To All Interested Roadrunner Parties:         8/18/98

I spoke with Jim Felhauer at 8:56 a.m. today relative to the
suspension of my Roadrunner Account. No dice.  He insisted
that the suspension remain in effect for a minimum of 90 days,
after which he will review it, and "if there is no more trouble",
my account will be reinstated.

In so many words, Felhauer confirmed what Kruse and McMahon
explicitly said:  "We don't care about the is a business

So the "business issue" is that a Usenet sicko complained about
me; unleashed torrents of complaints to Roadrunner and got my
account suspended.  (You should see the sicko gloating over it on
that newsgroup now!)  (

Felhauer stated that they spoke with the "sicko" who accused ME
of everything of which I said about him; from forgeries to bogus posts;
to..whatever.  So in effect, it was my word against his.  I asked
what about the hundreds..perhaps thousands of others who KNOW
the sicko and the story in its truthful entirety..and who can attest to
his lies and misinformation.  Felhauer didn't have a response....

Felhauer stated that he would "consider reinstating my account
if I were to make a cooperative and mutual pact with this sicko
and prove to him that it is workable."  I knew in advance that
any such was not possible, because I had offered a truce to the sicko
on many occasions and he rejected it.  So, as I proposed to Kruse
and McMahon, I offered to stop my participation on that newsgroup total..if my RR account could be reinstated.

Felhauer said, "No."    

I asked him how could I effectively "prove" to him that the sicko
and I had made a good truce? Felhauer had no answer.

I proposed that my non-participation on the news- group was
FAR MORE effective than any so-called "truce", but he wouldn't
hear of it.  He said he didn't want to get into any  "deals" like that.
(How weird!)

Why the hell would he he want to get into a deal BETWEEN the sicko
and me, then? A two-party "deal" is a lot more difficult to "prove"
and administer than a one-party deal. This doesn't make a
lick of sense.

I recounted the non-trail of evidence that Kruse had warned me
six months ago that my account would be suspended if the sicko
continued to complain about me; I iterated that it only is reasonable
if I got a certified letter of suspension from RR, there should also
have been a certified letter of "warning", but there was none.
Why not?

How about a mere e-mail "warning" ; there was none. Why not?

All that exists, is Kruse's and perhaps McMahon's verbal statements
that I had been verbally "warned" by telephone six months ago.
So now we add lack of candor or a grave mistake to this equation.

See.. I remember the conversation, and my wife was listening
on an extension, and neither of us remember anything amounting to a
"warning."  So there is absolutely no tangible evidence that a warning
was ever issued...not in our recollections and not on the record!

This wouldn't be so contrasty if it weren't for the fact that I DID
receive a certified letter of suspension.  Funny how RR does it nice
and business-like on the one extreme but not a shred of evidence
at the other end..not even an e-mail "warning" which could be
construed or represented as a bit of evidence.  How odd....!!!

Furthermore, if there had been a warning, wouldn't it make sense
that I would have either abided it or protested it?  Had I protested,
there would at least have been that shard of evidence that a warning
was issued.  As it were, there was none, and I had no clue that my
account could be suspended for a Usenet "argument".

What would YOU PEOPLE do, if RR "warned" you about something
you were doing?  You'd cease and desist..or protest it, wouldn't
you?  Would you flaunt it as they apparently say I did?  I doubt it,
unless you were willing to go out in a blaze of glory.

If that were my aim, you'd think I'd have been lighting and fueling that
blaze for the last six months, leaving a trail of evidence....???

But they say this is a "business matter".  So why do they do
"business" at one end, but not at the other?  We will never know,
because Felhauer didn't have an answer for that one, either.

I asked what specific AUP or TOS rule I had broken.  Felhauer
had no answer.  He said it was somewhere in the Terms of Service,
but he "didn't know where right off..."  Good grief!

I also asked Felhauer if this were a strictly local matter or if there
had been input from the Time-Warner headshed.  He stated that it
was only a local issue and that TW wasn't involved.

I'm not sure this conversation is a reflection on Felhauer's personality
or character.  I'm pretty sure that he had no choice but to support his
staff. As a former CEO, I probably would have done the same thing in
the pressure of "business". That notwithstanding, there are two key
issues here:  somewhere in all this mess, someone is lying because I
wasn't "warned" as they claim, and two, it was clearly and explicitly
stated that they have no regard for the truth in this matter.  It is purely
"business". If truth is not a value, then there will be lies..........

Given what I now think is a lack of candor and a lack of regard
for the truth ; both flagrant violations of my personal foundations, I
am left with little or no choice but to aggressively and vigorously
pursue relief by other means.  In order to remain well within the
boundaries of the law, I think this resolves to three choices: a complaint
to the appropriate City Department that administers CATV franchises,
legal action, or just roll over, belly up and accept the infinite wisdom of
the Benevolent Roadrunner Dictators.

I am open to all suggestions, including mere opinions of whether I should
take this flagrant trampling sitting down, or seek relief by more demon-
strable means.  If you know any good lawyers or city phone numbers; or
even hungry reporters looking for a good "victim story", I'll be receptive
to the input.  I think a grave injustice has been done to me, and if it can
be done to me, it can be done to anyone.  That's the scary part, because
to date, ISP's traditionally don't get involved in Usenet complaints.  Maybe
after this precedent, however, ISP's will be able to tell you what
you can and can't say on the newsgroups.

Personally, I am sickened, disgusted, and confused because none
of this makes a lick of sense to me...aside from the "business"
aspects.  However, I have always inbued truth and integrity into
my business.  Now I know what it is like to deal with people who
don't value those commodities.

Bill Cheek