Rumor Control on Sibe: He's still in jail, but you can bury him even deeper! Act quickly!
Alexsander Troutnoodler
Hash: SHA1
Per Lisa (id: 44462) at the Multnomah County Jail records office, bail
for Ross H Reddick is not availble, not being offered and he's in jail
until the hearing on Feb 14th. What happens after that is anyone's
guess. If you wanna hear it yourself, call 503-988-3689 and wait for
the operator, then ask if Ross H Reddick has been released on bail.
Also, the "coercion charge" isn't a charge, it's a conviction.
See, Ross was convicted of Coercion back in 2001 and finally released on
probation in 2002.
His probation started at that time, and part of his probation was that
he was not to enter any chat rooms, IM services or other
computer-related communications systems. This includes IRC, AIM, Yahoo,
MSN, ICQ, Jabber and anything else.
By default, that also includes SecondLife, FChan, LiveJournal,
GreatestJournal and any of the various forums he's been posting on since
his conviction, in clear violation of his probation from the very start.
As part of his probation, he agreed to terms that stated his probation
officers could come into his residence at any time to search and/or
ensure that he was following the rules. That means they could search
through his computer, send the drug dogs into his rooms and bring him in
for an on-the-spot piss-test. But because this can expose the officers
to a harrasment lawsuit if not done precisely right, they hardly ever
bother.
But now he's violated his probation, and that's a felony. He's also
been avoiding-and taunting-the police, avoiding his lawyers and avoiding
the process servers. He has two restraining orders against him,
possibly three, and several lawsuits, and all of those are
computer-related or affiliated offenses.
So straight off the bat, he's going to prison for the coercion
conviction, unless the judge is feeling particularly generous.
Considering his record, that's not very likely. And now that the
shitstorm is officially started, it's gonna keep coming down and piling
on top of his head.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, really?
As far as the fear of his roomies and boyfriends wiping his computer,
that'd be a very bad idea. When the authorities come for his computer,
if they find out it's been wiped, they'll charge his roomies with
destruction of evidence and anything else they think that they can stick
em' with. Not only that, they might also charge em' as accomplices in
helping him hide all this time, since they knew he was a wanted criminal.
Right now, everything hinges on how much evidence people can supply to
the judge before the 14th. So if you've had your art stolen by him,
been harrassed by him, been "Sibed" or otherwise have any kind of
information about him violating his parole, send it in to the Multnomah
County Sherrif's Department.
Or, if you want to file a small-claims lawsuit against him, file it in
your home state, then contact a process server and have them serve Sbie
while he's still in jail.
=====O <==[IonOtter, LogOut]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFD6zsdkxuYYyCbXqcRAlDaAJwO2BSuwWMyul3bu3E8U54wHX09uACcCzpK
O4JF80917Tbsioa+UlFx0YU=
=XisV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
imyo...@yahoo.com
exactly what Sibe did to get arrested?
Star...@earthlink.net
Mike Curtis
Mike
<Star...@Earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1139510338....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MHirtes
led...@hotmail.com
the details... :)
Wanderer
news:1139873063....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Excuse me, but why are you guys are against that guy? I don't know all
> the details... :)
>
Oh, Sibe likes making people angry at him. To that end, he pirates
copyrighted works from various sources and makes them available online...
including several properties from Shanda Family Arts and other small-press
publishers.
That's not to say he doesn't have a few friends in the fandom. He does.
But given the reveling he does in his role as villain, hating him is easy
and fun.
Yours wolfishly,
The capsule-explaining,
Wanderer
wand...@ticnet.com
"Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!"
-- a. a. milne
chib...@gmail.com
him, forcing him to give up his ATM card and the PIN for it, then
stealing his roommate's car, driving across state lines and using $500
of his roommate's money at a gay bar. He's sexually and physically
abused several furs.
Star...@earthlink.net
I've heard this story told several ways. But the one which I believe
was that the roomate deserved it. Also, I don't believe that whole
"he's abused furs" thing one bit. Well, maybe psychologically, when he
trolls, but that's as close as it gets.
Allen Kitchen
> I've heard this story told several ways. But the one which I believe
> was that the roomate deserved it.
Under NO circumstances does anyone deserve to be tied up, raped, cut,
robbed and beaten. That you would go so far in defense of Sibe, speaks
volumes about yourself as well.
Loyalty is admirable. But blind loyalty is simply ignorance in disguise.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Star...@earthlink.net
Allen Kitchen wrote:
> Star...@Earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > I've heard this story told several ways. But the one which I believe
> > was that the roomate deserved it.
>
> Under NO circumstances does anyone deserve to be tied up, raped, cut,
> robbed and beaten. That you would go so far in defense of Sibe, speaks
> volumes about yourself as well.
>
anybody who would do these things. Sure, maybe he was subdued, but
that's far from 'beaten'. Sibe even admitted to robbing him, but he'd
done things to Sibe first. As for tied up, I really don't know. Maybe
it happened. But if what I heard from Sibe correctly, he deserved it.
> Loyalty is admirable. But blind loyalty is simply ignorance in disguise.
>
I have no reason to assume these bad things about Sibe. I've met him
and he's very on the level. I'm simply being practical in that there is
no proof, to me, that he did all the things you said. That's far from
blind loyalty.
> Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Paul Johnson
He's shown up to parties he's not been invited to and stripped naked in
Portland, and what chibiabos says is verifiable with the Multnomah County
Sheriff's Department.
--
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): ba...@ursine.ca
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Star...@earthlink.net
Paul Johnson wrote:
> Star...@Earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >
> > chib...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> He's also been convicted of beating up his roommate and threatening
> >> him, forcing him to give up his ATM card and the PIN for it, then
> >> stealing his roommate's car, driving across state lines and using $500
> >> of his roommate's money at a gay bar. He's sexually and physically
> >> abused several furs.
