Dr? Laurence Godfrey = silly wabbit
hobo
<---hobo's mail header snipped----->
<---hobo is not affiliated with attrition.org in any way---->
So, Larry,
When you started this little excursion did you even have the first damn
clue as to who attrition.org were?
Your lack of attention to newsgroup headers leads me to believe that you
did not.
I , however, am more thorough than you. I do my research. Check the
posts below.
---------------------Begin newsgroup posts-------------------------
Laurence Godfrey, USENet Legend famous for claiming he has been
libeled, is back. He's publicly threatening to sue someone again,
something we thought had gone the way of Canter & Siegel and
Serdar Argic. Donnell Williams, apparently in Thailand, published
the following email, which he claims came from Godfrey. In it,
Godfrey alleges libel and demands retraction. (This is an
interesting turn in Godfrey's style. In the past, he threatened
to sue without demanding retraction.) Evidence of LG (libel
gnosis) evolution?
-----------------------begin quoted post--------------------------
Subject: Defamatory Allegations published July 95 - March 96
To: tem...@mozart.inet.co.th, Laurence Godfrey
<la...@ibmpcug.co.uk>, postmaster
<postm...@mozart.inet.co.th:postmaster@temujin>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 18:34:07 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: Laurence Godfrey <la...@ibmpcug.co.uk>
From: Laurence Godfrey <la...@ibmpcug.co.uk>
Sender: la...@ibmpcug.co.uk
to: Donnell Williams
13th March 1996
I hereby insist upon your publication within 2 days of a full
retraction and apology in respect of all of the defamatory
allegations about me which you published and or caused to be
published between July 1995 and March 1996, the full wording of
which must be agreed by me in advance and published on usenet in
"soc.culture.thai".
Laurence Godfrey
-----------------------end quoted post--------------------------
There is a unique individual [ed. note I don't think "unique
individual" was a compliment here Larry. --hobo] named Laurence Godfrey
who particularly like
to create chaos in various newsgroups. His controvercial attitude often
intimidates users in soc.culture.canada, soc.culture.british,
soc.culture.german, soc.culture.asian, and soc.culture.thai as his
current
group.
The following article regarding L. Godfrey is quoted from URL
http://www.shadow.net/~proub/net.legends/laurence.html.
" Found on soc.culture.canada and soc.culture.british.
Contrib. post:
For the uniniated, Laurence Godfrey is a british scientist who worked in
Canada until he quit after a dispute with his boss (he is currently
suing
his former employers).
<---snip---->
In the first case of its kind in the UK, Canadian academic Dr Laurence >
Godfrey [^^^^^^^^ oh boy, RISKS DIGEST is about to get sued for libel!!]
>
issued a libel writ in London against another academic based in Geneva >
claiming he was defamed by a bulletin board message posted on the Usenet
>
<---snip---->
In article <hurd.73...@sfu.ca> hu...@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter L. Hurd)
writes:
>matm...@nuscc.nus.sg (Matthew MacIntyre at the National University of
Senegal) writes:
>
>>I do wish that somebody would correct the grammar of this title. What
is
>>it supposed to be? Is there such a thing as an Illegal Asshole?
>
> How about Laurence Godfrey Litigious Asshole? Or have I blown the
spelling
>on Litigious, Letigious, root of Legal, or Litigate?
>--
At the risk of provoking stern letters from m'learned friends might I
suggest Laurence Godfrey Litigious Arsehole, using the traditional
British
spelling. The American version "Laurence Godfrey Litigious Asshole",
whilst
having agreeable conotations with donkeys, mules etc lacks the rounded,
west country vowel sound in Arsehole, which enriches the epithet, IMHO.
For Roscoe and others who were not here when Laurence Godfrey was at
the height of his soc.culture.thai career in the mid 1990-ies:
----------------End of newsgroup posts-----------------------------
1) How does it feel to be arsehole-non-grata? Of the 9,140 posts I found
on usenet, none were positive in nature. The appoligies that were posted
were court ordered (that must have got your walking stick thumping) how
can a person be a professional horse's ass (note the AMERICAN spelling).
Can I look forward to seing you on alt.soc.culture.us anytime soon? Oh
my mistake, we Americans lack the requisite culture to need such a
meeting place.
2) Now let's do your homework , Doctor.
From: -=ViPER=- (vi...@dmrt.com)
Subject: attrition.org newbie - TCP/IP
Newsgroups: alt.hack.nl
Date: 2000/05/18
From: spo...@petitmorte.net (spo...@petitmorte.net)
Subject: Re: Anchient History:rikijo and W醛K縟批M暤摐 on Attrition.org
Newsgroups: alt.hackers.malicious
From: John Kodis (ko...@jagunet.com)
Subject: Attrition.org off the air
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.security
Date: 2000/01/16
From: J. Reilink (digi...@dsinet.org)
Subject: attrition.org h4ck3d
Newsgroups: alt.hacker, alt.hacking
Date: 2001-07-28 06:55:07 PST
Now Larry, did you have the foggiest idea of who the readership of
attrition.org was? Do you now? Note the red text [ed note-- in original
email Newsgroup names were highlighted in Red--hobo] . ( Attrition is
frequented by Network Security Professionals, U.S. Government agencies,
hackers, crackers, phreaks and script kiddies. We all kind of like them,
want the site to stick around, (attrition, not the script kiddies) and
got a very large hoot out of your inane and assinine threats.
How can a man use the net as much as you, for as long as you have, and
not now how to spot a forged "From" header in a newsgroup post. Is
"whois" not working on your box? Didn't you query the IP? My God man!
YOU ARE A PHYSICIST (albiet an apparently unsuccessfull one)
USE YOUR HEAD BEFORE YOU USE YOUR LAWYER!
In my case please disregard the above last sentence and sue away,
I need the money from a countersuit, and I'm still a little pissed off
over 1812 (bastards wanna burn the White House do ya?)
HTH
-hobo
-----------------complete correspondence follows----------------------
From laur...@godfreynet.co.uk Thu Mar 7 22:42:47 2002
From: Laurence Godfrey (laur...@godfreynet.co.uk)
To: com...@attrition.org, st...@attrition.org
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 00:42:00 +0000
Subject: your defamatory posting
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
On 5 March 2002 you published on the usenet newsgroups sci.physics,
aus.legal
and nz.general an article (copy enclosed below) in which you make false
and
highly defamatory allegations about me. As you are no doubt aware, the
newsgroups in question are read by a large number of internet users,
particularly in England where my reputation is based and where I live
and
carry out my work.
Your statements were calculated to disparage and damage me
professionally, as
well as personally. I have been advised that these are serious and
actionable
libels and that I would be entitled to substantial general and
aggravated
damages if I were to issue proceedings in the Court for publication of
your
defamatory statements.
I am not prepared to let your false allegations pass unchallenged and
uncorrected and accordingly I require:
(1) An apology to be published by you on the newsgroups in terms to
be
agreed;
(2) An undertaking that you will not publish the same or similar
defamatory allegations in the future;
(3) A Statement in Open Court, in terms to be agreed, publicly
retracting
your false statements;
(4) Payment of my legal costs and damages in this matter in a sum to
be
agreed.
Unless I receive satisfactory proposals to the terms set out in this
letter
within seven days, I will issue proceedings in the English High Court
without
further notice.
Laurence Godfrey
Path:
news6-win.server.ntlworld.com!news1-win.server.ntlworld.com!news5-gui.server.n
tli.net!ntli.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.maxwe
ll.syr.edu!news1.optus.net.au!optus!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!news.telstra.net
!nsw.nnrp.telstra.net!not-for-mail
Reply-To: "Space Ghost" (com...@attrition.org)
From: "Space Ghost" (st...@attrition.org)
Newsgroups: nz.general,sci.physics,aus.legal
References: (ro608ug43q610frf5...@4ax.com)
(3c804013....@news.wave.co.nz)
(k4r08ugds79moedue...@4ax.com)
(pan.2002.03.02.11...@my.real.box.com)
(3c912b47....@news.virgin.net)
(u9eg8.246$bA2.2...@newsfeed.slurp.net)
(3c9b968e....@news.virgin.net)
(RGxg8.200$l%2.22...@newsfeed.slurp.net)
(3c835fb9$0$236$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com)
(3c8471c4...@news.virgin.net) (a60j75$65c$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz)
(3c86d0f2...@news.virgin.net)
Subject: Questions for Dr Laurence
Lines: 74
Organization: Upright Citizens Brigade
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: (wPSg8.8$mu2....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net)
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:16:47 +1030
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.132.126.176
X-Complaints-To: ab...@telstra.net
X-Trace: nsw.nnrp.telstra.net 1015282012 203.132.126.176 (Tue, 05 Mar
2002
09:46:52 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 09:46:52 EST
Xref: news5-gui.server.ntli.net nz.general:452699 sci.physics:411294
aus.legal:52864
X-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 22:46:56 GMT
(news6-win.server.ntlworld.com)
1 - What did you do with all the money you have received in court cases?
2 - Are you a homosexual?
3 - Have you ever paid for sex?
4 - Have you ever had a relationship with a student?
"Laurence Godfrey" (laur...@godfreynet.net) wrote in message
news:3c86d0f2...@news.virgin.net...
: On Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:52:05 +1300, "E. Scrooge" (e.sc...@xfree.co.nx
(z replaces x)) wrote:
:
: :
: :"Laurence Godfrey" wrote in message
news:3c8471c4...@news.virgin.net...
: :: On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:38:36 -0000, "franz heymann"
(franz....@care4free.net) wrote:
: :: :
: :: :In the meantime, he runs a mile whenever the law raises its ugly
head
: :: :over the horizon.
: ::
: :: If he ever finds that he has no choice but to stay put rather than
: :: run, I would be delighted to put him in touch with the right
people. I
: :: think he would be surprised at just how good some of them are. I
: :: became impressed with the law purely through exposure to it while a
: :: physicist, not because I am a lawyer (which I am not).
: ::
: :: Laurence
: :
: :Of course you aren't a lawyer.
: :For if you knew as much about the law as you seem to think that you
do.
: :You'd know to suggest that someone "runs a mile whenever the law
raises it's
: :ugly head over the horizon". Is nothing but a bunch of crap.
:
: I didn't "suggest" it, you silly ass. That is quoted directly from
: Franz's posting. Those were *his* words talking about himself.
: Evidently you cannot follow attributions in usenet postings?
:
: :A lawyer would have a field day if you were to suggest such a claim
in
: :court. One could say that he "might" run, but then again there's
just as
: :much chance that he may very well not run from the law.
: :For the fool to claim that the law has an "ugly head" (figuratively
: :speaking), only suggests that in his view the law is a bad thing.
Otherwise
: :why would he bother to describe "the law" in such a way as that?
: :You try to accuse someone of "running a mile away from the law" in
court,
: :when you haven't actually witnessed with your very own eyes such an
event
: :even taking place in the very first place. Just what exactly are
your
: :chances of proving something that you never saw happen?
: :
: :Franz had better hope that he has not made a false statement about
it. If I
: :was to say exactly the same statement about you, would it not be a
: :completely false one?
: :It would appear that you only understand the bits of the law that
happen to
: :suit you, otherwise you'd have been wise enough to point out the
error in
: :that post of Franz yourself.
: :If you were to be asked in a court, if you happen to think that "the
law has
: :an ugly head". Just what would be your answer to such a question?
: :
: :E. Scrooge
: :
:
: What an ass. I await his apology for his stupid mistake.
:
: Laurence
***************************************************************
Save for this paragraph and those that follow, this email,
including any material attached to it, is confidential and
may be legally privileged. Unless expressly authorised by
the sender, you may not copy, publish, broadcast, transmit
or otherwise disseminate, electronically or by any other
means, any of the material contained in or attached to this
email. If you have received it in error, you should not
disclose or make use of or take any action in reliance upon
this material and you should immediately notify the sender,
whose name and email address is given below.
***************************************************************
Dr. Laurence Godfrey
Email: laur...@godfreynet.co.uk
PGP ID: 0x1E677CBF, Type: DH/DSS, Size: 2048/1024
Fingerprint: 2766 BF27 1BB2 1A0B 5749 CE01 FDA2 29D5 1E67 7CBF
From jer...@attrition.org Thu Mar 7 22:42:52 2002
From: security curmudgeon (jer...@attrition.org)
To: Laurence Godfrey (laur...@godfreynet.co.uk)
Cc: Heathens (st...@attrition.org)
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 20:36:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: your defamatory posting
: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
No, it isn't. You sent this to us, expect us to use the mail as we see
fit. Don't like it, don't mail us.
: On 5 March 2002 you published on the usenet newsgroups sci.physics,
aus.legal
: and nz.general an article (copy enclosed below) in which you make
false and
Who? Comega? All of Staff? or someone who simply forged "attrition.org"
in
a single part of the posting?
: highly defamatory allegations about me. As you are no doubt aware, the
: newsgroups in question are read by a large number of internet users,
: particularly in England where my reputation is based and where I live
and
: carry out my work.
I am not aware. I do not read usenet at all. I haven't since 1995.
: Your statements were calculated to disparage and damage me
professionally, as
No, they weren't. Why? Because we didn't make them to the best of my
knowledge. If you look more carefully at the post (assuming you provided
all relevant headers), it doesn't appear that the post has anything to
do
with this system other than someone forging the 'from'.
: I am not prepared to let your false allegations pass unchallenged and
: uncorrected and accordingly I require:
: (1) An apology to be published by you on the newsgroups in terms to
be
: agreed;
No.
: (2) An undertaking that you will not publish the same or similar
: defamatory allegations in the future;
No. In fact, i will produce this entire e-mail with the original post on
our web site.
