...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)   ---------------------------  >From barb@locutus.cs.colorado.edu Mon Apr  5 14:39:21 1993 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:    ^^^???]          In article <1993Apr5.154256.5169@colorado.edu> ajteel writes:     >[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  -------------------- >From barb@locutus .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.  [...]  > Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 13:26:43 -0700 > From: barb@locutus.cs.colorado.edu > To: ajteel@locutus.cs.colorado.edu >   > Also, if you are reported for any more commercial > announcements, your account may be disabled.   [Editor's note: What commercial advertisemnets are we talking about?]  > From: barb@bruno.cs.colorado.edu > To: "A.J. Teel" <ajteel@dendrite.cs.colorado.edu> > Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 17:26:40 MST >   [...]  > As long as > they aren't causing any problems, we typically don't > mind. ...We have received two complaints about the > content of your messages so far (at least one of which I > consider valid) - which already constitutes excessive > in my book.  Just don't let it happen again.   [Editor's note: I *wonder* who the other post was from??!]  >From laszlo@eclipse.cs.colorado.edu Thu Mar 18 01:40:15 1993 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  --------  In article <1993Mar18.012344.6213@colorado.edu> ajteel@dendrite.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.]