Catherine Buzzell
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,misc.invest.stocks,alt.online-service.america-online,alt.online-service,alt.internet.media-coverage,alt.wired,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Sex on AOL: Cover-up
Date: 26 Mar 1996 13:38:30 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Steve Case appeared at the National Press Club earlier this month. At the
end of the speech, the emcee said "It's just going too quickly, but we're
near the end and so I want to present our certificate of appreciation and
the National Press Club mug and I want to ask the last question, which is
how many of the AOL subscribers are there for sex?"
According to the National Press Club transcript, Case hemmed and hawed.
"(Laughs.) I actually don't know the number. We don't -- I don't even
know how to keep track of that."
Then he quickly moved into a pro-AOL speech. ("We do know that with five
million members, one of the key principles of this medium is diversity,
and people can self-select...")
But when America Online put the transcript up in AOL's investor relations
area, the exchange appeared differently. Here's how it read.
Emcee: It's just going too quickly, but we're near the end and so I
want to present our certificate of appreciation and the National
Press Club mug.
Steve Case: With five million members, one of the key principles of this
medium is diversity...
Ironically, the edited transcript appeared in AOL's "Full Disclosure" area.
destiny@crl.com /\ alt.aol-sucks FTP site
/ \ ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/de/destiny/aol/
==============================================================================
/__________\ Now featuring 400K year-end review!!!
From: barton@phantom.com (barton)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,misc.invest.stocks,alt.online-service.america-online,alt.online-service,alt.internet.media-coverage,alt.wired,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Sex on AOL: Cover-up
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:24:05 -0500
Organization: The Den
In article <4j9o4m$8qf@crl2.crl.com>, destiny@crl.com (David Cassel) wrote:
> Ironically, the edited transcript appeared in AOL's "Full Disclosure" area.
That's not irony. That is a FACT that makes the phrase "cover up"
inappropriate for this event. Call it dodging the question. Call it
evasion. It's not a cover up.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
barton@phantom.com http://www.phantom.com/~barton
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,misc.invest.stocks,alt.online-service,alt.internet.media-coverage,alt.wired,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Sex on AOL: Cover-up, part II!
Date: 10 Apr 1996 14:18:32 -0700
Organization: CRL Network Services (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Recently I posted about Steve Case's appearance at the National Press
Club. AOL had deleted a question about sex on AOL before posting an
*edited* transcript in their "Full Disclosure" area.
The first Usenet response came from barton@phantom.com
>> Ironically, the edited transcript appeared in AOL's "Full Disclosure"
>> area.
>
>That's not irony. That is a FACT that makes the phrase "cover up"
>inappropriate for this event. Call it dodging the question. Call it
>evasion. It's not a cover up.
Barton@phantom.com is the Producer of AOL's Internet Connection. Not just
a remote staffer, but a full-time paid employee.
Barton joins a long list of AOL staffers who read alt.aol-sucks to "spin"
negative posts--without identifying themselves as AOL employees.
Sometimes they even post from overhead accounts.
destiny@crl.com /\ alt.aol-sucks RESPONDS TO TIME
/ \ http://www.crl.com/~destiny/time.htm
==============================================================================
/__________\ Cyberporn, Phonesex Strangers, "I've Been Spammed"
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,misc.invest.stocks,alt.online-service,alt.internet.media-coverage,alt.wired,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Sex on AOL: Cover-up, part II!
Date: 11 Apr 1996 13:12:12 -0700
Organization: CRL Network Services (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
barton (barton@phantom.com) wrote:
:
:I've posted the fact that I'm an AOL employee several times.
This is false.
Barton joins the newsgroup on February 5...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> In any case, the "fix" would be to disable Guest Logins. Replace it
Then AOL users would be unable to check their mail from other terminals
without downloading and reinstalling a personalized copy of the
software to the machine they're using in that instance. And the
people that do steal names and passwords could easily personalize a
copy of the software with the accounts they've stolen and easily
erase it later.
Try again.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Her sixth week in the newsgroup, still nothing.
March 13...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Companies provided their employees with means
> and resorces to expand their minds and susported the community unlike
> AOL which seeks only to expand the number of customers it rips off.
Want to share your shiny, happy history book with us? I missed the part
about companies loving and caring for their employees. I did read about
sweat shops and poor working conditions making people sick. Oh, and I
read about how companies used immigrants, women, and children. I
wasn't aware that just 100 years ago going to work was like going
to Romper Room. Except you get paid.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Even in a discussion about how companies treat their employees, nothing.
Lots of name-calling. ("Who the hell are you? Ed Anger? Next thing you
know, you'll be posting that you're pig-biting mad....")
In week 7, we get this oblique reference.
March 21...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> What kind of quoting is that? This << blurb >> nonsense is simply
> annoying.
Have you really only seen ONE kind of quoting style in all of your
Internet experience?
> Now, what's really ironic, is that Chris is now free to set the
> rules, and AOL is out yet another user. Don't you morons see
> that you're losing the customers with brains to ISPs? Well, of
> course you do, and that's just what
So we should allow people to scroll, harrass, solicit for credit card
numbers and passwords just so that we don't lose them to ISPs? Well,
it's brilliant! I think I'll march right over to Steve Case's
office and explain this new plan to reduce our churn rate. I might
even get promoted.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
That's kind of oblique...
Later in the same post:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Oh, and, by the bye ... I see you're not using AOL either.
I certainly do use AOL. And accounts at netcom and io.com and
phantom.com. Each serves its purpose.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
She "uses" AOL. Barton deliberately sidesteps the employment issue.
The AOL apologies and name-calling continue.....
March 25.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Five Reasons Why Vincent McClane's Post Sucks!
In article <4j4odk$jj2@cloner4.netcom.com>, coolmike@ix.netcom.com
(Vincent McClane) wrote:
> Does Aol Sucks?
> --------------------------
Bad subject-verb agreement makes readers doubtful they should have even
read this far.
> Yes!
> -------
Everyone knows how annoying people who answer their own questions are.
> Email me telling me why you think Aol Sucks!
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
Shows his nervousness about communicating intelligently in a public
forum. Would much rather see volumes of e-mail pile into his mail
reader. He can print them out and count them repeatedly for hours
of enjoyment. Or maybe he'd rather roll around in them in the buff
and pretend that he's Demi Moore in Indecent Proposal.
> Not more than 5 reasons please
> --------------------------------------------------
First he has the nerve to post completely lame content, and then he
wants to put restrictions on the kind of responses he gets.
> Vincent McClane
User name is coolmike. I rest my case.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
My point is this.
On the March 27 post...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Ironically, the edited transcript appeared in AOL's "Full
> Disclosure" area.
That's not irony. That is a FACT that makes the phrase "cover up"
inappropriate for this event. Call it dodging the question. Call it
evasion. It's not a cover up.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
At the time this post was made, the only indication of employment was "I
might get promoted". At no point in time has Barton ever identified
herself as Catherine Buzzell, Producer of AOL's Internet Connection.
Entering her third month in the newsgroup, Barton writes
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I know very well how mailboxes work at AOL. Might have something to do
with working there. And only in your very elaborate fantasies have I
embarrassed myself in this group. You, however, have done an
excellent job for yourself. Party on.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
That was a week ago.
She mentions employment status only once more--in a follow-up to a flame
of that post, complaining that she had concealed her affiliation with AOL.
destiny@crl.com /\ alt.aol-sucks FTP site
/ \ ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/de/destiny/aol/
==============================================================================
/__________\ Now featuring 400K year-end review!!!
From: mgscheue@io.com (Mark G. Scheuern)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,misc.invest.stocks,alt.online-service,alt.internet.media-coverage,alt.wired,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Sex on AOL: Cover-up, part II!
Date: 12 Apr 1996 07:22:14 -0500
Organization: Illuminati Online
destiny@crl.com (David Cassel) writes:
>barton (barton@phantom.com) wrote:
>:
>:I've posted the fact that I'm an AOL employee several times.