: (3) A Statement in Open Court, in terms to be agreed, publicly
retracting
: your false statements;
No.
: (4) Payment of my legal costs and damages in this matter in a sum
to be
: agreed.
No.
: Unless I receive satisfactory proposals to the terms set out in this
: letter within seven days, I will issue proceedings in the English High
: Court without further notice.
I live in the United States. Good luck, file away.
Now that I covered that.. let's look more carefully at a few things:
: Path:
:
news6-win.server.ntlworld.com!news1-win.server.ntlworld.com!news5-gui.server.n
:
tli.net!ntli.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.maxwe
:
ll.syr.edu!news1.optus.net.au!optus!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!news.telstra.net
: !nsw.nnrp.telstra.net!not-for-mail
See "telstra.net" in there? See below..
: Reply-To: "Space Ghost" (com...@attrition.org)
: From: "Space Ghost" (st...@attrition.org)
From "st...@attrition.org". "staff" is not a valid account here, it is
simply a mail alias.
: Lines: 74
: Organization: Upright Citizens Brigade
This is not our organization.
: X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
: X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
This system is linux, not Windows. The post could not have originated
from
here based on this alone.
: Message-ID: (wPSg8.8$mu2....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net)
I don't know who you are, or what you do, but surely isn't computer
related. This message-id along with the path above suggest the person
who
posted this came from telstra.net, not attrition.org
: NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.132.126.176
Name: victor56k-49.granite.net.au
Address: 203.132.126.176
Now, let's look at where telstra.net is:
Domain Name.......... telstra.net
Creation Date........ 1995-06-01
Registration Date.... 2001-05-21
Expiry Date.......... 2005-05-31
Organisation Name.... Telstra Corporation Limited
Organisation Address. 9/1 Spring Street
Organisation Address.
Organisation Address. Melbourne
Organisation Address. 3000
Organisation Address. Vic
Organisation Address. AUSTRALIA
Are you starting to see a pattern here? Attrition.org is located in the
United States.
: X-Complaints-To: ab...@telstra.net
Gee, yet another reference to telstra.net ..
: X-Trace: nsw.nnrp.telstra.net 1015282012 203.132.126.176 (Tue, 05 Mar
2002
: 09:46:52 EST)
Oh wow, ANOTHER telstra.net reference..
: NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 09:46:52 EST
: Xref: news5-gui.server.ntli.net nz.general:452699 sci.physics:411294
aus.legal:52864
: X-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 22:46:56 GMT
: (news6-win.server.ntlworld.com)
:
: 1 - What did you do with all the money you have received in court
cases?
:
: 2 - Are you a homosexual?
:
: 3 - Have you ever paid for sex?
:
: 4 - Have you ever had a relationship with a student?
Now, as a side note for my own amusement..
Have you even looked up the definition of libel or slander you dipshit?
This post appears to be nothing more than 4 questions. These are not
statements, not accusations, just questions.
The only way they would be defamatory is they were a) true and b) a
source
of embarassment. Your mail to us suggests that they are at least true.
: ***************************************************************
: Save for this paragraph and those that follow, this email,
: including any material attached to it, is confidential and
: may be legally privileged. Unless expressly authorised by
: the sender, you may not copy, publish, broadcast, transmit
: or otherwise disseminate, electronically or by any other
: means, any of the material contained in or attached to this
: email. If you have received it in error, you should not
: disclose or make use of or take any action in reliance upon
: this material and you should immediately notify the sender,
: whose name and email address is given below.
: ***************************************************************
These disclaimers are a load of shit you realize?
Simple fact is, if you sent the mail to me, I can use it as I see fit.
Hope you enjoy it when it goes up on our Going Postal section.
Further, if you threaten legal action against us again, I will make all
future correspondance with you public and post it where I see fit,
including these newsgroups you post to. It is clear that you did no
investigation of the post and blindly followed the first address you
found
convenient, despite the post making it abundantly clear that it did not
originate on our system, let alone in the country we are in.
What a fag.
From laur...@godfreynet.co.uk Thu Mar 7 22:43:04 2002
From: Laurence Godfrey (laur...@godfreynet.co.uk)
To: jer...@attrition.org
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 01:49:05 +0000
Subject: Re: your defamatory posting
I note your comments and will take the necessary action.
I was obliged to follow the "reply-to" e-mail addresses on the posting
in
question, although I was aware that they were not likely to be genuine.
In
legal proceedings in which I have been involved in the past, it has been
necessary to demonstrate to the court that I have followed all possible
avenues to trace the author, even when they look unlikely. In the
circumstances, your hostile response is completely unnecessary as a
simple
denial would have done.
I am content with your denial and happy to drop this matter with you,
and I
request that you do the same.
Laurence Godfrey
***************************************************************
Save for this paragraph and those that follow, this email,
including any material attached to it, is confidential and
may be legally privileged. Unless expressly authorised by
the sender, you may not copy, publish, broadcast, transmit
or otherwise disseminate, electronically or by any other
means, any of the material contained in or attached to this
email. If you have received it in error, you should not
disclose or make use of or take any action in reliance upon
this material and you should immediately notify the sender,
whose name and email address is given below.
***************************************************************
Dr. Laurence Godfrey
Email: laur...@godfreynet.co.uk
PGP ID: 0x1E677CBF, Type: DH/DSS, Size: 2048/1024
Fingerprint: 2766 BF27 1BB2 1A0B 5749 CE01 FDA2 29D5 1E67 7CBF
From laur...@godfreynet.co.uk Thu Mar 7 22:43:15 2002
From: Laurence Godfrey (laur...@godfreynet.co.uk)
To: jer...@attrition.org
Cc: st...@attrition.org
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 02:05:07 +0000
Subject: Fwd: Re: your defamatory posting
you wrote:
:Have you even looked up the definition of libel or slander you dipshit?
:This post appears to be nothing more than 4 questions. These are not
:statements, not accusations, just questions.
:
I am trained in law and in this respect I can assure you that you are
completely wrong. There are a number of authorities on this matter. If
you
are not persuaded, I suggest that you ask your own lawyer.
:The only way they would be defamatory is they were a) true and b) a
source
:of embarassment. Your mail to us suggests that they are at least true.
As above. I clearly stated in my earlier e-mail that they were false.
If you carry out your infantile threats to republish the statements
complained of I will without further notice issue legal proceedings
against
your company. Mine are not idle threats - I have been successful in
defamation proceedings several times in the past, including against US
companies. In any event, I strongly suggest that you obtain legal advice
before doing anything for which you will ultimately be held liable.
Laurence Godfrey
*********** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE ***********
[original message cut out, posted on main index]
*********** END FORWARDED MESSAGE ***********
***************************************************************
Save for this paragraph and those that follow, this email,
including any material attached to it, is confidential and
may be legally privileged. Unless expressly authorised by
the sender, you may not copy, publish, broadcast, transmit
or otherwise disseminate, electronically or by any other
means, any of the material contained in or attached to this
email. If you have received it in error, you should not
disclose or make use of or take any action in reliance upon
this material and you should immediately notify the sender,
whose name and email address is given below.
***************************************************************
Dr. Laurence Godfrey
Email: laur...@godfreynet.co.uk
PGP ID: 0x1E677CBF, Type: DH/DSS, Size: 2048/1024
Fingerprint: 2766 BF27 1BB2 1A0B 5749 CE01 FDA2 29D5 1E67 7CBF
From jer...@attrition.org Thu Mar 7 22:44:09 2002
From: security curmudgeon (jer...@attrition.org)
To: Laurence Godfrey (laur...@godfreynet.co.uk)
Cc: st...@attrition.org
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 21:50:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: your defamatory posting
: you wrote:
:
: :Have you even looked up the definition of libel or slander you
dipshit?
: :This post appears to be nothing more than 4 questions. These are not
: :statements, not accusations, just questions.
: :
:
: I am trained in law and in this respect I can assure you that you are
: completely wrong. There are a number of authorities on this matter. If
: you are not persuaded, I suggest that you ask your own lawyer.
Sorry, I'm not a little sissy and do not retain a lawyer for every
little
side jab leveled at me.
: :The only way they would be defamatory is they were a) true and b) a
source
: :of embarassment. Your mail to us suggests that they are at least
true.
:
: As above. I clearly stated in my earlier e-mail that they were false.
Then how is a *question* a defamatory *statement*?
: If you carry out your infantile threats to republish the statements
: complained of I will without further notice issue legal proceedings
Oh, so your threats of lawsuit against us are mature, yet our "threats"
of
posting your mail are infantile? How does that work?
: against your company. Mine are not idle threats - I have been
successful
: in defamation proceedings several times in the past, including against
I've read the relevant information on that. Different case, different
scenario, different people. Winning that doesn't mean you will win every
single time your feel offended.
: US companies. In any event, I strongly suggest that you obtain legal
attrition.org is not a company.
: advice before doing anything for which you will ultimately be held
: liable.
I will be posting all of our mail. You have no right to send us legal
threats and then demand that the mail be exclusive to us. There is no
law
that that demands such a thing where I live.
Why did you feel the need to respond twice anyway? If you are this
easily
riled up, perhaps the Internet is not the best place for you?
What a fag.
From laur...@godfreynet.co.uk Thu Mar 7 22:44:25 2002
From: Laurence Godfrey (laur...@godfreynet.co.uk)
To: jer...@attrition.org
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 02:51:33 +0000
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: your defamatory posting
Thank you for your reply to my e-mail.
I note your comments about the legal issues for the nonsense that they
are.
As to your threat to post this correspondence, thereby repeating the
defamatory allegations in question, in the circumstances I will be
issuing
proceedings in defamation against you without further notice.
Kindly supply me by return e-mail with your correct name and address. If
you
fail to do so I will also seek to recover the costs of obtaining that
information through court order or through an investigations agency.
Laurence Godfrey
***************************************************************
Save for this paragraph and those that follow, this email,
including any material attached to it, is confidential and
may be legally privileged. Unless expressly authorised by
the sender, you may not copy, publish, broadcast, transmit
or otherwise disseminate, electronically or by any other
means, any of the material contained in or attached to this
email. If you have received it in error, you should not
disclose or make use of or take any action in reliance upon
this material and you should immediately notify the sender,
whose name and email address is given below.
***************************************************************
Dr. Laurence Godfrey
Email: laur...@godfreynet.co.uk
PGP ID: 0x1E677CBF, Type: DH/DSS, Size: 2048/1024
Fingerprint: 2766 BF27 1BB2 1A0B 5749 CE01 FDA2 29D5 1E67 7CBF
From jer...@attrition.org Thu Mar 7 22:44:31 2002
From: security curmudgeon (jer...@attrition.org)
To: Laurence Godfrey (laur...@godfreynet.co.uk)
Cc: Heathens (st...@attrition.org)
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:06:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: your defamatory posting
: Thank you for your reply to my e-mail.
No, thank you.
: I note your comments about the legal issues for the nonsense that they
: are.
Legal nonsense? You don't even know where I live. You don't know what
laws
apply to me. You are blindly making legal threats as you are well known
for doing. In fact, a quick search of "laurence godfrey + crackpot"
yields
a lot of interesting results, including a fairly well established
history
showing you are abusive of the legal system and willing to file suit
against ANYONE that you don't care for or agree with.
: As to your threat to post this correspondence, thereby repeating the
: defamatory allegations in question, in the circumstances I will be
: issuing proceedings in defamation against you without further notice.
So you are going to try to sue me, even though I have not posted the
comments. Thanks, that pretty much confirms exactly what I said above.
Seek help.
: Kindly supply me by return e-mail with your correct name and address.
If
: you fail to do so I will also seek to recover the costs of obtaining
: that information through court order or through an investigations
: agency.
No. I will not assist you in further unfounded harassment. You mailed me
first. You threatened lawsuit against me. Worse, you did so KNOWING I
was
not in the wrong (as you yourself stated in followup mail).
That is clearly harassment, abuse of the legal system, and overall, it
makes you a fag.
Chug cock.
From laur...@godfreynet.co.uk Thu Mar 7 22:44:42 2002
From: Laurence Godfrey (laur...@godfreynet.co.uk)
To: jer...@attrition.org
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 03:16:52 +0000
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: your defamatory posting
:showing you are abusive of the legal system and willing to file suit
:against ANYONE that you don't care for or agree with.
I have never lost a case yet. That does not suggest that I am "abusive
of the
legal system" save to someone who has no understanding whatsoever of it,
as
is evident in your case.
:
:: As to your threat to post this correspondence, thereby repeating the
:: defamatory allegations in question, in the circumstances I will be
:: issuing proceedings in defamation against you without further notice.
:
:So you are going to try to sue me, even though I have not posted the
:comments. Thanks, that pretty much confirms exactly what I said above.
I relied on your statement that you were going to do so. Should I not
rely on
your statements?
:Worse, you did so KNOWING I was not in the wrong (as you yourself
stated in
:followup mail).
Learn to read. I acknowledged that it was "unlikely".
:
:That is clearly harassment, abuse of the legal system, and overall, it
:makes you a fag.
That is plainly infantile. I usually make the assumption that I am
dealing
with adults on the net, unless they say otherwise. In your case, it
appears
that I am either dealing with a child or someone who is seriously
unwell. I
do not know which.
Laurence
:
:Chug cock.
***************************************************************
Save for this paragraph and those that follow, this email,
including any material attached to it, is confidential and
may be legally privileged. Unless expressly authorised by
the sender, you may not copy, publish, broadcast, transmit
or otherwise disseminate, electronically or by any other
means, any of the material contained in or attached to this
email. If you have received it in error, you should not
disclose or make use of or take any action in reliance upon
this material and you should immediately notify the sender,
whose name and email address is given below.
