. 1-207)
    >Regards, -A. J. Teel-, Sui Juris (ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU)
    >
[...]

[Editor's Note: The reason for posting the header lines from the bounced
messages was to show what the problem was and hopefully correct it.]

[Ted Frank] It's inexcusable to post 150 lines of bounced mail headers to four
newsgroups.
    A simple four-line post would have been sufficient.

---------------
  Resolution:
---------------
[Lazlo]
yes i agree. BUT our policy is to not watch everypost someone  here  
makes.
we generally let the net itself take care of inappropriate postings
by flaming the user into shape (which i assume this is ment to be).
we (CS operations) don't like to get involved in this stuff (unless
its illegal, repetitive posts of 1gig gifs, harassment, or something
else that offends the community in general). my suggestion is that
you take it to email and explain what a post for bounces should look  
like or tell him to RTFM

laz
[Editor's note: Obviously, Ted had no such intention of doing so...]

ted frank                 | "However Teel should have mentioned that though 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |  his advice is legally sound, if you follow it 
the u of c law school     |  you will probably wind up in jail."
standard disclaimers      |                    -- James Donald, in misc.legal

[Editor's Note: From this .sig, it seems obvious that Ted Frank has an
axe to grind... Why that particular quote?.... Hmmm... Sure makes me wonder.]