>This is false.
>Barton joins the newsgroup on February 5...
[excellent analysis followed]
It's even worse. This Goodwill Ambassador from AOL posted here in
late December or early January as "cmbuzzell@aol.com". I know this
because I replied to the following post on January 3:
---
cmbuzzell@aol.com (CMBuzzell) writes:
If you have a SLIP or PPP account, you can create and delete account names
at will, creating an account with one name for a long night of harrassment
if you choose, and delete it the next day.
Don't try and tell me that AOL is polluting the Net by giving it's users
the option of anonymity.
---
Again, not the slightest mention of her place of employment (and of
course, since "barton@phantom.com" has not identified herself as having
previously posted as "cmbuzzell@aol.com, even if she had made mention of
her employment there would have been no way to associate the two).
David, you have done a terrific job of demonstrating that her statement
that "I've posted the fact that I'm an AOL employee several times" is
patently false. At best, there were vague hints of this.
Rational, cogent argument is not one of "barton's" strong points, as she
has so vividly demonstrated these last few months. I wonder if we'll be
treated to juvenile insults, more false claims, threats, or total silence
in response.
I think it's truly a shame that a member of AOL's "professional staff"
makes an appearance here and instead of making reasoned arguments, brings
embarassement to her company and herself (when her identity was
revealed, against her wishes) with her puerile and inane posts. She has
solidified the beliefs of those who find AOL lacking in professionalism.
Mark
From: mgscheue@io.com (Mark G. Scheuern)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: "barton's" credibility gap
Date: 13 Apr 1996 15:25:28 -0500
Organization: Illuminati Online
Summary: Another lie from Catherine Buzzell
Keywords: AOL,barton,Buzzell,lies,headers
It seems that "barton" (Catherine Buzzell, AOL's Internet Connection
Producer and "sassmaster") has been less than truthful with us about
something. Yes, yes, I know: it's shocking to think that a person who
has proven herself so very credible would attempt to deceive anyone on
this newsgroup, but look at the evidence.
On April 12, she says:
"That's why I prefer to post to newsgroups under my phantom.com
account. I can say whatever I want all the live long day without worrying
about breaking the rules of a family service."
Except that post, and the other "barton@phantom.com" posts were in fact
made from an account at AOL, not phantom.com. Examining the headers
reveals this. For example, from that April 12 post:
Path:
news.io.com!arlut.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!n
ewsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!NewsWatcher!user
From: barton@phantom.com (barton)
Newsgroups:
alt.aol-sucks,alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks,alt
.online-service,alt.censorship,aol.newsgroups.help
Subject: Re: Sex on AOL: Cover-up, part II!
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:44:50 -0500
Organization: The Den
Lines: 45
Message-ID: < barton-1204960944500001@152.163.52.16 >
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
References:
<4j9o4m$8qf@crl2.crl.com><barton-2703961424050001@152.163.52.16#1/1>
<4kh8j8$2tp@crl.crl.com> <barton-1004961844200001@152.163.52.16>
<316d279f.8315
1104@news.concentric.net> <4kjv4c$qqp@crl.crl.com>
<4klk9r$rrv@tribune.concentric.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.52.16
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
X-GNN-NewsServer-Posting-Date: 12 Apr 1996 13:43:39 GMT
Xref: news.io.com alt.aol-sucks:79722 alt.online-service:18908
alt.censorship:11
2710
Doing a "whois" on 152.163 gives:
America Online (NET-ANS-BNET8)
8619 Westwood Center Drive
Vienna, VA 22182
Netname: AOL-BNET
Netnumber: 152.163.0.0
Coordinator:
Mackey, Bruce (BM814) Mackey@AOL.COM
703-453-4414
Domain System inverse mapping provided by:
HP81.PROD.AOL.NET 192.203.190.18
OPS01.OPS.AOL.COM 152.163.80.11
DNS-AOL.ANS.NET 198.83.210.28
Yep, that's right: these marvelous posts that Buzzell can make "all the
live long day" and that present AOL's professional staff in such a good
light come, not from her phantom.com account as she specifically stated
but from her work account at AOL (and during the working day, too). She
simply changed the mail reply address.
Two questions for Catherine (we know she likes questions):
Does this mean that you _did_ break the rules of a family service?
Why did you lie about where your posts were coming from?
On April 11, Buzzell said:
"I don't really care if you believe me or not."
This is no doubt a handy trait for her to have.
Mark
On Friday, April 19, it was revealed that Catherine Buzzell, AOL's wayward Internet Connection producer, was again posting flames to alt.aol-sucks from the AOL Executive Headquarters in Vienna, Virginia.
On company time.
From: dfroman@ix.netcom.com (Dave)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,alt.2600,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AOL's TOS threatens Web site
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 05:12:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Moments before complete insanity barton@phantom.com (barton) wrote:
>> The producer of AOL's Internet Connection, Catherine Buzzell, telnets from
>> the AOL building to an internet account to obfuscate criticism of her
>> employer.
>Not that this matters (although I do like to say it), but you're wrong
>here. If I was telnetting from the AOL building to an ISP, you wouldn't
>know it. Tsk. Tsk.
Have to disagree with you on that one (this is why shells are a
wonderful thing). As we can all see from the following, you did
telenet from 152.163 (AOL) to Phantom last at 6:01pm on 19 April.
Better think of something different to try and impress people with,
cause you computer knowledge definately isn't doing it.
finger barton@phantom.com
Login Name TTY Idle When Where
barton Negative Creep pts/6 <Apr 19 18:01> 152.163.52.16
Not that I have anything against AOL, some of my best friends are
AOLamers. Spend some time in Unix (even DOS will do to start). The
net is an open book, don't do anything on it you wouldn't do in the
town square at noon.
dfroman@ix.netcom.com
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,alt.2600,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.internet.media-coverage
Subject: Re: AOL's TOS threatens Web site
Date: 21 Apr 1996 12:02:36 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
The head of AOL's "Internet Connection" caught red-handed showing her
lack of net savvy....
Dave (dfroman@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >If I was telnetting from the AOL building to an ISP, you wouldn't
: >know it.
: Have to disagree with you on that one (this is why shells are a
: wonderful thing). As we can all see from the following, you did
: telenet from 152.163 (AOL) to Phantom last at 6:01pm on 19 April.
AOL's Webmaster--the 24-year-old Michael Hutchinson--was *also* telnetting
from the AOL building and posting to alt.aol-sucks without identifying
himself.
blues@cais.cais.com (Blues) writes:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Christopher M McCraken (asciridr@nyc.pipeline.com) wrote:
:alone. We dont want you to give back to us Steve, every time you do , you
:fuck something up (i.e: WebCrawler)
"Net Leach (sic) Philosophy" vs "We dont (sic) want you to give back to
us Steve". You people need to make up your minds (and learn how to spell).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
crl1% finger blues@cais.com
[cais.com]
Login: blues Name: Blues
Directory: /cais/blues Shell: /bin/csh
Last login Wed Jan 10 14:44 (EST) on ttyp9 from 152.163.33.50
No Plan. ~~~~~~~~~~~~
crl17% nslookup 152.163.33.50
Name: mac-sn12501.office.aol.com
Address: 152.163.33.50 ~~~~~~~
But it's more sinister.
Hutchinson joins a campaign against "anti-AOL bias" in the mass media.
Take this letter to "The Net" magazine...
"over the past couple of issues, I've noticed a disturbing trend that
being AOL bashing...why must we be treated to a monthly tirade of your
obvious hostility toward it?... I was shocked to see you jump head-first
into the foray, and help foster an atmosphere of hatred and mistrust."
It was signed only "dirtman@primenet.com". However, his Web page
identifies him as Michael Pellerin, who works for "a very large online
service". In fact, it's AOL's Customer Service building in Arizona.
The Net published a similar letter one month earlier from a paid AOL
staffer who also didn't identify their affiliation.