***************************************************************
Dr. Laurence Godfrey
Email: laur...@godfreynet.co.uk
PGP ID: 0x1E677CBF, Type: DH/DSS, Size: 2048/1024
Fingerprint: 2766 BF27 1BB2 1A0B 5749 CE01 FDA2 29D5 1E67 7CBF
From laur...@godfreynet.co.uk Thu Mar 7 22:44:47 2002
From: Laurence Godfrey (laur...@godfreynet.co.uk)
To: jer...@attrition.org
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 03:19:30 +0000
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: your defamatory posting
:: Kindly supply me by return e-mail with your correct name and address.
If
:: you fail to do so I will also seek to recover the costs of obtaining
:: that information through court order or through an investigations
:: agency.
:
:No. I will not assist you in further unfounded harassment. You mailed
me
:first. You threatened lawsuit against me.
Noted. I will proceed accordingly.
Laurence Godfrey
***************************************************************
Save for this paragraph and those that follow, this email,
including any material attached to it, is confidential and
may be legally privileged. Unless expressly authorised by
the sender, you may not copy, publish, broadcast, transmit
or otherwise disseminate, electronically or by any other
means, any of the material contained in or attached to this
email. If you have received it in error, you should not
disclose or make use of or take any action in reliance upon
this material and you should immediately notify the sender,
whose name and email address is given below.
***************************************************************
Dr. Laurence Godfrey
Email: laur...@godfreynet.co.uk
PGP ID: 0x1E677CBF, Type: DH/DSS, Size: 2048/1024
Fingerprint: 2766 BF27 1BB2 1A0B 5749 CE01 FDA2 29D5 1E67 7CBF
From com...@attrition.org Thu Mar 7 22:45:14 2002
From: Cancer Omega (com...@attrition.org)
To: Laurence Godfrey (laur...@godfreynet.co.uk)
Cc: st...@attrition.org
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:47:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: your defamatory posting
Hello Mr. Godfrey,
First off, nobody here posted that message. It's a pretty
obvious
forgery.
Secondly, I encourage you to do a bit of research before you go
tossing around any threats or demands.
Third, and finally, we're just as much victims of this tripe as
you are. We'd be happy to help track down the moron who pulled this
crap.
Now then, I'm going to skip all the blustering bullshit with
which
your note was prefaced and cut to the chase.
: Path:
:
news6-win.server.ntlworld.com!news1-win.server.ntlworld.com!news5-gui.server.n
:
tli.net!ntli.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.maxwe
:
ll.syr.edu!news1.optus.net.au!optus!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!news.telstra.net
: !nsw.nnrp.telstra.net!not-for-mail
1. The forgery originated at telstra. We don't even use
that news server.
: X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
: X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
2. We sure as fuck don't use Microsoft Outlook either.
: Message-ID:
3. Message ID belongs to telstra.
: Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:16:47 +1030
: NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.132.126.176
4. NNTP poster uses a telstra IP.
: X-Complaints-To: ab...@telstra.net
5. If you've got a complaint, you should go to telstra.
In short, you are one seriously STUPID MOTHERFUCKING TWAT. You ever
...and I mean EVER... threaten me again with your fucking stupid-assed
twaddle, I will personally sue your ass into the poor house, take the
money I get, fly to your neck of the woods and KICK YOUR LAME ASS.
So shut up and piss off, you miserable cunt.
.c
Col
LMAO.
--
Col
Col's law.
Thinly sliced cabbage..
Richard Herring
<laur...@godfreynet.net> writes
>>
>>When you started this little excursion did you even have the first damn
>>clue as to who attrition.org were?
>
>organisation (helpfully including in your posting), attrition.org
>consists of a small number of seriously disturbed children.
>
Sam Spade is your friend here:
http://www.samspade.org/t/lookat?a=attrition.org
--
Richard Herring
Matthew Blake
"Laurence Godfrey" <laur...@godfreynet.net> wrote in message
news:3c8ba7e8...@news.virgin.net...
> >clue as to who attrition.org were?
>
> subnormal "challengees" who wear their social dysfunctionality on
> their sleeves, I still don't give a first damn.
>
> Opening some of these postings is something of a teacher's nightmare.
> Imagine this dream: you walk into a class expecting to teach physics,
> but instead of physics students it's a room full of retards.... but
> it's in America, so of course you don't know at first that they're
> retards because its always kind of harder to tell with Americans -
> after a while you start to get a little suspicious because their
> mouths are gaping open a whole lot more than your average physics
> students and they're making strange noises. And you're saying things
> and writing things - and they are doing the same - but you begin to
> see that what you're trying to communicate to them is completely
> unrelated to and uninfluenced by whatever stuff they're communicating
> to whoever it is that they're communicating with. In the end, it's not
> so much a nightmare as just embarrassing, especially as you have to
> find the right words to say when you ease your way out of the
> classroom....
>
> Laurence
Hey, any Americans reading this, especially these mentally challenged
Americans he speaks of, please sue the guy for "defamatory remarks".
Richard Herring
<matthe...@nospambaesystems.com> writes
>>
>Hey, any Americans reading this, especially these mentally challenged
>Americans he speaks of, please sue the guy for "defamatory remarks".
I suggest some forensic study. Defamation applies to individuals, not
nations, be they American, Canadian, Thai or any other.
--
Richard Herring
Matthew Blake
"Richard Herring" <richard...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:oGHOdTb5...@baesystems.com...
Do I look like a dictionary! Every other word I hear I have to ask the
meaning of!
Richard Herring
>
>"Richard Herring" <richard...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
>news:oGHOdTb5...@baesystems.com...
>> In message <a6ae1a$ct3$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>, Matthew Blake
>> <matthe...@nospambaesystems.com> writes
>> >>
>> >Hey, any Americans reading this, especially these mentally challenged
>> >Americans he speaks of, please sue the guy for "defamatory remarks".
>>
>> I suggest some forensic study. Defamation applies to individuals, not
>> nations, be they American, Canadian, Thai or any other.
>>
I have no idea. But you might consider buying one.
>Every other word I hear I have to ask the
>meaning of!
Best not to use them, then.
--
Richard Herring
Matthew Blake
I had a litttle theory on how you would respond. It was right.
hobo
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:59:47 -0600, hobo <networ...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In my case please disregard the above last sentence and sue away,
> >I need the money from a countersuit, and I'm still a little pissed off
> >over 1812 (bastards wanna burn the White House do ya?)
> >
> >HTH
> >
> >-hobo
>
> I would be happy to do so, but you are too much of a coward to
> disclose your identity and in fact have taken steps to hide it.
Just figured out what you are referencing here, the fact that I am using a
secure news server. Header pasted below
Path:
sn-us!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From:
hobo <networ...@charter.net>
Newsgroups:
sci.physics, aus.legal, nz.general
Subject:
Dr? Laurence Godfrey = silly wabbit
Date:
Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:59:47 -0600
Organization:
Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID:
<3C886162...@charter.net>
X-Mailer:
Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2 i686)
X-Accept-Language:
en
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
X-Complaints-To:
news...@supernews.com
Lines:
1053
I guess that this could be construed as taking steps to hide my identity.
However, no such server was used with the email that I sent you Laurence,
which contained the exact text of this post, before I posted it. Go to work
on the mail header Laurence. If you hit a rough spot ask Kookaburra for
some help. My identity seems pretty obvious to him.
-hobo
> In the
> circumstances it is evident that your invitation to me to sue is
> nothing more than a pretence of bravado, notwithstanding that you have
> no cause of action for issuing a "countersuit".
>
> Laurence
hobo
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 23:46:06 +1300, Col <I'm...@the.bar.drunk > wrote:
> >
> >LMAO.
>
> Brian's got his work cut out defending those emails from Dr. G
Well, I would first query Laurence as to the validity, and await his
response. But I will say I would have to have one hell of a lot of time
on my hands to forge mail (complete with PGP keys and Fingerprints) from
a man who I had never heard of until yesterday.
-hobo
hobo
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 09:13:49 -0600, hobo <networ...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Really Laurence? What steps are those? All of my headers are included, I'm
> >sorry, I'm used to dealing with the computer literate. They key is the
> >header Laurence, the header. (Why do you always skip those?) I'll give ya
> >a little hint,, -whois- use it. It's your friend Larry. Quick lesson.
> >
> >whois chart...@whois.arin.net
>
> I am quite capable of reading the headers and quite capable of
> querying the relevant databases. An arin whois does not give me your
> name.
Very good Laurence, you are getting it. No it does not give you my name, but
it WILL give you the abuse contact for the charter domain, and that would be
the first logical step in initiating legal action. Don't ya think? And to
reference an earlier post of mine:
>> I would be happy to do so, but you are too much of a coward to
>> disclose your identity and in fact have taken steps to hide it.
>Just figured out what you are referencing here, the fact that I am using a
>secure news server. Header pasted below
<----snipped to prevent redundancy, see earlier post-------->
>I guess that this could be construed as taking steps to hide my identity.
>However, no such server was used with the email that I sent you Laurence,
>which contained the exact text of this post, before I posted it. Go to work
>on the mail header Laurence. If you hit a rough spot ask Kookaburra for
>some help. My identity seems pretty obvious to him.
>-hobo
> What is it? Is the arin address your personal home address. If
> not, what is it?
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain the finer points of
information retrieval on the Internet to a world renowned physicist. But here
are some hints.
1) Perhaps I don't ALWAYS use a secure news server.
2) Perhaps I have posted to other newsgroups.
3) Perhaps my name and e-mail might be linked on the web somewhere.
4) Perhaps you should learn to use google, it's a very good search engine.
5) Maybe you should search for prior email addresses with my handle.
6) Oh hell, just run a google search on "spchobo@earthlink" or
"spchobo@earthlink+professional" or "networksplus" maybe you'll come up with
something.
This lesson is free.
>
>
> Do you follow now? What is needed to issue proceedings is a name and a
> home address.
Yes, Laurence I follow. But posting my home mailing address to a newsgroup
isn't my idea of smart. Follow the above breadcrumbs. Just think, all of this
could have been avoided if you had just engaged your brain before your
keyboard. But back to the original subject. What about those original mails to
attrition? Are they legitimate? Are you really that much of a hypersensitive,
self-important windbag? Whew, you are some piece of work Larry. "Egomaniacal"
was invented for guys like you. This will likely be my last post in this
little flame war, but I will leave you with some thoughts Laurence.
1) You threatened legal action if the mail to attrition.org, the original
post, or any of your correspondence was made public, or posted anywhere.
I have posted them. Put up or shut up.
2) You threatened highly skilled network security experts with frivolous legal
action because of your inability or unwillingness to do rudimentary research
on the original post.
3) You have a documented history of this type of behavior going back at least
ten years.
4) You are net held in high regard, you are, in fact, something of a
laughingstock on UseNet.
5) Perhaps you should re-evaluate you direction in life, learn to calm down,
and get a different hobby. If not, you will find that not everyone can be
blustered, bullied or hoodwinked into submission.
HTH
--hobo
>
>
> Laurence
hobo
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 10:44:44 -0600, hobo <networ...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >1) You threatened legal action if the mail to attrition.org, the original
> >post, or any of your correspondence was made public, or posted anywhere.
> >I have posted them. Put up or shut up.
>
> I have repeatedly and carefully explained to you that I need your name
> and your home address in order to issue proceedings. You invited me to
> sue you and in accordance with your invitation I have several times
> invited you to provide me with the information that I need in order to
> do so. You have made lots of excuses, which can have fooled no readers
> but yourself, and you have consistently failed to come up with the
> information that I need in order to act upon your invitation to sue.
> Now, you can send it by e-mail or you can post it, I will be happy
> either way.
>
> It is you who has to put up or shut up, not me.
>
> Laurence
Ok you silly twit, luckily I had said "likely my last post". I'll do your
work for you. Libel suits work a littlle different on this side of the pond.
Pesky thing called the First Amendment over here.
So to save you the trouble I followed my own previous instructions to you.
results posted below.
I can't be much more obvious you gaseous wind bag.
--hobo
Web
Images
Groups
Directory
Searched the web for "spchobo".
Results 1 - 5 of about
36. Search took 0.08 seconds.
Escati Free Counter
Escati Free Counter You are Visitor No: Log File For:
http://home.earthlink.net/~spchobo/prof2.html
Last 20 Visitors. ...
escati.linkopp.net/counter2000/320645.html - 5k - Cached - Similar pages
The Professional
"Regardless of age or grade, soldiers should be treated
as mature individuals. They are men engaged ...
home.earthlink.net/~spchobo/prof2.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
The Professional
THE PROFESSIONAL. To View The Flash Version Click HERE To View The
Non-Flash Version Click HERE THIS PAGE COPYRIGHT BRIAN HOLBROOK
home.earthlink.net/~spchobo/prof0.html - 2k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from home.earthlink.net ]
Notice anything italicized, bolded and underlined you obnoxious,
self-important, walking persecution complex? that's the end of the freebies,
do your own fucking work from now on.
Good Luck.
--hobo
Oriel36
Don't mind him Matthew,in sci.physics thats the normal tactic the
scientists use to get them off the hook when you try to pin them down
on some point or other.They use Einstein's relativity ( and especially
the spurious 'spacetime' concept) as a shield and are inclined to
treat words in the same relative way,everything is define this or
define that when you make a point and this is how they wangle their
way out of untenable positions.
Godfrey and his kind think the public imbeciles insofar as they know
that they will shy away from mathematics and these self-designated
masterminds are so self-satisfied with themselves and their ideas that
this defamatory action with CodeZ is taking their untouchability to
the next level.
