>
If JVP posted when he knew he was banned, that's trespass, pure and simple.
>

Pure and simple? I see that you are trying to take a property concept and apply it to the web. There are many reasons why a web-site is not like real property. Suffice it to say that no - it is not trespass and it is anything but pure and simple. Intel tried that argument in the Hamidi case - and lost. Steve allows anon access to the wiki. He blocks certain IP addresses. There is NOTHING (legally or physcially) that prevents me from navigating to the wiki from a non-blocked IP address. I by the way do navigate and view the wiki on a daily basis - Steve's efforts nothwithstanding. If he wanted to block people out - as opposed to machines - he would create logins.

As for being banned from the wiki - I have never received notification of that. I do know that IP addresses have been blocked - but that does not amount to notice. That said - if Steve wants to ban me - he of course is free to do so - and I would respect those wishes to the extent that I would not post anything. I would still go to the wiki for content since it is the authors - not Steve - who has the sole right to control read access. I understand he has the power to do just about anything he wants to do up there - but that does not necessarily translate into a right.

As I say later on in this post - Steve took the time to respond. Therefore, he ratified my presense up on the wiki. He did not say I was banned. It was only after a few days that he decided to:

1. Delete my posts and;
2. Ban IP addresses that I used to post on the wiki.


>
It started at his first post; in fact, even before then because presumably he was reading other posts while not authorized to do so.
>

I understand that certain IP addresses are not authorized - but logically - that does not extend to people given his current "architecture". And - given that he did respond to those comments directly, that in fact was a ratification and a resonable person could conclude he was "authorized" to post.

>
However, to my mind, this misses the larger issue. I've been arguing all along that there are serious flaws to JVP's methods. Steve's allegation that JVP used Rutgers University's resources to trespass on Steve's site adds another dimension to this mess.
>

That assumes it is trespass in the first place - which it is not. A trespass is a legal distinction. Here are a few questions for you:

1. Do you know what the elements to a trespass are?
2. Assuming trespass applies, are we talking about the real property or
chattel context here?


If you want to get into flawed methods - I suggest you look in the mirror. Right here - you have used a legal term - trespass - and have not laid the proper foundation of how and whether that term/concept applies.

What do you have to say to that?


>If indeed he used Rutgers' computer(s) and/or IP address(es), JVP is arguably in violation of several portions of Rutgers University's "Code of Student Conduct". Specifically, if we look at Section 11, "Prohibited Conduct"
>(g) violation of the University's Student Life Policy Against Verbal Assault, Defamation and Harassment. At the very least there are archived exchanges between the two of them here on the UT. Whether JVP's repeated, surreptitious attempts to access Steve's site represents harassment as defined by Rutgers, I don't know.
>

You say arguably in violation - and then you conclude with not knowing whether it was violated. For sure - I did not verbally assault, defame, or harrass. AND...don't forget that none of this can come at the expense of First Amendment rights - which state-supported universities cannot infringe upon. What I did was nothing more than participate in a discussion and provide commentary. Steve by the way did respond with in line comments. At no time did he allege harrasment, defamation, or verbal assault. And - at no time did he say I was banned from the wiki.

What do you have to say about that Mr. Doman?


>
(h) ... unauthorized use of, or misuse of University property, including computers and data and voice communication networks
>
>(l) ... intentional or reckless damage to, University property. Through his actions, JVP has probably caused at least one IP, if not a subnet or even all of Rutgers to not be able to access Steve's site
>

ROFLMAO!! FYI - I wrote comments from home, as well as Rutgers. I signed the comments with my name. At first, Steve did not block the IP addresses. He took the time to respond. He in fact ratified my presense on the Wiki - only to change his mind. At no time did I get personal. The posts were pointed at his theory.

By the way - do you know the distinction between intent and recklessness? And, do you understand that plaintiffs have a duty to mitigate their own damages - assuming any damage exists? And - what is the precise damage to not being able to access Steve's site? Could you both quantify and bear the burden of proof?

If he chooses to wholesale block IP addresses and complete subnets - that is his CHOICE.

>(m) the violation of the ethical code of one's intended profession ... This may hold even if JVP did not use Rutgers' computing resources.
>
>(s) violations of other published University regulations or policies, ... Such regulations or policies may include regulations governing the use of computers and networks, ...
>
>
I believe Steve may have grounds to lodge a complaint with Rutgers against JVP.
>

When it is all said and done - Steve simply did not want to respond to my comments anymore. AND - he decided that nobody else should get the opportunity to both read and respond. Steve appointed himself the arbiter of what people should have access to on the wiki.

Al - Steve's grounds for a complaint are about as baseless as your analysis is here - both legally and factually.

When it is all said and done - Steve posted opinions regarding .NET and Fox. I responded in kind - sticking to the points and not getting personal. Given that we are talking about an academic institution here - I am fairly sure that a certain amount of credbility goes out the window when opposing points of view are deleted for nothing more than personal reasons. That Al - is the essence of intellectual and academic dishonesty.

Ironically, if Steve were to say that I personally attacked him and did things that I did not do - I OTOH - could have a defamation claim.

Al - irrational responses by Steve and yourself do not dictate that others should have equally irrational responses.

Nice try however...