Hutchinson's cais.com account.
destiny@crl.com /\ AOL, hackers, and the threats against critics
/ \ http://www.crl.com/~destiny/time.htm
==============================================================================
/__________\ "Hacks, flacks, and Macs"
From: frizz@mont.mindspring.com (Frizz)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: AOL's TOS threatens Web site
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 04:30:29 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 11:20:26 -0500, in alt.aol-sucks,
barton@phantom.com (barton) wrote:
>In article <4l9kqn$6q4@crl.crl.com>, destiny@crl.com (David Cassel) wrote:
>
>> I stand corrected. The producer of AOL's Internet Connection is posting
>> directly from the AOL building, on company time. (Shouldn't you be off
>> writing one-sided reviews of newsgroups you don't like, or something?)
>
>Not on company time. All my reviews are one-sided by definition, and I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>write reviews of groups I like, don't like, and could care less about.
>It's part of working for the man.
Judging from the timestamps on your posts listed with DejaNews, I
don't think so.
Well, at first, maybe. But then you got into a flame war, and you got
obsessed with it. You started cheating a little. Then a little more.
Maybe I'm wrong and you have constrained your posting to lunch/break
time, but I doubt it.
Maybe you are allowed to post on company time. You said you didn't
when you really did, so I think you've run afoul of an AOL rule here.
I wonder what would happen if I sent this information to 10-15 AOL
higher-ups.
If you'd like to find out, keep trolling alt.aol-sucks.
Now get back under your bridge.
posted & e-mailed
************************************************************************
Articles by barton@phantom.com on DejaNews:
GNN news server time stamp Local_time@aol.com
5 Feb 1996 20:34:44 GMT 3:34p
1 Mar 1996 22:30:13 GMT 5:30p
13 Mar 1996 21:33:05 GMT 4:33p
19 Mar 1996 01:41:07 GMT 8:41p
21 Mar 1996 17:38:05 GMT 12:38p
22 Mar 1996 00:14:52 GMT 7:14p
25 Mar 1996 22:17:41 GMT 5:17p
25 Mar 1996 22:31:30 GMT 5:31p
25 Mar 1996 23:27:00 GMT 6:27p
27 Mar 1996 19:19:20 GMT 2:19p
27 Mar 1996 19:22:58 GMT 2:22p
28 Mar 1996 17:58:06 GMT 12:58p
2 Apr 1996 19:43:28 GMT 2:43p
2 Apr 1996 21:18:48 GMT 4:18p
3 Apr 1996 15:07:02 GMT 10:07a
4 Apr 1996 15:27:49 GMT 10:27a
4 Apr 1996 15:37:28 GMT 10:37a
5 Apr 1996 17:48:51 GMT 12:48p
8 Apr 1996 15:53:48 GMT 11:53a
9 Apr 1996 14:56:22 GMT 10:56a
10 Apr 1996 14:24:31 GMT 10:24a
10 Apr 1996 22:43:09 GMT 6:43p
11 Apr 1996 14:06:49 GMT 10:06a
12 Apr 1996 13:43:39 GMT 9:43a
15 Apr 1996 15:19:43 GMT 11:19a
15 Apr 1996 15:26:04 GMT 11:26a
17 Apr 1996 13:48:45 GMT 9:48a
--
=FRIZZ= Member alt.aol-sucks Troll Patrol(tm), Goon Squad Division
Finger for PGP 2.6.2 Public Key. Unsolicited *commercial* email is
subject to download/archival fee of $200 US per message. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms. (My mailbox - a spam free zone!)
From: mgscheue@io.com (Mark G. Scheuern)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,alt.2600,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AOL's TOS threatens Web site
Date: 22 Apr 1996 12:30:26 -0500
Organization: Illuminati Online
barton@phantom.com (barton) writes:
>In article <4l9kqn$6q4@crl.crl.com>, destiny@crl.com (David Cassel) wrote:
>> I stand corrected. The producer of AOL's Internet Connection is posting
>> directly from the AOL building, on company time. (Shouldn't you be off
>> writing one-sided reviews of newsgroups you don't like, or something?)
>Not on company time. All my reviews are one-sided by definition, and I
>write reviews of groups I like, don't like, and could care less about.
>It's part of working for the man.
And we're all very convinced, given your performance here, that your
reviews carry a lot of weight. I am glad to see that, after initially
lying about it and then trying to weasel out of it, you are now admitting
that you are posting from an internal AOL account. This, however, does
not change the fact that you _did_ lie about this.
BTW, you must work strange hours. Times from some random posts of yours
include:
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:24:05 -0500
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 10:08:13 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:25:43 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:44:20 -0500
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:50:00 -0500
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 17:18:47 -0500
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 14:51:22 -0500
Whatever.
>Actually, I thought I did address this. You are complaining about AOL
>going after people who carry AOHell on their Web sites. You made some
>mention of AOHell not violating the law. The only point I was addressing
>in your post was that AOHell does indeed violate the law. Without the
>credit card number generator, there's probably no illegality at all.
A program that simply says something like "give me your password" is in
violation of the law? Posting a program that does this is in violation
of the law? Where did you imagine this? Okay, feel free to turn me in
for this:
#!/bin/ksh
write $1 "Hello, I'm your sys admin. Please give me your password."
>As for your remarks on what I didn't remark on--I'm not going to comment
>on something that I am not 100% of the answer. You can feel free to
>speculate to your heart's desire. In this case, I would rather not. But
>when you post that AOL's screens actually mention AOHell, well, that's
>what we call a lie. So I called you on it.
What you failed to remark on was the entire topic of that thread, which
raises the question of why you said anything at all.
>> The head of AOL's Internet Connection would apparently prefer the subject
>> were whether or not fake credit card numbers are illegal, as this would
>> remove her employer from the discussion about whether it was wrong for
>> them to bully Web sites.
>I am just a lowly peon. I am not the head of the Internet Connection or
>anywhere near it.
You are the Producer of the Internet Connection. One of two, I believe.
You do, in fact, have a small staff. Whatever, you again avoid the issue
of whether or nmot these web sites should be bullied. And please, we
have your egomaniacal number. A little late for the modesty act.
>This is what blows my mind. What is so goddamned hard about password
>phishing that it would require any software to actually help you out with
>it? Is there a software packages out there to help people who want to cold
>call the elderly and steal their credit card numbers too? Does it organize
>the people you've called and keep track of how long you've been holding a
>stolen number?
Then why is AOL so afraid of this program? You can't have it both ways.
Mark
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks,misc.invest.stocks,
alt.online-service,alt.internet.media-coverage,dc.general,alt.wired,alt.2600,alt.censorship,
alt.flame,alt.sex,aol.newsgroups.help,alt.support.shyness
Subject: Re: Sex on AOL: Cover-up, part II!
Date: 25 Apr 1996 19:25:51 -0700
Gabe Goldberg (gabe@cpcug.org) wrote:
: Disclaimer: I co-host one of AOL's Internet forums,
: but am not AOL employee.
Take note. After all the pro-AOL trolls who failed to identify
themselves, this is kind of refreshing...
: : AOL views anyone on their system who has any clue about what they are
: : doing as a threat.
:
: I don't think so -- AOL devotes a lot of resources to teaching folks
: the Internet and helping them use AOL as Internet gateway. I've seen no
: sign that informed users are seen or treated as a threat.
From Tech Live:
MudChet: (4) Does AOL have TELNET capability?
Kathy5096: (4) No Telnet.
Kathy5096: (4) No Mud.
Kathy5096: (4) No MOO's.
Kathy5096: (4) They don't have IRC either.
TLA TMI: (4) Kathy: Please stop chatting in this area...
TLA TMI: (4) MudChet: No, they do not...
MudChet: (4) Thanks.
[...]
ADimock: (4) How do I send E-mail to e-world?
TLA TMI: (4) ADimock: They don't have internet access, you can't
Kathy5096: (4) That's also wrong, TLA.
At this point, Kathy's ability to chat was revoked, before she'd even been
allowed to ask her question.