If you wish to know the validity of the 'relativity' concept,just look
at the way they make even simple words relative.It is a load of
rubbish with nobody with the character to challenge it.
hobo
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 10:44:44 -0600, hobo <networ...@charter.net>
> wrote:
Interestingly enough Larry, in the same amount of time in which you were
unable to follow my simple clues and type them into a search engine. I was
able to dig up the following on you. Apples and oranges you might say. I
think it is interesting stuff all the same.
--hobo
P.S. to avoid any confusion I must reiterate I am not in any way affiliated
with attrition.org.
P.S.S. This WILL be my last post to this little flame war. Have a nice life
Larry.
[xxxxx@xxxx /root]# whois godfreynet.net
[whois.crsnic.net]
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
Domain Name: GODFREYNET.NET
Registrar: TUCOWS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.opensrs.net
Referral URL: http://www.opensrs.org
Name Server: DNS.DESIGN-WEB.CO.UK
Name Server: DNS2.DESIGN-WEB.CO.UK
Updated Date: 05-nov-2001
>>> Last update of whois database: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:20:23 EST <<<
The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
Registrars.
[whois.opensrs.net]
Registrant:
DesignWeb
54-56 High Road
Bushey, Herts WD2 3JG
UK
Domain Name: GODFREYNET.NET
Administrative Contact:
Godfrey, Laurence new...@design-web.co.uk
54-56 High Road
Bushey, Herts WD2 3JG
UK
07971 044012
Technical Contact:
Lyons, John ad...@design-web.co.uk
12 The Boulevard
Rhyl, Denbighshire LL18 4S5
UK
01745 369351
Billing Contact:
Godfrey, Laurence new...@design-web.co.uk
54-56 High Road
Bushey, Herts WD2 3JG
UK
07971 044012
Registration Service Provider:
Design Web, hostm...@design-web.co.uk
01745 369351
Record last updated on 08-Mar-2002.
Record expires on 15-May-2003.
Record Created on 15-May-2000.
Domain servers in listed order:
DNS.DESIGN-WEB.CO.UK 212.69.192.92
DNS2.DESIGN-WEB.CO.UK 212.69.192.93
[xxxx@xxxx /root]# ping godfreynet.net
PING godfreynet.net (212.69.198.36) from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx : 56(84) bytes of
data.
64 bytes from 212.69.198.36: icmp_seq=0 ttl=229 time=241.352 msec
64 bytes from 212.69.198.36: icmp_seq=1 ttl=229 time=239.888 msec
--- godfreynet.net ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 239.888/240.620/241.352/0.732 ms
[xxxx@xxxx /root]# traceroute godfreynet.net
traceroute to godfreynet.net (212.69.198.36), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 xxxxx (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) 3.354 ms 0.984 ms 0.805 ms
2 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) 9.074 ms 10.097 ms 10.041 ms
3 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) 9.827 ms 10.044 ms 9.911 ms
4 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) 10.145 ms 11.139 ms 9.501 ms
5 xxx (xxx) 15.098 ms 15.857 ms 15.525 ms
6 xxx (xxx) 17.662 ms 26.700 ms 16.818 ms
7 xxx (xxx) 15.461 ms 13.308 ms 13.794 ms
8 xxx (xxx) 31.789 ms 30.244 ms 31.129 ms
9 xxx (xxx) 34.972 ms 28.797 ms 30.084 ms
10 xxx (xxx) 32.641 ms 29.296 ms 30.826 ms
11 agr3-loopback.NewYork.cw.net (206.24.194.103) 163.970 ms 165.089 ms
166.084 ms
12 dcr1-so-7-2-0.NewYork.cw.net (206.24.207.73) 166.214 ms 170.070 ms
167.255 ms
13 agr2-so-0-0-0.NewYork.cw.net (206.24.207.54) 167.749 ms 167.120 ms
168.684 ms
14 iar2-loopback.NewYork.cw.net (206.24.194.24) 177.761 ms 187.327 ms
171.572 ms
15 nextra-as.NewYork.cw.net (208.173.135.74) 172.678 ms 172.592 ms
170.723 ms
16 nb16b11-pos2-2.nb.telenor.net (217.70.228.25) 212.813 ms 209.752 ms
210.995 ms
17 nb06b01-pos0-1-0.nb.telenor.net (217.70.227.173) 232.613 ms 232.052
ms 232.717 ms
18 nb21b01-pos4-1-0.nb.telenor.net (217.70.227.170) 231.542 ms 231.524
ms 232.374 ms
19 XTML-LINX2.XTML.CO.UK (195.66.225.71) 232.323 ms 232.622 ms 231.644
ms
20 lxgsr-bcar.xtml.net (212.88.53.1) 233.626 ms 233.600 ms 238.217 ms
21 tcgsr-lxgsrds3.xtml.net (212.88.53.34) 238.436 ms 238.201 ms 240.438
ms
22 195.226.33.130 (195.226.33.130) 237.086 ms 240.648 ms 237.632 ms
23 fa2-0.rt1.a5-3.tc.dsvr.net (212.69.216.2) 239.940 ms 240.429 ms
238.665 ms
24 212.69.198.36 (212.69.198.36) 239.659 ms 240.123 ms 238.150 ms
[xxx@xxx /root]# xxx 212.69.198.36
xxx
xxx (212.69.198.36):
(xxx)
<----snip----->
27665/xxx xxx Txxx_Mxxx
[xxx@xxx /root]# xxx 212.69.198.36 80
xxx 212.69.198.36...
xxx 212.69.198.36.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<TITLE>501 Method Not Implemented</TITLE>
</HEAD><BODY>
<H1>Method Not Implemented</H1>
xxx
Invalid method in request xxx<P>
<HR>
<ADDRESS>Apache/1.3.17 Server at svr2.design-web.co.uk Port 80</ADDRESS>
</BODY></HTML>
xxx
[xxx@xxx /root]# whois 212.69...@whois.ripe.net
[whois.ripe.net]
% This is the RIPE Whois server.
% The objects are in RPSL format.
% Please visit http://www.ripe.net/rpsl for more information.
% Rights restricted by copyright.
% See http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/db/copyright.html
inetnum: 212.69.192.0 - 212.69.207.255
netname: DSVR-TELECITY1
descr: Hosting network at TeleCity Manchester
country: GB
admin-c: DSVR1-RIPE
tech-c: DSVR1-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: DSVR-MNT
mnt-lower: DSVR-MNT
changed: tim.ba...@dsvr.co.uk 20010730
changed: tim.ba...@dsvr.co.uk 20011017
source: RIPE
route: 212.69.192.0/19
descr: DSVR 212.69.192.0/19 route
origin: AS12449
mnt-by: DSVR-MNT
changed: d...@dsvr.co.uk 19990528
changed: d...@dsvr.co.uk 20000616
changed: tim.ba...@dsvr.co.uk 20010724
source: RIPE
role: DSVR Network Operations
address: Designer Servers, Ltd
address: PO Box 81
address: Manchester M32 OFE
address: United Kingdom
phone: +44 161 9096100
fax-no: +44 161 9096130
e-mail: ri...@dsvr.net
trouble: Please contact n...@dsvr.net
admin-c: JL2926-RIPE
tech-c: TJB4-RIPE
nic-hdl: DSVR1-RIPE
remarks: PLEASE NOTE: Do not send abuse complaints to this
remarks: email address.
remarks: For the appropriate email address, please refer to the list at
remarks: http://www.dsvr.co.uk/contact/contactlist.phtml
mnt-by: DSVR-MNT
changed: tim.ba...@dsvr.co.uk 20010726
changed: tim.ba...@dsvr.co.uk 20010730
source: RIPE
>>1) You threatened legal action if the mail to attrition.org, the original
>>post, or any of your correspondence was made public, or posted anywhere.
>>I have posted them. Put up or shut up.
>
> I have repeatedly and carefully explained to you that I need your name
> and your home address in order to issue proceedings. You invited me to
> sue you and in accordance with your invitation I have several times
> invited you to provide me with the information that I need in order to
> do so. You have made lots of excuses, which can have fooled no readers
> but yourself, and you have consistently failed to come up with the
> information that I need in order to act upon your invitation to sue.
> Now, you can send it by e-mail or you can post it, I will be happy
> either way.
>
> It is you who has to put up or shut up, not me.
>
> Laurence
Laurence Godfrey wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 12:30:31 -0600, hobo <networ...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Laurence Godfrey wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 10:44:44 -0600, hobo <networ...@charter.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >1) You threatened legal action if the mail to attrition.org, the
>>> >original post, or any of your correspondence was made public, or posted
>>> >anywhere. I have posted them. Put up or shut up.
>>>
>>> I have repeatedly and carefully explained to you that I need your name
>>> and your home address in order to issue proceedings. You invited me to
>>> sue you and in accordance with your invitation I have several times
>>> invited you to provide me with the information that I need in order to
>>> do so. You have made lots of excuses, which can have fooled no readers
>>> but yourself, and you have consistently failed to come up with the
>>> information that I need in order to act upon your invitation to sue.
>>> Now, you can send it by e-mail or you can post it, I will be happy
>>> either way.
>>>
>>> It is you who has to put up or shut up, not me.
>>>
>>> Laurence
>>
>>Ok you silly twit, luckily I had said "likely my last post". I'll do your
>>work for you. Libel suits work a littlle different on this side of the
>>pond. Pesky thing called the First Amendment over here.
>
> Oh no they don't.
>
> Name and home address was what I said I needed. Not too hard to
> understand, was it?
>
> So in conclusion you have failed to put up and have shown yourself to
> be nothing more than a silly ass too frightened to give me the
> information that I need to sue you in spite of all your posturing.
>
> Laurence
E. Scrooge
Don't let the facts get in the way of you trying to suggest that only
individuals can claim to be defamed, Red.
"Proctor and Gamble. Co. v. Haugen, 2000 WL 1199076 (10th Cir. 2000)
(allegations of company satanism not defamatory).
NBC Subsidiary v. Living Will Center, 879 P. 2d 6 (Colo. 1994) (newscast
report that a company's business was a "scam" was an opinion and therefore
not defamatory)
Keohane v. Stewart, 882 P.2d 1293 (Colo. 1994) (not defamatory to call a
public official "sleaze" and "scum")
Handerson v. Times Mirror Co., 669 F. Supp. 356 (D. Colo. 1987) (calling a
football agent a "sleaze bag" who "slimed up from the bayou" not defamatory
because statement was an opinion)"
Claiming that a bunch of American students are "retards", could be
considered as being defamatory, but then to make such a stupid claim in the
first place would only be considered as the opinion of a fool.
What are the odds of walking into a Physics class, only to find that every
student in that class is a "retard"? Such a claim says more about the
person that made it, than the people that the crap was directed at.
As for Brian going on about the guy's so called reputation, calling students
"retards" would hardly do a lot for it.
E. Scrooge
hobo
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 23:46:06 +1300, Col <I'm...@the.bar.drunk > wrote:
>>
>>LMAO.
>
> Brian's got his work cut out defending those emails from Dr. G
>
>
Sorry for the previous post Kookaburra, obviously you were reffering to the
"other" Brian.
Brian
A significant issue that seems to get up the noses of many is the
issue of "freedom"
Why anyone really wants this place of newsgroups to be free to defame
still remains a mystery to me.
Many Americans also appear to talk of freedom in cliches. Perhaps
propaganda from birth that they are "free" makes them truly believe
it? From where I sit, the US certainly does not have a monopoly on
freedom, or even appears to do it particularly well.
Regardless of the desire of many people to have the freedom to defame
other people, defamation remains a crime, even in the US, and keeps
lawyers there quite content.
I hope the vigorous cut and thrust of debate here on usenet stays.
Flames included. That's part of what this is all about.
Defamation is another issue. I see it rarely, but the questions
asked of Dr Godfrey (in the way that they were asked) were clearly so.
Dr Godfrey did not "provoke" such an attack. It came out of the blue,
and the defamatory questions did not relate to anything previously
said.
I therefore wish him well, and I hope that others are also prepared to
help him weed out the scum who would carry out such defamatory
attacks.
Brian
E. Scrooge
"Brian" <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3c892be7....@news.wave.co.nz...
Brian you'd better get yourself down to Accident & Emergency. All that
gravel rash that you've been doing to yourself, must surely need some kind
of professional treatment. You may well have an infection from it already.
Was your tongue always that colour?
When do you plan on doing the door to door collection for him?
E. Scrooge
hobo
concerns me. I couldn't give less of a shit about the original post or
it's contents if I squeezed my sphincter for an hour < nods to /dev/null
for that one> . What I took issue with was Laurence's attempt to threaten
attrition.org with legal action over what was an obviously forged "From"
line in the message path. He was defamed, he wasn't defamed
....whatever, I really don't care. Check your facts before you lawyer up
Laurence. He certainly could have sent A mail much nicer in tone to the
attrition staff asking for their assistance in tracking the forger, or
seeking clarification if he had doubts as to the authenticity of the
alleged defamatory post. He did neither.
-hobo
Ray Gordon
> >I need the money from a countersuit, and I'm still a little pissed off
> >over 1812 (bastards wanna burn the White House do ya?)
> >
> >HTH
> >
> >-hobo
>
> circumstances it is evident that your invitation to me to sue is
> nothing more than a pretence of bravado, notwithstanding that you have
> no cause of action for issuing a "countersuit".
Well he wouldn't, unless you were to LOSE and then a court were to rule it
"malicious prosecution" or one of those things they have here in America.
But that would require you to sue him first, as you said you would "without
further notice." Have you done so?
Ray Gordon
but
> >it WILL give you the abuse contact for the charter domain, and that would
be
> >the first logical step in initiating legal action. Don't ya think? And to
> >reference an earlier post of mine:
>
> home address,
If you don't have that you file against "John Doe" and then subpoena the
rest of it.
