Re: Suspending paying customers

[P Newman <pnewman1 -at- HOME -dot- COM>]

Denise, Please carefully read your post again. Then ask your spouse to
read it and my reply.  I explained that list privileges can usually be
terminated for cause.  :-)

Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Denise Fritch <dfritch -at- intellicorp -dot- com>
To: P Newman <pnewman1 -at- home -dot- com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 1:13 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Suspending paying customers

> Morning Peter,
>
> > The payment of
> > money does not give you the right to unreasonably annoy others.
>
> This sentence appears to be the center of your objection to my
posting. If
> you will re-read my posting, I said nothing about ". . . the right
to
> unreasonably annoy others." Or, for that matter to "reasonably"
annoy
> others, what ever than might be.
>
> What I did say was that the list, when switched to a pre-paid
subscription,
> would become a business. A pre-paid subscription to the list would
be viewed
> by the law as would a magazine subscription (pre-paid for XX
issues), home
> insurance (pre-paid for a specified period), or for any commitment
in which
> money is pre-paid for a service. That money simply doesn't fall to
the
> business because it is paid. Until earned, on whatever basis of time
or
> services, those monies are unearned income.
>
> You may neither agree or like one or more of the laws enacted by
society,
> either social or business. Yet it is those laws that offer
protection to all
> parties. Particularly in business. This is certainly what my spouse,
an
> attorney and judge, keeps telling me.
>
> Best,
>
>      Denise L. Fritch
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: P Newman [mailto:pnewman1 -at- home -dot- com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 8:52 AM
> > To: Denise Fritch
> > Subject: Re: Re: Suspending paying customers
> >
> >
> > The operator of the list has every right to set reasonable ground
> > rules for its use. The operative term "Reasonable" is defined in
> > advance so that at the time you pay your money, you not only agree
to
> > live by these rules, but you agree they are reasonable. The
payment of
> > money does not give you the right to unreasonably annoy others.
> > Ejectment from the list for failure to abide by the rules,
(whatever
> > they may eventually be,) is no different than ejectment from a
theatre
> > or sporting event for outlandish acts. (an outlandish act at a
> > theatre, such as yelling, certainly is acceptable at a sporting
event.
> > Obviously the rules vary and must be elastic, upon notice to all.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Denise Fritch <dfritch -at- INTELLICORP -dot- COM>
> > To: <TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 12:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Suspending paying customers
> >
> >
> > > This post is not in response to any single suggestion dealing
with
> > > suspending or revoking posting privileges. Since I've noted
several
> > posts
> > > suggesting that such actions would be "considered okay", without
a
> > nay
> > > comment, I'll post a dissenting opinion.
> > >
> > > With this list moving to a paid service, the tech writers list
will
> > be
> > > viewed by the law as a business. That means that under the law,
if
> > you pay
> > > for a service you must receive that service. If an individual is
> > suspended
> > > from posting for a month, there is certainly no reason that
person's
> > > subscription to the list could not be extended by the same
amount of
> > time.
> > > At least then, the legal requirements for service from a
pre-paid
> > > subscription would be met. If an individual is removed from the
> > list, then
> > > the unearned income from their subscription, that portion of
time
> > remaining
> > > on the individual's subscription, should be refunded. Again,
such
> > actions
> > > would meet the legal requirements of the law.
> > <snip>
> >
> >
>

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=