And take this classic piece of disinformation from "Multimedia
Online"--the $10.00 magazine published by AOL.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Q: Sometimes my friends on other systems send me email that I don't
receive immediately. Why is there a delay and can I avoid it?
A: The good news is there's nothing wrong with your system. The bad
news is AOL has no control over the delay. If you send email to an AOL
member, it gets there almost immediately. If email is sent over the
Internet to another service, it may get tangled up in the intricacy of
the Internet itself. The solution: get all your friends onto AOL.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It's not possible to be cynical *enough* about AOL...
destiny@crl.com /\ Hackers, Time, and AOL. Cyberporn! Phone Sex Strangers!
/ \ http://www.crl.com/~destiny/time.htm
==============================================================================
/__________\ AOL Hacker Expose; Flacks, Lawyers, and Web pages
From: mgscheue@io.com (Mark G. Scheuern)
Newsgroups: alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks,misc.invest.stocks,
alt.online-service,alt.internet.media-coverage,dc.general,alt.wired,alt.2600,alt.censorship,
alt.flame,alt.sex,aol.newsgroups.help,alt.support.shyness
Subject: Re: Sex on AOL: Cover-up, part II!
Date: 26 Apr 1996 12:01:32 -0500
Organization: Illuminati Online
destiny@crl.com (David Cassel) writes:
>Gabe Goldberg (gabe@cpcug.org) wrote:
>: Disclaimer: I co-host one of AOL's Internet forums,
>: but am not AOL employee.
>Take note. After all the pro-AOL trolls who failed to identify
>themselves, this is kind of refreshing...
Indeed. I've had contact with Gabe before and I know him to be a good
guy. That he doesn't follow his co-worker's example is much to his
credit and it would be interesting to know what his real feelings about
her posts here are.
However, that said, I should mention that Gabe is the co-host of the
Internet Connections's Pro's Corner and is a friend of Catherine
Buzzell. It's not coincidental that he should make an appearance now.
Mark
From: trebor@sirius.com
Newsgroups: alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks,misc.invest.stocks,
alt.online-service,alt.internet.media-coverage,dc.general,alt.wired,alt.2600,
alt.censorship,alt.flame,alt.sex,aol.newsgroups.help,alt.support.shyness
Subject: Re: Sex on AOL: Cover-up, part II!
Followup-To: alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 19:43:03 -0700
Organization: Sirius Connections
lambdarising@his.com (Deacon Maccubbin) wrote:
>gabe@cpcug.org (Gabe Goldberg) wrote:
>>But jeez, I just don't understand the vehemence of feelings against
>>AOL...
>My sentiments exactly. Among a relatively small group of people, the level
>of undisguised loathing for AOL seems to surpass the religious fervor of a
>snake-handling fundamentalist frothing at the mouth over some imagined
>sins.
ROFL!
What's the matter? Too chicken to troll the militia folks?
Seriously, considering the snakes we've had to handle in here, we're really
pretty easy-going.
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks,
alt.online-service,alt.internet.mediacoverage,dc.general,alt.wired,
alt.2600,alt.censorship,alt.flame,alt.sex,aol.newsgroups.help,
alt.support.shyness,alt.homosexual
Subject: Re: Sex on AOL: Cover-up, part II!
Followup-To: alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks,
alt.online-service,alt.internet.media-coverage,dc.general,alt.wired,alt.2600,
alt.censorship,alt.flame,alt.sex,aol.newsgroups.help,alt.support.shyness
Date: 1 May 1996 19:47:07 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
AOL staffer Deacon Maccubbin (lambdarising@his.com) wrote:
: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel) wrote:
: > Until recently, the word "bi-" was on AOL's "banned words list" as
: > unconditionally vulgar. Last I heard, the words "gay lovers" were still
: > on the banned list for room names.
: >
: > Along with "GIF" and "boy"...
:
: I don't know where you got your information, but I wouldn't trust the
: source if I were you.
AOL's software automatically prevents the creation of any chat room whose
name contains the word "GIF" or "boy". Don't take my word for it--try it.
: None of those words are on any general banned word
: list, though I believe AOL does still discourage "GIF" in chat room names
: (in a likely futile attempt to discourage the swapping of porn GIFs), and
: "boy" can cause problems if the context indicates pedophile intentions
: (but not in other contexts).
Creating a chat room about the Dallas Cowboys is also automatically
banned.
Context notwithstanding.
(I wouldn't trust *your* source...)
: There WAS a time, about 5 or 6 years ago if
: memory serves, when AOL's TOS was interpreted as forbidding the use of
: "gay" or "lesbian" in chat room names, but as soon as a group of
: gay/lesbian members pointed out the unfairness of that policy, it was
: changed (it took about two weeks for the change to be made). Policies
: concerning other words (including "transsexual" and "bi") have similarly
: been changed once members opened the issue, which demonstrates that AOL
: does listen.
Someone who was there remembers it a little differently.
From an e-mail I received in 1994:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
When the cross-gender community tried to open a dialogue with AOL on the
subject of their constant harassment by TOS (and the apparent
discrimination - Blatant heterosexual and homosexual rooms were left
virtually unharassed in comparison to the treatment the transvestites were
receiving), AOL refused to respond to the issue. AOL members both within
and without the cross-gender community who wrote letters of complaint to
TOS received replies stating that "AOL has no plans to change their terms
of service"
They weren't asking AOL to change TOS. They were asking AOL to check into
TOS enforcement, since apparently there was some discrimination going on
that was interfering with communication among some of their paying
customers.
The transvestites kept up their letter campaign, and they also continued to
open their chat rooms. It was important for them to have a public, not a
private, chat room because many of them only found their online community
through the chat rooms. Also, they wanted to use the public chat room as an
unobtrusive way to disseminate fair information about gender issues to
those interested in discussing those issues. They didn't want a grandstand,
they just wanted freedom to speak about their community among themselves
and to answer questions from the outside.
AOL's response to this was to step up TOS harassment. cross-gender rooms
were closed or privated even more frequently - sometimes as often as
10x/hour. At the peak of the harassment, some transvestities received
e-mail from unnamed TOS advisors stating that their accounts would be
closed if these activities continued. These letters were addressed to the
transvestite's screen names, but their real names were used in the body of
the correspondence - something that frightened the entire community,
because their careers lives could be ruined if their gender orientation was
made public knowledge. They had no idea TOS would have access to their true
identities. Using their real names could only be construed as a tactic of
intimidation.
I was outraged at this point. To me, this was as blatant a free speech
issue as one could hope to find. I'd also sent repeated letters to TOS,
asking for information on their policies, reporting procedures, and further
clarification on the deliberately vaguely-worded TOS - and been
stonewalled. I happened to be acquainted with Kathy Ryan, managing editor
of AOL [...] Not being able to get past the TOS stonewall, I e-mailed
Kathy directly, expecting her to be at least fair. Kathy responded with
a curt reply: "I am in charge of TOS policy."
I was surprised to find that TOS was under her personal jurisdiction, but
pleased to know I'd inadvertantly found my way straight to the top. I asked
around and found out that she'd been instrumental in getting the gay &
lesbian chat rooms on AOL, so I though maybe she'd be sympathetic if she
knew all the facts. I sent her detailed explanations of the situation,
documented with copies of e-mail, chat room logs, etc. She refused to
respond. I e-mailed her directly several more times, providing still more
documentation and asking her to open a dialogue. No response.
In short, AOL refused to open a dialogue on the issue at all. This standoff
continued on for months into mid-1994. There was some minor news coverage
of the controversy, mostly in gay newspapers but also a few short pieces in
mainstream papers. Shortly after the press coverage began, AOL issued a
piece of e-mail to all piece who'd mailed TOS on the issue which stated
that "gender issues are now allowed, as long as they conform to TOS."