>Get it - the real name and
> the real address of the person who is you. You don't have to put it in
> a posting, you can send it to me by e-mail if you like (I will un-bar
> my server against your e-mails for that purpose).
>
> Now, I say your invitation to me to sue you was just a pretence of
> bravado. If it was not, give me your name and address and I will do
> so. You can either put up or shut up.
Don't you know what a John-Doe action is?
Ray Gordon
should STILL go the "John Doe" route, because that's the only way of being
absolutely certain you have their identity.
So why not just file a John-Doe case?
Ray Gordon
I wonder if you've considered that if someone gave you WRONG information,
and you sued someone in America on that basis, you'd probably hate the
results.
Why not just get it from the ISP via a subpoena? You're the one who claims
to be trained in law.
"Laurence Godfrey" <laur...@godfreynet.net> wrote in message
news:3c8d25f2...@news.virgin.net...
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 12:30:31 -0600, hobo <networ...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> Oh no they don't.
>
> Name and home address was what I said I needed. Not too hard to
> understand, was it?
>
> So in conclusion you have failed to put up and have shown yourself to
> be nothing more than a silly ass too frightened to give me the
> information that I need to sue you in spite of all your posturing.
>
> Laurence
>
> >
Ray Gordon
> issue of "freedom"
>
> Why anyone really wants this place of newsgroups to be free to defame
> still remains a mystery to me.
>
> Many Americans also appear to talk of freedom in cliches. Perhaps
> propaganda from birth that they are "free" makes them truly believe
> it? From where I sit, the US certainly does not have a monopoly on
> freedom, or even appears to do it particularly well.
>
> Regardless of the desire of many people to have the freedom to defame
> other people, defamation remains a crime, even in the US, and keeps
> lawyers there quite content.
American courts don't want to referee USENET pissing contests. Libel law
here had to do more with major publishers than individuals.
> I hope the vigorous cut and thrust of debate here on usenet stays.
> Flames included. That's part of what this is all about.
Until you are the one defamed, right?
> Defamation is another issue. I see it rarely, but the questions
> asked of Dr Godfrey (in the way that they were asked) were clearly so.
> Dr Godfrey did not "provoke" such an attack. It came out of the blue,
> and the defamatory questions did not relate to anything previously
> said.
What was the INTENT of the questions? To bust his chops or to harm his
reputation?
On a jury I wouldn't award him a dime for that isolated incident, especially
in the context of the thread, but I'm not on the jury so my OPINION doesn't
count.
What DAMAGES has he suffered from these postings? Most US courts don't
award that much on principle. He could find himself winning a dollar if his
case is not clearly convincing.
> I therefore wish him well, and I hope that others are also prepared to
> help him weed out the scum who would carry out such defamatory
> attacks.
Was the intent truly defamatory? That's subjective. Obviously the
questions were in poor taste, but was there a true attempt to make people
believe they were true?
American libel law is definitely nowhere near as clear as british law.
E. Scrooge
> >clue as to who attrition.org were?
>
> subnormal "challengees" who wear their social dysfunctionality on
> their sleeves, I still don't give a first damn.
>
> Opening some of these postings is something of a teacher's nightmare.
> Imagine this dream: you walk into a class expecting to teach physics,
> but instead of physics students it's a room full of retards.... but
> it's in America, so of course you don't know at first that they're
> retards because its always kind of harder to tell with Americans -
> after a while you start to get a little suspicious because their
> mouths are gaping open a whole lot more than your average physics
> students and they're making strange noises. And you're saying things
> and writing things - and they are doing the same - but you begin to
> see that what you're trying to communicate to them is completely
> unrelated to and uninfluenced by whatever stuff they're communicating
> to whoever it is that they're communicating with. In the end, it's not
> so much a nightmare as just embarrassing, especially as you have to
> find the right words to say when you ease your way out of the
> classroom....
>
> Laurence
"Elvis is about to leave the building", would do.
And singing, "I'm All Shook Up", would be a nice touch as well.
E. Scrooge
hobo
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:24:48 -0500, "Ray Gordon" <cave...@nni.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Please answer why you can't just file a John-Doe claim.
>
> They do not exist in England, and I sue in defamation in the English
> High Court.
>
> >Why not just get it from the ISP via a subpoena? You're the one who claims
> >to be trained in law.
>
> I could. I may still do so. But you miss the point. Someone who
> invites me to sue him and then fails to provide the necessary
> information is the child who taunts: "I dare you to hit me" and
> immediately runs away.
>
> Laurence
Ok Laurence I've hinted, I've spoon-fed, I've cajoled in order to try to get
you to see your Original error. Here it is:
1) You made a baseless charge , and threatened an innocent organization with
legal action, over a forged from line in a message path. This was done either
because you are incompetent when it comes to the finer points of network data
transmission or because you are lazy, I don't know which.
2) When you were shown the error you had made, you admitted that you had
believed the header might not be genuine, but then threatened legal action if
the correspondence was made public.
You have no legal right to send someone a document then threaten them with
legal action if they display it. Once they have it , it's theirs to do with as
they wish. To successfully sue attrition.org you would have to sue all of the
web servers that mirror USENET groups, and anyone who ever quoted the original
post.
3) I could care less about whether or not you have EVER been defamed or if the
original post was defamatory. I care about your handling of it, and your
baseless legal threats. To that end I am calling your bluff.
Brian E. Holbrook
1927 N. 18th Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 USA
29 yrs of age
6' even (you can translate that into meters on your own , can't you?)
165 lbs (translate that into stone yourself , will you?)
Hair : None
Eyes: Blue
(AKA- hobo, but then you should have had that figured out long ago)
Ray Gordon
>
> High Court.
So if no one gives you their name online you cannot sue them?
Or do you sue the ISP and have them give it to you?
> >Why not just get it from the ISP via a subpoena? You're the one who
claims
> >to be trained in law.
>
> I could. I may still do so. But you miss the point. Someone who
> invites me to sue him and then fails to provide the necessary
> information is the child who taunts: "I dare you to hit me" and
> immediately runs away.
I don't know there. Didn't you say you were going to sue if you didn't get
your apology?
It would seem that you laid down the gauntlet there, not him, when you
protested over his postings. Isn't your standard warning to apologize and
cover your legal costs or you're going to sue?
I didn't see an apology. The next step after that was a claim from you that
you needed the address to sue, and I pointed out that in America this is not
the case, and further, even if you *thought* you had the right name, you'd
STILL have to verify it through the ISP, so you would probably do that
anyway.
That's how most American libel cases are fought.
Brian
wrote:
>> A significant issue that seems to get up the noses of many is the
>> issue of "freedom"
>>
>> Why anyone really wants this place of newsgroups to be free to defame
>> still remains a mystery to me.
>>
>> Many Americans also appear to talk of freedom in cliches. Perhaps
>> propaganda from birth that they are "free" makes them truly believe
>> it? From where I sit, the US certainly does not have a monopoly on
>> freedom, or even appears to do it particularly well.
>>
>> Regardless of the desire of many people to have the freedom to defame
>> other people, defamation remains a crime, even in the US, and keeps
>> lawyers there quite content.
>
>American courts don't want to referee USENET pissing contests. Libel law
>here had to do more with major publishers than individuals.
>
>
>> I hope the vigorous cut and thrust of debate here on usenet stays.
>> Flames included. That's part of what this is all about.
>
>Until you are the one defamed, right?
I distinguish between flames and defamation. Perhaps that is what
this is all about to some people. That they see new rules preventing
the fine tradition of usenet flaming.
Dr Godfrey, I note from his postings, is obviously concerned with
defamation, but is happy to call a spade a spade, in big hot red
letters.
>> Defamation is another issue. I see it rarely, but the questions
>> asked of Dr Godfrey (in the way that they were asked) were clearly so.
>> Dr Godfrey did not "provoke" such an attack. It came out of the blue,
>> and the defamatory questions did not relate to anything previously
>> said.
>
>What was the INTENT of the questions? To bust his chops or to harm his
>reputation?
Given the lack of any context around the accusations implied by the
questions, it was purely to defame. That's simply my opinion.
>
>On a jury I wouldn't award him a dime for that isolated incident, especially
>in the context of the thread, but I'm not on the jury so my OPINION doesn't
>count.
Nor does mine any more than yours. Our opinions count as far as this
discussion goes though. How quickly they get filed into Bin 13 is
another matter <s>
>What DAMAGES has he suffered from these postings? Most US courts don't
>award that much on principle. He could find himself winning a dollar if his
>case is not clearly convincing.
It seems to me that he is more interested in an apology than cash. In
the most recent case in New Zealand with the student, he asked for no
money personally, but did ask, and have accepted, a small sum (perhaps
large to a student) donation to charity.
>> I therefore wish him well, and I hope that others are also prepared to
>> help him weed out the scum who would carry out such defamatory
>> attacks.
>
>Was the intent truly defamatory? That's subjective.
I agree that it is subjective. In my opinion it clearly was. I have
no hesitation in calling the author of that post scum for having
posted what he did. There was nothing redeeming about the post. A
nasty little bit of work.
>Obviously the
>questions were in poor taste, but was there a true attempt to make people
>believe they were true?
Again subjective. Again I'm absolutely clear about my personal
opinion. What was written went well beyond what could be called "good
taste" It was a true attempt to make people believe the implied
statements were true.
I do not want any part of freedom that allows such defamation.
On the other hand I do not mind you having an opinion about what I
write on this subject. I'm expecting that you're finding it
intelligent, enlightened, and informative <wink>, but if care to
express your opinion in less charitable terms that's quite ok.
(Ask Col, who seems to have a poor grasp of a lot of the English
language, but has a specialist knowledge of internet flames.
Wonderful humour, even when I've been the recipient!)
But please stick to the truth: What I've actually written, or what
I've actually done. Please do not stray into making things up about
me to "assist" your arguments.
>American libel law is definitely nowhere near as clear as british law.
If anybody is straddling the wire that is the boundary of what's not
clear about defamation, they're probably foolishly close. Why go
there?
Brian
Brian
wrote:
>I'll just skip over all the Anti-American crap
Is that the way you see what I said about my view of statements of
freedom? I'll hold to my statements, but I would not wish to think
that I'm Anti-American in any way. But I'll leave you to judge.
>and get down to what
>concerns me. I couldn't give less of a shit about the original post or
>it's contents if I squeezed my sphincter for an hour < nods to /dev/null
>for that one> . What I took issue with was Laurence's attempt to threaten
>attrition.org with legal action over what was an obviously forged "From"
>line in the message path.
I thought that he explained well, WHY he had to take the action he
did. I think that he may have included a little more information in
his original post, explaining that he was aware of the possibility
that it was a forgery.
>He was defamed, he wasn't defamed
>....whatever, I really don't care. Check your facts before you lawyer up
>Laurence. He certainly could have sent A mail much nicer in tone to the
>attrition staff asking for their assistance in tracking the forger, or
>seeking clarification if he had doubts as to the authenticity of the
>alleged defamatory post. He did neither.
Yes he could have.
Brian
Gurble
wrote:
Keep us informed. This could be interesting.
Helen
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 18:01:53 -0500, "Ray Gordon" <cave...@nni.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >Please answer why you can't just file a John-Doe claim.
> >>
> >> They do not exist in England, and I sue in defamation in the English
> >> High Court.
> >
> >So if no one gives you their name online you cannot sue them?
> >
> >Or do you sue the ISP and have them give it to you?
>
> you also (sometimes) do in the USA.
>
> >> >Why not just get it from the ISP via a subpoena? You're the one who
> >claims
> >> >to be trained in law.
> >>
> >> I could. I may still do so. But you miss the point. Someone who
> >> invites me to sue him and then fails to provide the necessary
> >> information is the child who taunts: "I dare you to hit me" and
> >> immediately runs away.
> >
> >I don't know there. Didn't you say you were going to sue if you didn't
get
> >your apology?
> >
> >It would seem that you laid down the gauntlet there, not him, when you
> >protested over his postings. Isn't your standard warning to apologize
and
> >cover your legal costs or you're going to sue?
>
> address in this tiresome thread is not the person responsible for the
> original postings.
>
> >I didn't see an apology. The next step after that was a claim from you
that
> >you needed the address to sue, and I pointed out that in America this is
not
> >the case, and further, even if you *thought* you had the right name,
you'd
> >STILL have to verify it through the ISP, so you would probably do that
> >anyway.
> >
> >That's how most American libel cases are fought.
>
>
> Laurence
Laurence, why do you do this? I'm not trying to wind you up nor am I a
silly kid (too many years on the planet for that), but I do not undertand
why you join in with 'kids' and others trying to wind you up. With your
reputation as a result of the Demon case (on which I have no opinion either
way, I can see both sides of the argument), you are obviously a target, but
why don't you just ignore it?
>
Beck
"Helen" <he...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:a6bi3s$o12$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
Just a waste of time isnt it?
Beck
hobo
-------begin message
Return-Path:
<laur...@godfreynet.co.uk>
Received:
from mta5-svc.virgin.net ([62.253.164.45] verified) by
dc-mx03.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.3) with
ESMTP
id 19307680 for networ...@charter.net; Fri, 08 Mar 2002
18:39:32 -0500
Received:
from thux.net ([80.1.17.211]) by mta5-svc.virgin.net (InterMail
vM.4.01.03.27
201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id
<20020308233151.QGJD276...@thux.net> for
<networ...@charter.net>; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 23:31:51 +0000
Received:
from thux ([127.0.0.1]) by thux.net with SMTP
(Mailtraq/1.1.6.1177) id
THX5775C18A9 for networ...@charter.net; Fri, 08 Mar 2002
23:28:56
-0000
Message-ID:
<2002030823285...@godfreynet.net>
X-Mailer:
Calypso Version 3.20.02.00 (4)
Date:
Fri, 08 Mar 2002 23:28:56 +0000
Reply-To:
laur...@godfreynet.co.uk
From:
"Laurence Godfrey" <laur...@godfreynet.co.uk>
To:
networ...@charter.net
Subject:
check e-mail address
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative; boundary="=====_101563013626962=_"
X-Hops:
1
X-Mozilla-Status:
8003
X-Mozilla-Status2:
00000000
X-UIDL:
3
I am just checking that this is the correct e-mail address for Brian E.
Holbrook.
Laurence Godfrey
***************************************************************
Save for this paragraph and those that follow, this email,
including any material attached to it, is confidential and
may be legally privileged. Unless expressly authorised by
the sender, you may not copy, publish, broadcast, transmit
or otherwise disseminate, electronically or by any other
means, any of the material contained in or attached to this
email. If you have received it in error, you should not
disclose or make use of or take any action in reliance upon
this material and you should immediately notify the sender,
whose name and email address is given below.
***************************************************************
Dr. Laurence Godfrey
Email: laur...@godfreynet.co.uk
PGP ID: 0x1E677CBF, Type: DH/DSS, Size: 2048/1024
Fingerprint: 2766 BF27 1BB2 1A0B 5749 CE01 FDA2 29D5 1E67 7CBF
---------end of message
--hobo
Ray Gordon
that
> >you needed the address to sue, and I pointed out that in America this is
not
> >the case, and further, even if you *thought* you had the right name,
you'd
> >STILL have to verify it through the ISP, so you would probably do that
> >anyway.
> >
> >That's how most American libel cases are fought.
>
If the defamer is in America, you'd have to sue them here, would you not?
Ray Gordon
> >reputation?
>
> Given the lack of any context around the accusations implied by the
> questions, it was purely to defame. That's simply my opinion.
Would a reasonable person have concluded from the posting that any of this
is true? I sure didn't.
Where are the DAMAGES? In a US court, you pretty much almost have to have
them to justify suing someone. Yes, there is damage to one's online
reputation, etc., but even that has been minimized a bit by the courts.
Then again, some people still do win big awards, but usually when their
business or profession has been harmed.
E. Scrooge
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:29:48 -0500, "Ray Gordon" <cave...@nni.com>
> wrote:
> >What DAMAGES has he suffered from these postings? Most US courts don't
> >award that much on principle. He could find himself winning a dollar if
his
> >case is not clearly convincing.
>
> It seems to me that he is more interested in an apology than cash. In
> the most recent case in New Zealand with the student, he asked for no
> money personally, but did ask, and have accepted, a small sum (perhaps
> large to a student) donation to charity.
>
Two UK charities to get 50 pound each (charities that your mate more than
likely chose), and about $100 to a NZ charity.
All up about 400 New Zealand dollars to 3 different charities to be precise.
There was never any proof that any "actual" damage was done by the student's
ill chosen comments, if anything all he did was hurt the plaintiff's
feelings a bit. The student apologised which was fair enough. Honour has
once again been restored to the student. Meanwhile the plaintiff has done
very little to help his own reputation in the newsgroups. His latest
comment was to claim that some American students were a bunch of "retards".
A US court would have to look at how much pressure if any, was possibly
applied to the student to agree to such an agreement (which involved the
completely unbiased plaintiff).
E. Scrooge
Col
Still licking LG's chocolate starfish I see . :)
--
Col
Col's law.
Thinly sliced cabbage..
Rapperman
typed...
>On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:35:40 -0600, hobo <b.hol...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>}Interestingly enough Larry, in the same amount of time in which you were
>}unable to follow my simple clues and type them into a search engine. I was
>}able to dig up the following on you. Apples and oranges you might say. I
>}think it is interesting stuff all the same.
>
>All wrong, what a clueless fuckwit you are, probably a sales-shit or
>support-fuck at some fagot ISP/VBC
Oh look everyone, wanker Ashton is *still* licking Godfrey's shithole!
Don't you just wish you had a toady of your own like wanker Ashton?
Marshall Rice
writes
>
>If the defamer is in America, you'd have to sue them here, would you not?
No.
--
Marshall Rice
Carol T
> I could. I may still do so. But you miss the point. Someone who
> invites me to sue him and then fails to provide the necessary
> information is the child who taunts: "I dare you to hit me" and
> immediately runs away.
Oh dear, so are you going to stand still while those American's who have
taken exception to what you said about their collective intellect punch you
on the nose? If not, is that not similar to taunting people?
I should forget suing anyone in America if I were you Godfrey, they might
tear you to bits as you got off the plane !
Carol T
hobo
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:35:40 -0600, hobo <b.hol...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> }Interestingly enough Larry, in the same amount of time in which you were
> }unable to follow my simple clues and type them into a search engine. I was
> }able to dig up the following on you. Apples and oranges you might say. I
> }think it is interesting stuff all the same.
>
> All wrong, what a clueless fuckwit you are, probably a sales-shit or
> support-fuck at some fagot ISP/VBC
>
> }[xxxxx@xxxx /root]# whois godfreynet.net
> }[whois.crsnic.net]
>
> Running a unix box as root connected to the Internet marks you as a non-techie
> or a clueless fuck or both.
I have no problems with it, and for all the text books, how-to's , security
pro's that scream never connect as root, never run as root, I think you'll find
that at some point all have run, connected as root. To run the vast majority of
Unix network admin tools you HAVE to be root. 'nuff said.
>
>
> }[whois.opensrs.net]
> }Registrant:
> } DesignWeb
>
> } Bushey, Herts WD2 3JG
> } UK
>
> You believe that address? as I said a stupid motherfucker.
I never said that I believed anything listed, only that while Laurence was trying
to figure out how to google "spchobo" I was able to come up with this. What were
you able to come up with?
>
>
> [...]
> } Domain Name: GODFREYNET.NET
> } Registration Service Provider:
> } Design Web, hostm...@design-web.co.uk
> } 01745 369351
> }
> } Record last updated on 08-Mar-2002.
> } Record expires on 15-May-2003.
> } Record Created on 15-May-2000.
> }
> } Domain servers in listed order:
> } DNS.DESIGN-WEB.CO.UK 212.69.192.92
> } DNS2.DESIGN-WEB.CO.UK 212.69.192.93
>
> He look IP addresses of DNS servers that's nice.
Umm yes it is, if I , perhaps, wanted to do a zone transfer.
>
>
> }[xxxx@xxxx /root]# ping godfreynet.net
> }PING godfreynet.net (212.69.198.36) from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx : 56(84) bytes of
> }64 bytes from 212.69.198.36: icmp_seq=0 ttl=229 time=241.352 msec
> }64 bytes from 212.69.198.36: icmp_seq=1 ttl=229 time=239.888 msec
no what I think is that is the web hosting company that hosts the godfreynet
domain. But that is tomatoe / tomato. This is where the man's mail gets sent.
>
>
> I suppose you think that is Godfreys address, do learn a little more about
> RIPE you are going to make yourself look so stupid.
>
> }[xxxx@xxxx /root]# traceroute godfreynet.net
> }traceroute to godfreynet.net (212.69.198.36), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
> } 1 xxxxx (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) 3.354 ms 0.984 ms 0.805 ms
> } 2 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) 9.074 ms 10.097 ms 10.041 ms
> } 3 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) 9.827 ms 10.044 ms 9.911 ms
> } 4 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) 10.145 ms 11.139 ms 9.501 ms
> Very fast nice big pipe you have got there
Yes, yes it is, thanks for noticing.
>
> } 5 xxx (xxx) 15.098 ms 15.857 ms 15.525 ms
> } 6 xxx (xxx) 17.662 ms 26.700 ms 16.818 ms
> } 7 xxx (xxx) 15.461 ms 13.308 ms 13.794 ms
> } 8 xxx (xxx) 31.789 ms 30.244 ms 31.129 ms
> } 9 xxx (xxx) 34.972 ms 28.797 ms 30.084 ms
> }10 xxx (xxx) 32.641 ms 29.296 ms 30.826 ms
> }11 agr3-loopback.NewYork.cw.net (206.24.194.103) 163.970 ms
>
>
> Ah west coast then, bloody awful transit ping
Umm yes , the point here was not to obfuscate my identity or location. Had
I wanted to do that I would have edited the entire traceroute up to the first
gateway in the U.K.. Or I would not have listed my bloody mailing address on the
NG. You're really tearing it up Sherlock, do go on.
>
>
> }[xxx@xxx /root]# xxx 212.69.198.36 80
>
> What The Fuck are you using to query port 80? Clown
Geez, I guess if you were half as smart as you think you are you would be able to
tell from the output below (even edited it is pretty obvious) If you telnet to
port 80 and input an invalid command you will dump the headers, generally
speaking, and that most of the time will tell you the version and type of
webserver. In this case Apache 1.3.17. Why telnet and do it? No one is gonna log
incoming connections to port 80.
>
>
> }<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
> }<HTML><HEAD>
> }<TITLE>501 Method Not Implemented</TITLE>
> }</HEAD><BODY>
> }<H1>Method Not Implemented</H1>
> }xxx
> }Invalid method in request xxx<P>
> }<HR>
> }<ADDRESS>Apache/1.3.17 Server at svr2.design-web.co.uk Port 80</ADDRESS>
> }</BODY></HTML>
>
> Wrong!!
>
Right, I found out the web server type and version.
>
> You need education, definitely a sales luser
>
> Fetching http://212.69.198.36/ ...
> GET / HTTP/1.1
> Host: 212.69.198.36
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 00:27:41 GMT
> Server: Apache/1.3.17 (Unix) (DSVR/Linux) PHP/3.0.18 FrontPage/4.0.4.3
> mod_perl/1.24 AuthMySQL/2.20 mod_ssl/2.8.0 OpenSSL/0.9.6
> Last-Modified: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:16:25 GMT
> ETag: "174ac8-12bc-394a7d09"
> Accept-Ranges: bytes
> Content-Length: 4796
> Content-Type: text/html
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <!-- saved from url=(0028)http://www.design-web.co.uk/ -->
> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Designweb Internet Solutions</TITLE>
> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
> <META content="Fireworks CSS Layer" name=description><!-- Fireworks 2.0 Css
> Layers.
> Created Wed Jun 07 19:01:19 GMT+0100 (GMT Daylight Time) 2000 -->
>
> That's better so now we really now what you were pinging, digging and trace
> routing to, a web server you dumb fuck.
Of course it's a web server, I never presumed anything else since
THE FIRST THING I DID WAS POINT MY BROWSER TO WWW.GODFREYNET.NET
Kinda obvious once you get there.
>
>
> You got Zip, Nada, nothing, fuck all, luser. Not even a correct address.
Well, tain't neccassarily true McGee, If I was looking to hack LG's home box (or
any box at all for that matter) you might be right. But since I was making a
point about how easy it is to find information once you apply yourself, you are
wrong.
>
>
> There are some imbeciles in this world but for clueless clowns like you I
> can't even bother to do a decent flame.
Seems like you can't be bothered with alot of things, like quoting accurately.
why did you leave this out of your reply?
[xxx@xxx /root]# xxx 212.69.198.36
xxx
xxx (212.69.198.36):
(xxx)
<----snip----->
27665/xxx xxx Txxx_Mxxx
Hmmm, now, what could all of that mean? Apply yourself. You will get it.
--hobo
>
>
> {R}
> --
> Vote NO to uk.net.news.beginners. Remember the Binaries Vote
> reclaim democracy from the wreckers (Not TLCA & friends)
> Read uk.net.news.announce (low traffic) for the Voting Form
Ray Gordon
>
> No.
Our courts generally won't enforce a judgment obtained overseas due to the
First Amendment.
If I'm wrong, correct me.
The man with no philtrum
<matthe...@nospambaesystems.com> wrote
>
>"Richard Herring" <richard...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
>news:oGHOdTb5...@baesystems.com...
>> In message <a6ae1a$ct3$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>, Matthew Blake
>> <matthe...@nospambaesystems.com> writes
>> >>
>> >Hey, any Americans reading this, especially these mentally challenged
>> >Americans he speaks of, please sue the guy for "defamatory remarks".
>>
>> I suggest some forensic study. Defamation applies to individuals, not
>> nations, be they American, Canadian, Thai or any other.
>>
>> --
>> Richard Herring
>
>Do I look like a dictionary! Every other word I hear I have to ask the
>meaning of!
You must be a typical american.
Brian
<e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com (*s)> wrote:
>Two UK charities to get 50 pound each (charities that your mate more than
>likely chose), and about $100 to a NZ charity.
>All up about 400 New Zealand dollars to 3 different charities to be precise.
>There was never any proof that any "actual" damage was done by the student's
>ill chosen comments,
Yes there has been. The student admitted damages. And was prepared
to make a donation to charity as a recognition that such damage had
occurred.
>if anything all he did was hurt the plaintiff's
>feelings a bit.
What you or I think the defamation may have done to Laurence Godfrey
is irrelevant. He and the student agreed.
>The student apologised which was fair enough. Honour has
>once again been restored to the student.
That's what I've been saying all along! The apology was fair enough.
The student acted honorably in remedying the harm he had done.
> Meanwhile the plaintiff has done
>very little to help his own reputation in the newsgroups. His latest
>comment was to claim that some American students were a bunch of "retards".
That is a misrepresentation of the facts.
>A US court would have to look at how much pressure if any, was possibly
>applied to the student to agree to such an agreement (which involved the
>completely unbiased plaintiff).
A US court!!!???? UNITED STATES????? Why!!!!!!!!!!???????