AOL has no procedure through which issues of TOS discrimination can be
discussed and addressed. TOS is a very closed, black-box type of system -
and AOL by all appearances intends to keep it that way. TOS decisions are
arbitrary, and Kathy Ryan is at the top of the structure. TOS is kept
vague, so it can mean whatever TOS Advisors want it to mean. And
apparently, TOS advisors are able to use their power in the system to
exercise personal prejudice.
AOL does not want to discuss any of this. Believe me, many people tried. At
least AOL changed their mind in this case - but not in a way that would
help the next minority group that finds itself at the mercy of TOS.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
destiny@crl.com /\ AOL Employee Watch * Hackers Tell All * Dozens of Links
/ \ http://www.crl.com/~destiny/time.htm
==============================================================================
/__________\ Cyberporn, "Phone Sex Strangers": Time magazine watch
From: mgscheue@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Mark G. Scheuern)
Newsgroups: alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks,misc.invest.stocks,
alt.online-service,alt.internet.media-coverage,dc.general,alt.wired,alt.2600,
alt.censorship,alt.flame,alt.sex,aol.newsgroups.help,alt.support.shyness
Subject: Re: Sex on AOL: Cover-up, part II!
Date: 30 Apr 1996 22:18:58 -0400
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A.
gabe@cpcug.org (Gabe Goldberg) writes:
>Mark G. Scheuern (mgscheue@io.com) wrote:
>: Perhaps you would feel differently if ... [you had been made the
target of an out of control employee]
>If I had personal knowledge of that,
>I probably would feel differently.
>I don't, so I don't.
We agree on this. Our experiences have been different in this respect
but don't deny me the validity of my viewpoint based on what has
happened with me. Catherine Buzzell has said that she sees you as a
resource for employment after AOL. She took a personal dislike to me
and chose to take her personal problems into the workplace. That your
experiences are different from mine is no surprise.
>: >Some are great, some are good, some are otherwise.
>:
>: >There's a type of personality that needs to convince the world
>: >of *the truth*, whether or not the world agrees or wants to be convinced.
>:
>: Are you speaking of ... [fellow AOL employee's strange and rabid
pro-AOL posts]
>I'm mostly speaking of responses from alt.aol-sucks,
>which don't/won't/can't recognize that for some people
>AOL is the right answer. I'm not taking the opposite
>position, that AOL is the best online service,
>the best ISP, the best organization,
>and the gee-whiz all-around niftiest people in the world.
>Nope, all I'm saying is that overall it's not bad,
>it's very good for some customers,
>it's a pretty successful company,
>and I like the people at AOL I've met.
Again, I can't debate you about your own personal experiences.
If you characterize the majority of posts on here as somehow unfair,
however, you are doing a disservice. For the most part, the criticisms
of your part-time employer are well thought-out and backed up with facts
and valid experiences. I don't know what you mean when you say "There's
a type of personality that needs to convince the world of *the truth*,
whether or not the world agrees or wants to be convinced." Can you
be more specific? Look at the nonsense that your fellow employee
"barton" has been posting here for months and compare it with the
posts from people like Art Stone, David Cassel, Mimi, and many others.
Stirrup Queen Buzzell virtually froths at the mouth while these people
have attempted to reason with her, only to be treated to personal
insults and stupidity. Yes, _some_ of the anti-AOL people here get a
bit carried away but you are generalizing and misjudging.
For example...
I have personally seen you struggle to get a word in edgewise while
attempting to give one of your (very good, I should add) online seminars
as chaos reigns in the auditorium. Maybe it doesn't bother you but
the combination of idiots looking for hot-chat, trying to get people
to give them their passwords, and general doltishness makes for a
very unpleasant experience for an audience member attempting to actually
get something out of the seminar. I see this as a very real problem
with AOL. There are many others.
--
Mark
From: KenW@sojourn.com (Ken Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: AOL's TOS threatens Web site
Followup-To: alt.aol-sucks
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:52:14 GMT
Organization: Tuxedos for Penguins International
In article:<317EC825.3C41@gnn.com>
"Bud E. Love" wannabe troll wrote:
>AOL employees have so little credibility in a.a-s precisely because they
>don't identify themselves as paid stooges for The Man. And you're not
>helping the credibility of yourself or AOL by implying that the problem
>is with everyone else.
>well then, as a point of honor, i must reveal i get checks from AOL.
>Flame if you will, or just ask any question i can answer. i wont lie and
>i wont BS. i dont defend nor deny anything i dont know about.
You didn't identify yourself over the past two weeks...
The admission should have been from the start when you first began
trolling this newsgroup. I don't have a problem with you admitting to
be staff (those that do get more respect), but your posts up until now
have been intended to disrupt rather than to seriously discuss
anything at all.
Now, it seems, you want to pretend it never happened.
>there is some BS from both sides in here, but i do se many valid
>complaints. too bad most of them just dont have a really nice answer
>except "Damn that sucks".
Actually, many of non-answer posts are from the pro-aol side where a
lot of people reply "THAT'S NOT TRUE!" and don't provide any
information to back it up.
OTOH, I see a lot of verifiable complaints about AOL.
>I don't feel stoogish, i do my job to the best of my ability. most of the
>people i talk to are satified with the results. sometimes all i can do is
>apologize for the problem, when thats the case i try and explain whats
>going on and when it should be resolved. sometimes i'm wrong. i'm not one
>of the top brass and they dont always let me in on the big stuff.
>but i dont think most of you have a problem with me, just the groups i
>have worked for (i have worked for 3 online services, 5 software co's).
>some of the reasons are valid, some seem like frustrated venting over
>insolvable problems. wish something could be done to solve all the
>problems, but dont think that will happen in the near future.
What's it like to be FIRED as phone support from 2 online services and
5 software companies? Just curious about why you'd brag about it...
>Well to wrap it up, i'm not claiming to know it all or to be a defender
>of the faith, just IDing myself so i can at least have the credibility
>granted anyone else who posts.
It's going to take a lot of work for you to regain credibility in
light of your posts to alt.aol-sucks in the past.
[newsgroups removed except for alt.aol-sucks]
--
KenW@sojourn.com Speed kills. Switch to Windows95 and save lives!
SuperiorLK@aol.com
Igloo@eskimo.com Finger for PGP Public Key
From: artstone@concentric.net (Art Stone)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AOL's TOS threatens Web site
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:49:42 GMT
Organization: AOL Truth Squad
"Bud E. Love" wrote:
>
>well then, as a point of honor, i must reveal i get checks from AOL.
>
>Flame if you will, or just ask any question i can answer. i wont lie and
>i wont BS. i dont defend nor deny anything i dont know about.
>
You're about two weeks too late.
That was exactly what I pointed out, in my own subtle way. I think
-most- of the newsgroup "got it". Your Usenet headers made it
-extremely- obvious that you are an AOL/GNN employee because you
posted to an NNTP server using an IP address in the AOL IP address
block. Since you are behind a firewall, and that IP address is not in
DNS - the -only- way you could have posted your messages was from
inside AOL.
Got it? :)
BTW, I try very hard to listen to AOL people based on their
willingness to discuss the issues, and their willingness to do so in a
reasonably honest way. Those who try to B/S their way past people who
know better, or resort to profanity or name calling do nothing to
improve AOL's corporate image. So far, your posts seem to be fairly
resonable :)
I would be interested in hearing, for instance, some of the challeges
involved in supporting such a huge cusomter base. (without divulging
anything of a security/confidential nature, of cousre)
Art Stone (ex-AOL customer since 3/1/96)
--
Thank Gawd Almighty, I'm free at last.
http://www.concentric.net/~artstone
From: njkahn@hooked.net (Mimi Kahn)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,alt.2600,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AOL's TOS threatens Web site
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 03:04:46 GMT
Organization: Megabyte Press
On Wed, 24 Apr 1996 07:26:21 -0400, ABBAfan@hayburn.com (Gary
Kirchherr) wrote:
>In article <4ljss8$a6j@news2.cais.com>, blues@cais.cais.com (Blues) wrote:
>
>> David Cassel (destiny@crl.com) wrote:
>>
>> : AOL's Webmaster--the 24-year-old Michael Hutchinson--was *also* telnetting
>> : from the AOL building and posting to alt.aol-sucks without identifying
>> : himself.
>>
>> Yup, that's me. And I am, in fact, 24 years old. Wouldn't want to confuse
>> me with other AOL Webmasters named Michael Hutchinson.
>
>I'm sure the other Michael Hutchinsons concur with that. I for one sure as
>hell wouldn't want to be confused with an AOL Webmaster.
Does anyone else get the feeling that there are more AOL staffers here
than regular posters? And that doesn't even count the lurkers, who
are countless....
Mimi
http://www.hooked.net/users/njkahn/
Subject: Re: Here's AOL 3.0, if u want to try it. - setup.exe (1/3)
From: jlteacher@aol.com (JLTEACHER)
Date: 1996/04/27
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: jlteacher@aol.com (JLTEACHER)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-Sucks
Just in case there are any newbies who happen to be reading this newsgroup
that may not be reading it carefully enough to have seen the previous
warning, I would just like to reiterate the fact that this file is a virus
which will provide the sender your password and will damage your hard
drive. Do NOT download this file.
***********************************************************
A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?
***********************************************************
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Sex on AOL: Cover-up, part II!
Followup-To: alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks
Date: 3 May 1996 12:27:39 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
JLTEACHER (jlteacher@aol.com) wrote:
: >"Discourage?" Try outright ban. You CANNOT create a room with "GIF"
: >in the title. Nor can you get away with the GxIxFxS trick, either.
: No, but you can create Gx(small L)xFxS (GxlxFxS) and the like. Not that I
: have any reason to create or frequent these types of rooms, but I just
: wanted to prove the point that if someone wants to be a perv, he/she will
: find a way.
As soon as AOL discovers those rooms, they will close them.
I don't think you can argue AOL doesn't ban the word "GIF" by saying that
if you insert extra letters to get past the auto-ban, the room can be
created until AOL notices it and shuts it down.
From AOL's TOS:
America Online, Inc. strictly prohibits the transfer
or posting of sexually explicit images online.
: Whether it be on AOL, another "I want to be an ISP when I
: grow up" or a legit ISP...a perv is a perv is a perv. The only thing that
: will stop kids from wandering into rooms like this is adequate parental
: monitoring. "Parental Controls" and "surfwatch" and the like can't do it.
This isn't about kids. Consenting adults who want to trade GIFs risk losing
their accounts if they do so on AOL.
This isn't necessarily "being a perv"--but AOL feels they know what's best
for all 5 million members. AOL staffers who complain alt.aol-sucks "knows
whats best" for AOL's members don't seem to mind the TOS staff's
across-the-board pronouncements on a type of picture format.
: Yes, I have AOL. I don't have kids, so I don't worry about the
: afore-mentioned problems. And yes, I work for AOL (as I've mentioned in
: previous posts).
I didn't see that post on DejaNews...
After a slew of anonymous disruptions by AOL staffers, some posting
directly from the AOL building in Vienna, I think that information should
be in your .sig file. You're posting using free-time on an AOL account
that was provided by AOL in exchange for services...
Although the smiley-face was a dead giveaway.
: Just my two cents :)
:
: ***********************************************************
: A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?
: ***********************************************************
Or in Chat Room-speak:
MAN'S GRASP - EXCEED 4 HEAVEN
destiny@crl.com /\ Trolling AOL Employees: 8 And Counting!!!
/ \ http://www.crl.com/~destiny/time.htm
==============================================================================
/__________\ Hacker Comics - May 3
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks,alt.online-service,dc.general,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Sex on AOL: Cover-up, part II!
Followup-To: alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks,alt.online-service,dc.general,alt.flame
Date: 3 May 1996 13:34:56 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
AOL vendor and "satisified member" Deacon Maccubbin (lambdarising@his.com)
wrote:
: In article <4m99tq$nq8@crl9.crl.com>, destiny@crl.com (David Cassel) wrote:
: > "ScootM" @aol.com wrote:
: > : This isn't true. I log into AOL and get the startup ads too. However,
: > : the Cancel button is always the default,
: >
: > It was originally "Order". AOL changed it only after their users
: > complained. (Some then complained AOL was deliberately reversing the order
: > of "Order" and "Don't Order", to confuse them...)
: Which is a perfect example of "you just can't please everyone." It's also
: an example, perhaps, of hypocrisy: You now admit
Deacon's next post:
: Oops...I just ascribed a quote (about AOL's ordering screen buttons) to
: David Cassell that had actually been made by Gary Kirchherr.
Ever heard of the "cancel" command, Deacon?
: that your earlier claim
: was based on something that AOL changed, so why did you even bother to
: bring it up? You didn't say "AOL used to..." You put it all in the present
: tense ("This _isn't_
: the case with AOL's startup ads. To even get on the service, you _have_ to
: click a button to tell AOL you do or don't want the special du jour."), as
: though it was a current problem, even though you knew it had been fixed by
: AOL.
That problem still exists. "You still do _have_ to click a button to tell
AOL whether you do or don't want the special du jour. It is a current
problem. It has not been fixed by AOL."
(This is me, Dave Cassel, speaking...)
Haven't you logged onto the service recently? For a "satified member", you
don't seem to have spent much time there...
They only changed the order of the buttons.
You said of Prodigy:
: And they now have restrictions on the number of free e-mails,
This is false.
: > AOL staffer Deacon Maccubbin (lambdarising@his.com) wrote:
: > >> In fact, something like 80% of those members have been on the service for
: > >> less than a year.
: > AOL has 6 million members now; one year ago, they were boasting 2 million
: > members. So statistically at least 66% haven't been on the service for
: > more than a year. It's not clear what portion of the remainder is recent
: > sign-ups, but that pushes the number up higher...
: I think your numbers are quite a bit off. It's my recollection (I haven't
: looked it up) that AOL's membership figures from a year ago (that is, in
: May of 1995) were considerably higher than 2 million and closer to 3
: million. Wait a minute...I can look it up...We opened our Lambda Rising
: Online forum there in June, 1995, and at that time the press releases
: announcing the opening referred to "over 3 million members."
In April it was "over 2 million"; exactly one year ago from *today*, May
3, AOL annouced they had just cracked the 2.5 million mark. (Press release
is at http://www.aol.com/about/press/1995/950503.txt.) If you want to
fast-forward two months to the end of June, you'll get a different number.
: Now there are about 6 million, for a 100% increase in 11 months.
Net increase. That figure say nothing about retention.
: It's my recollection that retention rates for AOL members are among
: the highest in the commercial industry, by the way.
America Online is struggling to keep up with technical and customer
support. The system has suffered a couple of outages since September, and
the churn rate is a substantial 29%.
Wall Street Journal
November 22
In March, Inside Media News spoke to a financial expert who took a
closer look at the quarterly reports, and annualized those numbers...
AOL spent $82 million to obtain net growth of 877,000 subscribers in
the period; or a whopping $93 per head....new subscribers in the
quarter totaled 1.82 million which, versus the 877,000 net gain,
indicates that 940,000 subscriptions were lost.
Compared to the 3.7 million at the beginning of the quarter, this
implies an annualized churn rate of 100 percent, up from 42 percent
a year ago.
For comparison, the churn rate for basic cable is less than 20%.
This is not a case of "As I remember it..." The actual article is at
http://www.mediacentral.com/Magazines/InsideMedia/News/9603/1996031301.htm
destiny@crl.com /\ AOL Staffer+Vendors Watch: Updated 5/4
/ \ http://www.crl.com/~destiny/time.htm
==============================================================================
/__________\ Hacker links, hacker memos, and hacker comics!
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks,alt.online-service,dc.general,alt.flame,alt.homosexual,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Sex on AOL: Cover-up, part II!