Brian
Brian
wrote:
>> >What was the INTENT of the questions? To bust his chops or to harm his
>> >reputation?
>>
>> Given the lack of any context around the accusations implied by the
>> questions, it was purely to defame. That's simply my opinion.
>
>Would a reasonable person have concluded from the posting that any of this
>is true? I sure didn't.
Why not? It certainly seemed to me that the poster could have been
posting questions based on truth.
>Where are the DAMAGES? In a US court, you pretty much almost have to have
>them to justify suing someone. Yes, there is damage to one's online
>reputation, etc.,
Why do assume that an "online" reputation has no effect outside
usenet?
>but even that has been minimized a bit by the courts.
>Then again, some people still do win big awards, but usually when their
>business or profession has been harmed.
It has never seemed to me that the amount of the award has been a
significant issue with the cases associated with Laurence Godfrey. He
was quite happy to personally receive no money from the case of the
New Zealand student.
It seems to me that he is prepared to spend a lot on the matter of the
principle involved. In the case of Demon, costs were a massive
250,000 GBP .... a hugely massive amount. Demon, being part of a
huge company, perhaps hoped they could bully him into submission, but
it seems his persistence paid off, and Demon eventually caved in.
Brian
E. Scrooge
> >The student apologised which was fair enough. Honour has
> >once again been restored to the student.
>
> That's what I've been saying all along! The apology was fair enough.
> The student acted honorably in remedying the harm he had done.
>
> > Meanwhile the plaintiff has done
> >very little to help his own reputation in the newsgroups. His latest
> >comment was to claim that some American students were a bunch of
"retards".
>
> That is a misrepresentation of the facts.
That's your opinion. The posts speak for themselves, just like all of your
posts do.
> >A US court would have to look at how much pressure if any, was possibly
> >applied to the student to agree to such an agreement (which involved the
> >completely unbiased plaintiff).
>
> A US court!!!???? UNITED STATES????? Why!!!!!!!!!!???????
>
> Brian
No particular reason. Lets say any court then if it makes you happy.
Perhaps you'd expect a court to just simply support your mate no matter
what, instead of looking at how things have actually happened before
reaching a decision about it, one way or the other?
I should've asked long before now, but does your "Enter" (return) key jam
sometimes?
E. Scrooge
E. Scrooge
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 19:08:53 -0500, "Ray Gordon" <cave...@nni.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >What was the INTENT of the questions? To bust his chops or to harm
his
> >> >reputation?
> >>
> >> Given the lack of any context around the accusations implied by the
> >> questions, it was purely to defame. That's simply my opinion.
> >
> >Would a reasonable person have concluded from the posting that any of
this
> >is true? I sure didn't.
>
> Why not? It certainly seemed to me that the poster could have been
> posting questions based on truth.
>
>
>
> >Where are the DAMAGES? In a US court, you pretty much almost have to
have
> >them to justify suing someone. Yes, there is damage to one's online
> >reputation, etc.,
>
> Why do assume that an "online" reputation has no effect outside
> usenet?
>
Usenet has nothing like the influence that the main forms of commercial
media have around the planet, with the likes of TV and Newspapers. Compared
to these outlets for people to advertise and make any claims in, Usenet is
hardly a very serious comparison. In fact considering that it's well known
to see flame wars, and other personal attacks in Usenet, there aren't that
many people that bother to take it all that seriously. Did you take your so
called war against Col, all that seriously? You said recently that you got
a laugh from some of the comments that were done in it. More than likely,
Col found your weak counter measures were very amusing.
Perhaps if the BBC and CNN started posted some false claims on Usenet, then
it would be quite a bit different, as these commercial businesses would
carry a lot more weight than a lot of your (and others) waffle does, Brian.
It's a FACT that a lot of claims and opinions from people on Usenet don't
actually amount to much, and are hardly going to change the world.
Your mate's claim that some American students are retards, is a damn good
example. Only you would think that was worth more than a grain of salt is,
Brian.
E. Scrooge
Brian
> key jam
I prefer strawberry
Count Dracula
> On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 22:03:29 +1300, "E. Scrooge" wrote:
>
> > key jam
>
> I prefer strawberry
I PREFER BLOOD
V V
COUNT DRACULA
Marshall Rice
writes
>> >If the defamer is in America, you'd have to sue them here, would you not?
>>
>> No.
>
>Our courts generally won't enforce a judgment obtained overseas due to the
>First Amendment.
They often will, depending on the circumstances, but enforcement in the
US isn't necessary in any event, unless the debtor never intends to
travel outside the US and doesn't bank or insure with any institution
that holds funds outside the US.
--
Marshall Rice
Paul C. Dickie
Paul C. Dickie
writes
>> >If the defamer is in America, you'd have to sue them here, would you not?
>>
>> No.
>
>Our courts generally won't enforce a judgment obtained overseas due to the
>First Amendment.
Rubbish.
>If I'm wrong, correct me.
Consider yourself corrected.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<ateas...@btinternet.com> writes
What plane? Laurence can sue their silly, colonial asses from the UK
and, IIRC, he's already done that at least once.
--
< Paul >
franz heymann
Col <I'm...@the.bar.drunk > wrote in message
news:CVyJPKMR71nFar...@4ax.com...
{snip]
> Still licking LG's chocolate starfish I see . :)
Judging by the technical language you use, you must be a man of
considerable experience.
Franz Heymann
Col
wrote:
I have seen a lot in my time on this earth Mr Hymenhacker ..
Ray Gordon
Source?
I was quoting various newswires.
Ray Gordon
> an expert on American law, but roughly speaking it works like this.
> The first amendment, which it appears that you have never read or have
> completely forgotten, states: "Congress shall make no law respecting
> an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
> thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
> government for a redress of grievances".
>
> Notice that it deals only with interference by the *state* (through
> Acts of Congress) in the exercise of freedom of speech. For reasons I
> am not even going to begin to try to explain, "state" has been
> interpreted increasingly broadly by the American courts. The right to
> free speech acquired under the FA has been recognised by the courts as
> being subject to American defamation law, which law is inherited
> directly from English common law. The FA also allows for the state to
> prohibit other types of speech. In American terms, you would say (as
> things presently stand in the US) that <<protected speech does not
> include defamatory or obscene speech or harassing speech>> (I have no
> idea how or if "harassing" is strictly defined in this context, but as
> far as I can tell from reading US judgments, it is interpreted
> broadly).
>
> If you have followed it so far, I will add a little more detail in
> respect of defamation. US case law has interpreted the FA to give the
> state the power to punish certain classes of "disfavoured speech",
> which are not constitutionally protected, such as obscene speech and
> defamatory speech and harassing speech. While the FA does not prohibit
> the state from regulating obscene, harassing or defamatory speech, its
> power to do so is normally only exercisable ex post in that it has the
> power to punish after the event but only in limited circumstances does
> it have the power to restrain ex ante (prior restraint). It would
> therefore normally be unconstitutional for the *state* to punish, for
> example, political speech (which is constitutionally protected), but
> *not* unconstitutional for it to punish obscene or defamatory speech
> or other disfavoured speech. It would normally be unconstitutional for
> the state to restrain ex ante either favoured or disfavoured speech,
> subject to certain exceptions. It is not unconstitutional for an actor
> *not* the state (eg. a private company) either to exercise restraint
> ex ante or to punish ex post (eg. by firing an employee), subject to
> such action being otherwise lawful.
>
> Having said that, there have of course been celebrated cases in which
> the US courts have declined to enforce foreign judgments. Most of
> these have nothing to do with teh FA, since most judgments (foreign or
> otherwise0 have nothing to do with freedom of speech.
>
> It really is not for me to explain your country's law to you, first
> because I have not had any formal training in American law and
> secondly because I happen to think that in this particular area it is
> in a complete mess and hard for anyone to explain, much less justify.
Right, and my position was that UK libel judgments are not enforced in the
US because of the first amendment.
Please cite for me a UK libel judgment which was.
Ray Gordon
not?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >Our courts generally won't enforce a judgment obtained overseas due to
the
> >First Amendment.
>
> They often will, depending on the circumstances, but enforcement in the
> US isn't necessary in any event, unless the debtor never intends to
> travel outside the US and doesn't bank or insure with any institution
> that holds funds outside the US.
I wasn't talking about that, I said that I've never heard of a UK libel
judgment being enforced in America.
Can someone correct me by pointing out an ACTUAL JUDGMENT which was enforced
here?
Ray Gordon
> >> invites me to sue him and then fails to provide the necessary
> >> information is the child who taunts: "I dare you to hit me" and
> >> immediately runs away.
> >
> >Oh dear, so are you going to stand still while those American's who have
> >taken exception to what you said about their collective intellect punch
you
> >on the nose? If not, is that not similar to taunting people?
> >
> >I should forget suing anyone in America if I were you Godfrey, they might
> >tear you to bits as you got off the plane !
>
> What plane? Laurence can sue their silly, colonial asses from the UK
> and, IIRC, he's already done that at least once.
It's postings like this which remind me of why I like THE PATRIOT so much as
a movie.
Tim Scrivens
franz heymann <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:3c8a7778$0$237$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Is "same to you, same to you" the best you can do?
C'mon, use a bit of spleen.
Starter:
"on the other hand, Col, you seem to be talking out of your barking spider"
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.311 / Virus Database: 172 - Release Date: 27/12/01
Marshall Rice
writes
I've never seen or heard of it. Is the storyline anything to do with the
reason why Australia, Canada and New Zealand are today so much more
civilised than the US?
--
Marshall Rice
Col
>
>franz heymann <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
>news:3c8a7778$0$237$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>>
>> Col <I'm...@the.bar.drunk > wrote in message
>> news:CVyJPKMR71nFar...@4ax.com...
>>
>> {snip]
>>
>> > Still licking LG's chocolate starfish I see . :)
>>
>> Judging by the technical language you use, you must be a man of
>> considerable experience.
>
>Is "same to you, same to you" the best you can do?
>
>C'mon, use a bit of spleen.
>
>Starter:
>
>"on the other hand, Col, you seem to be talking out of your barking spider"
>
oh . You are talking out of your chutney chute again I see .. :)
Tim Scrivens
"Laurence Godfrey" <laur...@godfreynet.net> wrote in message
news:3c889fae...@news.virgin.net...
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:59:47 -0600, hobo <networ...@charter.net>
> wrote:
> >
> Also, I do hope that those involved will get remedial help to deal
> with their appalling writing styles.
Pot....kettle....black.
Tim Scrivens
"Kookaburra" <ga...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:hd1m8uch0oe13337c...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 16:56:08 +1300, Col <I'm...@the.bar.drunk > wrote:
> >
> >>Is "same to you, same to you" the best you can do?
> >>
> >>C'mon, use a bit of spleen.
> >>
> >>Starter:
> >>
> >>"on the other hand, Col, you seem to be talking out of your barking
spider"
> >>
> >
> >oh . You are talking out of your chutney chute again I see .. :)
>
Aaah, another country heard from.
(Although, in your case, you take the "or" out of the above word).
- flaming - aint it fun!
(BTW, Kooky - I am not serious about the above).
PAM.
>
> Opening some of these postings is something of a teacher's nightmare.
> Imagine this dream: you walk into a class expecting to teach physics,
> but instead of physics students it's a room full of retards.... but
> it's in America, so of course you don't know at first that they're
> retards because its always kind of harder to tell with Americans -
Racist?
pam.
Malc
news:3C8BEB0E...@FishnChips.com...
> Racist?
>
> pam.
I don't think "Americans" are a "race". And I think you're reading too
much into this discussion if you think it's racially motivated.
Malc.
Richard Henry
"Malc" <ma...@belper.plus.con> wrote in message
news:wiSi8.5877$OP.167191@stones...
I am an American. Today I went to fill out the triennial background check
forms for my youth coaching license. In front of me was a gentleman born in
Viet Nam. He is an American. Behind me was a pleasant lady born in Mexico.
She is an American.
There was a place on the fingerprint form labeled "Race". "American" was
not one of the allowed responses, so I used "White". Actually, all three of
us are white, but the other two used more ethnic responses.
Tim Scrivens
"Malc" <ma...@belper.plus.con> wrote in message
news:wiSi8.5877$OP.167191@stones...
OK then - xenophobe???
Bruce Sinclair
:I am an American. Today I went to fill out the triennial background check
:forms for my youth coaching license. In front of me was a gentleman born in
:Viet Nam. He is an American. Behind me was a pleasant lady born in Mexico.
:She is an American.
:
:There was a place on the fingerprint form labeled "Race". "American" was
:not one of the allowed responses, so I used "White". Actually, all three of
:us are white, but the other two used more ethnic responses.
next time try "hell no ... I walk everywhere" :)
Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oook !
NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !
E. Scrooge
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 09:05:53 +1300, "Tim Scrivens"
> <tim.sc...@nz.eds.com> really confused me when he wrote:
> >
> >Aaah, another country heard from.
> >
> >(Although, in your case, you take the "or" out of the above word).
> >
> > - flaming - aint it fun!
> >
> >(BTW, Kooky - I am not serious about the above).
> >
>
> Cheers, Kooky.
>
> PS: Thanks Scroogie :o)
LOL
That's all right Berti... Kooky :-)
E. Scrooge
Richard Herring
<e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com> writes
>
>"Richard Herring" <richard...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
>news:oGHOdTb5...@baesystems.com...
>> In message <a6ae1a$ct3$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>, Matthew Blake
>> <matthe...@nospambaesystems.com> writes
>> >>
>> >Hey, any Americans reading this, especially these mentally challenged
>> >Americans he speaks of, please sue the guy for "defamatory remarks".
>>
>> I suggest some forensic study. Defamation applies to individuals, not
>> nations, be they American, Canadian, Thai or any other.
>>
>
>Don't let the facts get in the way of you trying to suggest that only
>individuals can claim to be defamed, Red.
Anyone can _claim_ to be anything. Did they win their cases?
But I said "individual", not "single person". They are not synonyms.
--
Richard Herring
Matthew Blake
Well if you are using it in the wider sense of the definition why can an
nation not be an individual? Can nations not act individually, can not each
individual nation on this earth claim to be a singular entity?
Richard Herring
>
>"Richard Herring" <richard...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
>news:cQIjoAVA...@baesystems.com...
>> In message <a6barb$h5v$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, E. Scrooge
>> <e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com> writes
>> >
>> >"Richard Herring" <richard...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
>> >news:oGHOdTb5...@baesystems.com...
>> >> In message <a6ae1a$ct3$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>, Matthew Blake
>> >> <matthe...@nospambaesystems.com> writes
>> >> >>
>> >> >Hey, any Americans reading this, especially these mentally challenged
>> >> >Americans he speaks of, please sue the guy for "defamatory remarks".
>> >>
>> >> I suggest some forensic study. Defamation applies to individuals, not
>> >> nations, be they American, Canadian, Thai or any other.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Don't let the facts get in the way of you trying to suggest that only
>> >individuals can claim to be defamed, Red.
>>
>> Anyone can _claim_ to be anything. Did they win their cases?
>>
>> But I said "individual", not "single person". They are not synonyms.
>>
>nation not be an individual? Can nations not act individually, can not each
>individual nation on this earth claim to be a singular entity?
Quite likely, for some purposes. You'd have to ask a legal expert. But I
think the test in the context of defamation is that it has to apply to
*identifiable* individuals (or maybe legal pseudo-persons.) The wider
you spread the muck, the less likely it is that a reasonable person
would consider any individual's reputation to be damaged. Small groups
still identify individuals; large enough ones don't.
--
Richard Herring
Matthew Blake
Mostly I would agree with you but the group in question was the Americans.
Thus if a global court of law ruled against them they would, (in my opinion
which may or may not be true etc... etc...) refuse to accept the courts and
the rest of the worlds judgement as the American nation has a tendancy to be
very egocentric. (then they'd probably bomb the person who offended them).
jmfb...@aol.com
:-))) I really like that one.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Ron or Dane
> "Brian" <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3c894199....@news.wave.co.nz...
> > On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:29:48 -0500, "Ray Gordon" <cave...@nni.com>
> > wrote:
> > >What DAMAGES has he suffered from these postings? Most US courts
> > >don'taward that much on principle. He could find himself winning a
> > >dollar if hiscase is not clearly convincing.
> > It seems to me that he is more interested in an apology than cash. In
> > the most recent case in New Zealand with the student, he asked for no
> > money personally, but did ask, and have accepted, a small sum (perhaps
> > large to a student) donation to charity.
(snip)
> There was never any proof that any "actual" damage was done by the
> student's ill chosen comments,
Irrelevant. The student admitted defaming the plaintiff
> if anything all he did was hurt the
> plaintiff's feelings a bit. The student apologised which was fair enough.
> Honour has once again been restored to the student. Meanwhile the
> plaintiff has done very little to help his own reputation in the
> newsgroups. His latest comment was to claim that some American students
> were a bunch of "retards".
Not defamatory, because it is true. Or did he specify certain students
who could be identified AND who are not retards? I ask you because you
are the world chanmpion defamation expert.
ronh
mr-p
thats _alleged_ plaintiff
this is soooooooooo booooooooooooooring
E. Scrooge
"Ron or Dane" <freshf...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1f8schf.xs965al8yxkwN%freshf...@xtra.co.nz...
You wrote this:
"Read what I said. "....untrue, hurtful opinions can cost....."
***************
ronh"
LOL Your post here just proves the point I made in my reply to this comment
in your other post. Your opinion isn't worth worrying about.
Dr G. mentioned the class of American students being retards, not just that
some of the students in the class were retards. It was nothing more than a
damaging opinion, even if it was true that some of them were, as most likely
the rest of them weren't.
E. Scrooge
Brian
<e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com (*s)> wrote:
more stuff demonstrating his ignorance of the subject of defamation,
but still willing to pontificate. If he stopped to listen, Laurence
Godfrey could teach him a thing or two.
I think that there may be more "retards" participating on this group
(nz.general), than the hypothetical group of American students that
Laurence referred to.
Brian
Brian
Godfrey) wrote:
> E. Scrooge <e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com(*s)> wrote:
>> were a bunch of "retards".
> trying to make is in any event wrong). What I actually
> wrote was:
<snip>
I can't remember the last time that Scrooge got anything right, if it
has ever happened. He is not even very clever when he twists the
facts around, thinking that nobody will notice his resulting lie.
Brian
E. Scrooge
Hypothetical or not, it was still an insult to American students. Don't be
so bloody biased about it, Brian.
Which is the brand of grease that you prefer to use best? Castrol or Shell?
E. Scrooge
E. Scrooge
Is that why you're back here sticking your beak in?
It's like watching some poor fool thinking that they can win a game of
chess, when they've only got the damn King left to poke around the board
against two rooks, a knight, a black Bishop, and a Queen (plus the King).
E. Scrooge
Brian
<e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com (*s)> wrote:
> It's like watching some poor fool thinking that they can
> win a game of chess, when they've only got the damn King
> left to poke around the board against two rooks, a knight,
> a black Bishop, and a Queen (plus the King).
Which one do you have an imagination that you are, Scrooge?
Brian
<e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com (*s)> wrote:
>
>"Brian" <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:3c912cd4...@news.wave.co.nz...
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:19:06 +1300, "E. Scrooge"
>> <e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com (*s)> wrote:
>Hypothetical or not, it was still an insult to American students.
No, Scrooge.
For a period of time elementary logic and set theory was taught in
Year 4 and 5.
Brian
E. Scrooge
If I'm watching <O^O> the poor fool that only has the King left. You try
and workout the answer to what appears to be a tough question that's
troubling you somewhat.
E. Scrooge
Ron or Dane
> thats _alleged_ plaintiff
You in fairyland? No alleged about it, as the student would confirm
because he responded to the plaint.
> this is soooooooooo booooooooooooooring
But you read it!
ronh
E. Scrooge
In a real court the Judge isn't known as Skippy, doesn't have a long tail,
and doesn't hop round all over the place.
As far as the deal with the student goes, there's no damn point in trying to
apply any legal terms to it, as if it had been all done through the courts.
If I sell you a car, there's no point in you trying to later say that your
deal was done through an LMVD dealer, and that you're going to have a fancy
dealers warranty covering it along with all the trimmings. It's much the
same thing.
Just because the student has responded to someone, doesn't mean that a real
court has actually found the student guilty of anything, nutter. The
student may well regret whatever he did, but as far the law goes, the law
(the real law, that is) doesn't even know a damn thing about it.
You've probably seen a few shows of Judge Judy, and now you think that after
all the vast training about the law that those few shows have given you.
You now think that you know it all. LOL One can only assume that Dane is
the smarter one, after seeing what you have to offer.
E. Scrooge
Ron or Dane
> "Ron or Dane" <freshf...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1f92xnb.116xk0b1w5ehjaN%freshf...@xtra.co.nz...
> > mr-p <mr...@home.xx> wrote:
> >
> > > Ron or Dane wrote:
> > >
> > > > E. Scrooge <e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com(*s)> wrote:
> >
> > > >>if anything all he did was hurt the
> > > >>plaintiff's feelings a bit. The student apologised which was fair
> enough.
> > > >>Honour has once again been restored to the student. Meanwhile the
> > > >>plaintiff has done very little to help his own reputation in the
> > > >>newsgroups. His latest comment was to claim that some American
> students
> > > >>were a bunch of "retards".
> >
> > > > Not defamatory, because it is true. Or did he specify certain students
> > > > who could be identified AND who are not retards? I ask you because you
> > > > are the world chanmpion defamation expert.
> >
> > > thats _alleged_ plaintiff
> >
> > You in fairyland? No alleged about it, as the student would confirm
> > because he responded to the plaint.
> >
> > > this is soooooooooo booooooooooooooring
> >
> > But you read it!
> >
> > ronh
>
> In a real court the Judge isn't known as Skippy
And guess what dopey, unlike you he/she knows there are certain laws
which prevent people from defaming others, wherever it happens. But of
course, you'd say the judges were wrong too.
ronh
E. Scrooge
What judges, simple one? There weren't any judges involved in deciding
whatever the student had done.
E. Scrooge
Ron or Dane
*****
*****
*****
*****
> > And guess what dopey, unlike you he/she knows there are certain laws
> > which prevent people from defaming others, wherever it happens. But of
> > course, you'd say the judges were wrong too.
> What judges, simple one?
My God, you are awfully thick! How about the Judge YOU mentioned?
Check the underlinings above.
> There weren't any judges involved in deciding
> whatever the student had done.
You're even worse than thick. No-one said judges were involved.
You introduced a 'judge" into the thread and I commented that while a
judge knows about defamation laws, YOU would insist judges were wrong
(because of your anarchic peabrain).
ronh
Jason M
<e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com (*s)> wrote:
>"Ron or Dane" <freshf...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:1f95lbx.vi8e6nousu4eN%freshf...@xtra.co.nz...
>> And guess what dopey, unlike you he/she knows there are certain laws
>> which prevent people from defaming others, wherever it happens. But of
>> course, you'd say the judges were wrong too.
>What judges, simple one? There weren't any judges involved in deciding
>whatever the student had done.
A NZ judge did reply to you in another thread on this subject.
Jason M
Col
Not in a capacity as a judge ..
--
Col
Col's law.
Thinly sliced cabbage..
E. Scrooge
"Jason M" <jmam...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c944b3c...@news.akl.ihugultra.co.nz...
You could well be a brain surgeon, but while in here you're hardly doing any
fancy surgery. This is not a court room, and this thread title (same with
the apology one, that this thread spun off from) doesn't even involve an
actual official court case.
One can claim that someone has committed a crime, but it takes a court to
"legally" decide that in fact a crime has been done, and which person did
it. You throw a brick through a shop window, your first appearance in court
involves to quickly prove before a court of law that you did it. About 2
minutes later you're then sentenced in the same proper and legal court.
While courts do make mistakes at times, they do their best to see that it
doesn't happen. Which is why we have them in the first place instead of
lynch mobs, and Kangaroos deciding these things. That doesn't of course
stop some people from trying to use the courts at times to their own
advantage.
E. Scrooge
Jason M
He's not capable of any other capacity :)
The language he used could only have been written by a judge.
And he was giving a legal opinion.
Jason M
Seppo Renfors
Laurence Godfrey wrote:
>
> E. Scrooge <e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com(*s)> wrote:
>
> >His latest comment was to claim that some American students
> > were a bunch of "retards".
>
> Not even true (notwithstanding that the point you were trying to make
> is in any event wrong).
Oh dear. This suggests that the "good" doctor can't even recognise
what he himself writes.
> What I actually wrote was:
...very crude and rude material of and concerning American students,
claiming a room full of them being "retards", as Scrooge said. As you
have this apparent deficiency of recognising your own writing, I will
assist and highlight it for you in the text below.
> From: laur...@godfreynet.net (Laurence Godfrey)
> Newsgroups: sci.physics,aus.legal,nz.general
> Subject: Re: Dr? Laurence Godfrey = silly wabbit
> Message-ID: <3c8ba7e8...@news.virgin.net>
> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 12:24:42 GMT
>
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:59:47 -0600, hobo <networ...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >When you started this little excursion did you even have the first damn
> >clue as to who attrition.org were?
>
> No, and now that I know that you are a bunch of educationally
> subnormal "challengees" who wear their social dysfunctionality on
> their sleeves, I still don't give a first damn.
>
> Opening some of these postings is something of a teacher's nightmare.
> Imagine this dream: you walk into a class expecting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to teach physics,
> but instead of physics students it's a room full of retards.... but
> it's in America, <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
There it is boyo! Oh, and despite what you may attempt to wriggle with
here, "students" is what you find in classrooms you go to teach in.
Ergo you have wantonly vilified physics students of USA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so of course you don't know at first that they're
> retards <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
See, there it is again, the gratuitous abuse if physics students in
America again.
[no need to repeat remainder of vilification based on ethnicity]
BTW "DR", what do the anti race vilification laws say in the UK? I
mean you should know, being "formally trained" and all, eh. You know,
I have seen an Indian gentleman (comparatively speaking) be detained
for a lesser offence of like kind at Heathrow!
--
SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that privilege "
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian
<Sen...@not.ollis.com.au> wrote:
>> Imagine this dream: you walk into a class expecting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to teach physics,
>> but instead of physics students it's a room full of retards.... but
>> it's in America, <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>There it is boyo! Oh, and despite what you may attempt to wriggle with
>here, "students" is what you find in classrooms you go to teach in.
Imagine
-------
This Dream
----------
>Ergo you have wantonly vilified physics students of USA.
but instead of physics students
-------------------------------
Year 5 comprehension
Brian
E. Scrooge
Are you trying to say that you can be as insulting as you like about a
group of people of a specific country, just as long as you also claim that
it's all part of some stupid dream that you just happened to imagine?
LOL
In that case, Brian. How do you know that the student wasn't day dreaming
at the time when he did the post about your mate?
He may have just wrote down something that he had imagined. Which is quite
okay according to your good self, because one can post whatever they want to
in relation to some nasty little imaginary dream that they might later
happen to be talking about.
You've just seen, and defended a good example of it yourself. Which just
goes to show that a lot of your defence has more holes in it, than a fishing
net has.
E. Scrooge