Followup-To: alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks,alt.online-service,dc.general,alt.flame
Date: 3 May 1996 14:04:16 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
AOL vendor and "satified member" Deacon Maccubbin (lambdarising@his.com)
wrote:
: * LAMBDA RISING BOOKSTORES - E-mail: lambdarising@his.com
: * Every Gay/Lesbian/Bi/Trans Book in Print + Videos, Music & Gifts
Selling gay videos on America Online?
Reminds me of the ACLU's story from comp.society.cu-digest, also available
at: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 17:20:40 -0500
From--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update: 12/6/95
* AOL Censors Gay Video Titles, Finds "Buns" Acceptable but "Studs" Too
Sleazy
AOL customers won't be surprised to hear that the AOL censors are at it
again. AOL has long had a policy of screening certain "dirty words" from its
public bulletin boards and chat groups. Last week, The Boston Globe reported
that AOL had banned the word "breast." The company agreed to reverse the
policy after "several days of on-line protests by irate breast cancer
patients." Richard A. Knox, "Women Go Online To Decry Ban On Breast,'" The
Boston Globe, 12/1/95.
Another example of AOL's attempt to use censorship to create a
"family-friendly" service was recently brought to the ACLU's attention.
Jeff Satkin is owner and operator of ATKOL Gay Videos, a mail-order gay
video store headquartered in Plainfield, NJ. Last August, Jeff responded
to AOL's bid for new business by signing up as an advertiser on "Downtown
AOL" (DT AOL). AOL describes the site as "a virtual small business
community where potential customers will come to browse and shop for
products and services of all types." Jeff paid the advertising fee and
sent AOL an electronic copy of his extensive mail-order video catalog for
posting on the DT AOL site. Under the contract, AOL agreed to run the ad
for a term of one year. According to Jeff, AOL posted the catalog in full
for four weeks with no complaints.
Then, in September, AOL sent Jeff a letter requesting that a huge percentage
of titles in the ATKOL Video mail-order catalog be removed from the online
version of the catalog that appeared on Downtown AOL. An AOL employee had
gone through a printed version of the list and highlighted the offending
titles that would need to be removed. The result is a hilarious but
frightening example of arbitrary censorship.
At the ACLU's suggestion, Jeff wrote to AOL and asked them to explain the
guidelines they used for censoring his catalog. After considerable delay,
AOL wrote back the following:
"DT AOL does not have any written standards for its advertisements. As
the manager of the area I determine whether an advertisement has the look
and feel that best fits our environment. I edited the file you sent and
removed any titles which I felt didn't reflect the image we would like to
project. I may have missed a few as you pointed out, so feel free to
remove those as well if you would like."
Here are just a few examples of AOL's arbitrary rating system as applied to
the ATKOL Video catalog. (And remember, these are **titles only**!! -- no
pictures, no cover art, no narrative -- just titles.)
AOL Says AOL Says
"Thumbs Down" -- "Thumbs Up" --
These titles were censored as These titles were not censored --
too sleazy for AOL!: they must have had "the look and
feel that best fits the AOL environment":
A Brother's Desire A Family Affair
Advanced Disrobics Lockerroom Fever
All About Sex ABC's of Sex
All the Right Stuff All Men Do It!
As the Bed Turns Bed Tales
Bare Bones Bareback
Bedroom Eyes Bedroom Lies
Bi N Large Bi-Conflict
The Big Nasty The Big Drill
Bigger Than Huge Bigger Than Life
Black Magic Magic Choices
Black Dudes Blond Lovers
The Boy Next Door Boys from New Jersey
Brotherly Love Brother Trouble
Buns N Hoses Bung Hole Buddies
Dirty Pictures Dirty Picture Show
Elements of Passion Passion By Fire
Everybody Does It Every Which Way
Filth Dirty Laundry
Gayracula Gay Tarzan
Hot Lunch Hot Stuff
Latin on the Loose Latin Lust
Leather Angel Leather Report
Man in Motion The Man Inside
Men in Shorts Men with Tools
Night Maneuvers Nights in Black Leather
Power Grip Power Trip
Rican Christmas Latino Nights
The Rites of Spring The Rites of Summer
Skin Deep Skin Tight
Spring Semester Spring Break
Sunday Brunch Summer Heat
Tough and Tender Tough Iron
White Trash White on White
Wild Dreams Wild Thing
You Are Not Alone Alone and Private
Titles with any of the following words, regardless of the full title, were
also censored: "pleasure," "black," "hard," "boys," "jock," "Rican," "sex,"
"stud," "straight," "young."
A few more interesting facts about the case should be noted. First, while
AOL has never publicized the list of "vulgar" words that it routinely screens
from its public sites, most of the screened words are classic profanity and
"dirty words." None of the titles that AOL censored from ATKOL Video's list
contain those "dirty" words. Second, it is clear that AOL's action was an
overreaction to the recent federal law enforcement raids on alleged child
pornographers using AOL -- Jeff received the letter shortly after the raids
made the headlines. But *none* of Jeff's videos contain child porn. And
again -- the info in the catalog was *titles only* and contained no
substantive material at all.
Third, it appears that AOL's arbitrary standards may be a little homophobic.
While "Wet and Wild" was an unacceptable title in a gay video catalog, AOL
ran an ad in Downtown AOL for Affinity Teleproductions, Inc. that read: "Now
you can join exotic Anna Nicole Smith on her sensuous Edenquest adventure in
her exclusive photo portfolio. . . . Anna Nicole Smith "The Collectors Set"
features ten eye opening Edenquest photographs in vivid color . . . . It's
all Anna Nicole Smith wet and wild drenched in sun and powder sugar sand.
"With Love, Anna Nicole" is your personal trip to paradise with the world's
most exciting woman in her most provocative photos ever."
The troubles experienced by ATKOL Video when it legitimately tried to do
business with AOL just proves once again that censorship rules are by nature
arbitrary and unfair -- whether imposed by the government or by private
industry.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
destiny@crl.com /\ Cyberporn, Phone Sex Strangers - Time's net articles
/ \ http://www.crl.com/~destiny/time.htm
==============================================================================
/__________\ Hacker comics! AOL Watch!
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: Sex on AOL: Cover-up, part II!
Followup-To: alt.aol.newsreader.cant.trim.headers,alt.aol-sucks
Date: 9 May 1996 12:06:20 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
JLTEACHER (jlteacher@aol.com) wrote:
: I pay the 2.95 an hour, just like everyone else on
: *this* account. I am not allowed to use my staff account for anything but
: staff work.
Then how are you compensated for your staff work?
You're actually getting a *paycheck* from AOL?
: >: Finally, put it in my .sig file??? You've got to be kidding. I don't
: >: post here as an AOL staffer....
: >Again, I think it's disrespectful to post to global bulletin boards
: >devoted to AOL criticism without indicating an affiliation *to* that
: >company.
: >It would be unconscionable to "pack" the newsgroup with positive
: >comments--or drown out criticism with noise and name-calling.
: >But even without that, it would be wrong not to identify the affiliation,
: >and for the same reason: you do work for the company. Your comments
: >have
: >a different level of objectivity. It doesn't preclude you from posting,
: >but it's wrong to conceal that information.
: As I stated before, but you have again chosen to ignore, I *did* post the
: fact that I worked for AOL...
Once.
: it was either in my first or second post.
Last time you used the plural--"previous posts".
Another AOL staffer indifferent to internet culture. The .sig file
tradition developed from the need for a disclaimer--that the poster was
not speaking for their employer.
It's much weaker if the disclaimer is buried within hundreds of newsgroup
posts, made in one post guaranteed to scroll off the system within a few
days.
destiny@crl.com /\ AOL Employees Watch: the Saga Continues
/ \ http://www.crl.com/~destiny/time.htm
==============================================================================
/__________\ Phoney complaints, Phoney defenders
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: New Stalking Tools from AOL
Followup-To: alt.aol-sucks,alt.privacy
Date: 9 May 1996 12:39:04 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Adam Lasnik (alasnik@indiana.edu) wrote:
: >Mac users don't have the option to turn it off.
:
: Sorry. That's incorrect. Mac users are able to block all or part of
: the membership from "buddy'ing" them online.
: >
: >AOL sucks.
:
: Perhaps. Disinformation sucks more, though.
Tell that to the AOL staffer who posted it...
From: [Adam]
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: New Stalking Tools from AOL
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 21:20:59 -0600
In article <4hlcup$6k2@crl10.crl.com>, destiny@crl.com (David Cassel) wrote:
> Sounds like AOL was jealous of the IRC command "notify". The difference
> being that the AOL command notifies your stalking "buddy" whenever you log
> on to check your e-mail; and unlike IRC nicks, the screen name
> corresponds to the account name. (Although on AOL, those are disposable
> too.)
I'll admit, when I first heard about the Buddy lists, I was skeptical for
the same reasons you are. But anyone can make themselves invisble to them,
so it shouldn't be a problem. My only problem is that the Mac users, who
currently don't have the benefit of using Buddy lists, also do not appear
to have the ability to shield themselves from it until Mac AOL 3.0 comes
out...
--
~I'm not paranoid, it's just that everyone's out to get me...~
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
destiny@crl.com /\ Barton & Bailey's Circus: AOL Employee Watch
/ \ http://www.crl.com/~destiny/time.htm
==============================================================================
/__________\ Updated 5/10
From: jlteacher@aol.com (JLTEACHER)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: AOL Employee Watch
Date: 12 May 1996 13:27:39 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Well, all, I have finally read destiny's web page. First off, I must say
I am rather impressed. Comprehensive, well made and chock full o' stuff.
Secondly, and more importantly, I am beginning to see why my being AOL
staff and *not* putting it in my .sig is such a big deal to some of you.
I showed up in this newsgroup at a most unfortunate time, just after a
couple of AOL employees made it impossible for any of us to be taken
seriously. Though I *did* mention my affiliation in something like my 3rd
or 4th post (search DejaNews under JLTeacher4), I can see why some of you
feel that I needed to put it in right away. The only reason I didn't feel
the need to mention it is that I don't make a habit of defending AOL in
any way. The area that I work in is probably the most UN-AOLish area on
AOL. They are extremely TOS tolerant, encourage creativity, and
discourage censorship. They are the only reason I keep my account.
So, I guess what I'm saying here is, "My name is Jodi, and I'm an AOL
employee." (listening for the choruses of "HI JODI"). I read and post to
this newsgroup because I do feel that AOL does indeed suck. I have many
problems with their service and their censorship. I come here so that I
can share those problems with others who feel the same way, NOT so I can
defend AOL.
This said, note the new .sig.
*******************************************************
-AOL remote staff whose opinions rarely agree with other staffers.
-AOL remote staff who thinks AOL does suck
-AOL remote staff not posting from my staff account
*******************************************************
-- Next response --
From: [Adam]
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Clearing Something Up
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 17:15:55 -0500
Organization: Tezcat.COM - Wicker Park (Chicago) 312-850-0112
A number of people have been making comments that I had been "ordered" to
leave this Newsgroup earlier. Since it appears that no one bothered to
read the post in which I said I was taking a vacation, I'll say it again.
No one told me to leave, I simply had to take care of other things. If you
have a problem with that, tough. It's the truth. Anyone who knows me knows
that I've never lied in this Newsgroup. I wasn't about to start now.
--
~I'm not paranoid, it's just that everyone's out to get me...~
From: johngalt@primenet.com (JG)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: Clearing Something Up
Date: 23 May 1996 08:55:01 -0700
Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet
[Adam] wrote:
>A number of people have been making comments that I had been "ordered" to
>leave this Newsgroup earlier. Since it appears that no one bothered to
>read the post in which I said I was taking a vacation, I'll say it again.
>No one told me to leave, I simply had to take care of other things. If you
>have a problem with that, tough. It's the truth. Anyone who knows me knows
>that I've never lied in this Newsgroup. I wasn't about to start now.
That's *NOT* what you said Adam. You are lying to this newsgroup now.
You mentioned that posting here would be too difficult because of
something stupid you had done and that others weren't as forgiving as
you are. Art Stone already re-posted the article so I won't do it
again. We all remember clearly, as it was more interesting than you
might suspect. If you seek any credibility on this issue you need to
explain exactly what transpired. Your revisionist history isn't going
to wash in a.a-s. Your short-lived absence from here was directly AOL
related, and we want to know what it was about. If it's too
embarrasing for you, well than, that's "tough" as you say. Deal with
the fact that your responses are unbelievable.
The title of this post should have been "Making Something Up."
JG
From: [Adam]
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: Clearing Something Up
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 23:30:04 -0500
Organization: Tezcat.COM - Wicker Park (Chicago) 312-850-0112
In article <4o21ol$984@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, johngalt@primenet.com
(JG) wrote:
> [Adam] wrote:
>
> >A number of people have been making comments that I had been "ordered" to
> >leave this Newsgroup earlier. Since it appears that no one bothered to
> >read the post in which I said I was taking a vacation, I'll say it again.
> >No one told me to leave, I simply had to take care of other things. If you
> >have a problem with that, tough. It's the truth. Anyone who knows me knows
> >that I've never lied in this Newsgroup. I wasn't about to start now.
>
> That's *NOT* what you said Adam. You are lying to this newsgroup now.
>
> You mentioned that posting here would be too difficult because of
> something stupid you had done and that others weren't as forgiving as
> you are. Art Stone already re-posted the article so I won't do it
> again. We all remember clearly, as it was more interesting than you
> might suspect. If you seek any credibility on this issue you need to
> explain exactly what transpired. Your revisionist history isn't going
> to wash in a.a-s. Your short-lived absence from here was directly AOL
> related, and we want to know what it was about. If it's too
> embarrasing for you, well than, that's "tough" as you say. Deal with
> the fact that your responses are unbelievable.
Alright, I did try to downplay my "Leaving" post, and I apologize.
I cannot go into detail about my problems on AOL because things are not
resolved yet, and I still consider myself to be bound by my NDA.
Suffice it to say that a combination of events caused me to nose into
something on AOL that I had no business sticking my nose into. I got
myself terminated, which I admit that I deserved. My only complaint about
the whole situation is that things are not being resolved as fast as they
should be, in my opinion, of course. I am finding it difficult to believe
that after more than a year of service to AOL, certain people are willing
to put me at the bottom of their priority list. I guess they're going to
squeeze in every last ounce of moral judgement before anything gets
solved.
But in the meantime, I've also resolved to be patient, to wait until my
case can finally be reviewed and my termination reversed. No, I'm not
happy about it, but in the long run, I did get myself into this mess, and
it's probably asking too much to demand that my supervisors drop
everything in order to clear it up.
I guess.
--
~I'm not paranoid, it's just that everyone's out to get me...~
From: mgscheue@io.com (Mark G. Scheuern)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: The Violence of Censorship -- An open letter to AOL
Date: 20 Jun 1996 05:46:12 -0500
Organization: Illuminati Online
declan@well.com (Declan McCullagh) writes:
>I was forwarded the following message about the latest sex-related speech
>suppression incident at AOL. After a visit to the web site in question, I'd
>say that Susie Block's ("Dr. Suzie's") web site falls within the compass of
>prohibited material that's defined by AOL's notoriously broad terms of
>service agreement.
[snip]
Broad and selective. The rules clearly don't apply to some. For
example, the AOL Employees web page at
http://www.aol.com/community/employees/ contains a link to Catherine
Buzzell's home page, which includes such things as "Barton's Sex Tips"
and "Barton's Gynecological Adventures". This, somehow, is okay but Dr.
Suzie's pages aren't.
This sort of selective use of AOL rules--targetting some individuals
while allowing others special favors--comes up again and again.
Mark
More info on AOL's sex-related speech controversy
Threats against critics - the AOL Way
AOL's conspiracy theorist
Netizens react to Time's article
Return to Main page
Send comments to destiny@crl.com. All comments are assumed for publication.