> >
> > I've heard this story told several ways. But the one which I believe
> > was that the roomate deserved it. Also, I don't believe that whole
> > "he's abused furs" thing one bit. Well, maybe psychologically, when he
> > trolls, but that's as close as it gets.
>
> He's shown up to parties he's not been invited to and stripped naked in
> Portland, and what chibiabos says is verifiable with the Multnomah County
> Sheriff's Department.
>
furs? Or just the part about the coercion?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Gray Coyote
<a
href="http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_frm/thread/976ed1874bd7f212?tvc=1&q=Brian+Floyd+furry&hl=en">Brian
Floyd's Post</a>
>>But the person wasn't raped, cut, or beaten.
Raped, no. Beaten, oh yes, he was. Pretty badly, actually.
>>I'm simply being practical in that there is
>>no proof, to me, that he did all the things you said
When a tree falls in the woods with no living thing around it to see
that it fell, did it really fall? To you, it never did, even though
you see the tree on it's side on the ground.
Perhaps your own inability to discover people's true intentions is the
reason you're believing his bullshit (or even the bullshit of his
friends). You may own your own opinions, but Sibe does not own the
facts of his beating of Brian Floyd, which is proven in court.
You can keep turning it around and keep saying "the victim deserved it"
merely based on what Sibe or his friends say. I'm really sure that
Sibe said all sorts of horrible things about Brian Floyd, like
supposedly how Brian made him a sex slave and all sorts of bullshit
just to make it more acceptable than the fact that the only reason that
he beat Brian and terrorized him was because he wouldn't tolerate being
jumped on and tickled painfully because he wouldn't take him to the
local gay bar on St. Patties Day, and kicked him with his knee into
Sibe' back when his tickling became too painful and he simply would not
stop despite Brian telling him to do so multiple times.
In return, Sibe beat him, made him stand at attention, forced him into
a shower, dosed him in very cold water, shoved a water hose up his ass,
dragged him out, made him stand to attention like a drill sargeant,
then put him on the ground, pissed on him, and then tried to shit on
him (Sibe has this thing about shitting on people without warning,
since he thinks everyone is his personal litterbox to shit on),
threatened to beat him some more if he didn't give over his PIN number
for his ATM card, broke bottles all over the guy's apartment to keep
him from escaping, and took his car keys, and then told him that if he
called the cops, he would make Brian "disappear". That is certainly
not self defense under the standard of any state. Sibe was lucky
that he wasn't charged with sexual assault on top of his other charges
for the hose thing.
Sibe is from all indications (and personal experience) a sick and
depraved individual, with four individual police reports made against
him, three of them rape, and one of them from a father reporting that
Sibe had inappropriately touched his two year old daughter. This was
stated in court at his probation hearing. The father apparently did
not cooperate further with authorities and then disappeared. The
father spoke only Spanish, and I can't help but wonder if Sibe made a
phone call in the middle of the night to threaten to call ICE (formerly
INS) on him and his daughter. Considering to what lengths he went to
threaten me over the phone after what happened with me to try to shut
me up, I'd consider that a strong possibility.
Sociopaths like Sibe are Grade A scumbags of the worst order, and
you're a fool to believe such people.
You can continue being friendly with Sibe if you want, because
"Sibeing" people, whether it be raping them, pissing and shitting on
them, molesting their children, stealing artists work, and generally
being a fucktard, is all for the "LULZ". Right?
Star...@earthlink.net
> Btw, here is the person you're talking about:
>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_frm/thread/976ed1874bd7f212?tvc=1&q=Brian+Floyd+furry&hl=en">Brian
> Floyd's Post</a>
>
> >>But the person wasn't raped, cut, or beaten.
>
> Raped, no. Beaten, oh yes, he was. Pretty badly, actually.
>
Furthermore, convictions are a package deal. The jury does not have a
line item veto for the charges brought up against the defendant. It's
all or nothing.
> >>I'm simply being practical in that there is
> >>no proof, to me, that he did all the things you said
>
> When a tree falls in the woods with no living thing around it to see
> that it fell, did it really fall? To you, it never did, even though
> you see the tree on it's side on the ground.
>
Sophmoric argument. You're equating seeing Sibe in prison with seeing
the tree on its ground. OF COURSE I know Sibe's in prison. He pissed
off a lot of people, and DID in fact commit coercion. That's not what's
being argued, however. What's being argued is whether he did all these
other things.
> Perhaps your own inability to discover people's true intentions is the
> reason you're believing his bullshit (or even the bullshit of his
> friends). You may own your own opinions, but Sibe does not own the
> facts of his beating of Brian Floyd, which is proven in court.
>
A court does not 'proove' anything. A court can just as easily convict
an innocent man, and likewise, let a guilty one go free.
> You can keep turning it around and keep saying "the victim deserved it"
> merely based on what Sibe or his friends say.
I'm making my own judgement call here. Sibe cares about morality.
I'm really sure that
> Sibe said all sorts of horrible things about Brian Floyd, like
> supposedly how Brian made him a sex slave and all sorts of bullshit
> just to make it more acceptable than the fact that the only reason that
> he beat Brian and terrorized him was because he wouldn't tolerate being
> jumped on and tickled painfully because he wouldn't take him to the
> local gay bar on St. Patties Day, and kicked him with his knee into
> Sibe' back when his tickling became too painful and he simply would not
> stop despite Brian telling him to do so multiple times.
>
My personal belief is that Brian Floyd is a coward. Sibe probably
punched the guy once and Brian immediately cowered and let him get away
with all that. In my dictionary, once punch from a moderately strong
person is not a beating.
> In return, Sibe beat him, made him stand at attention, forced him into
> a shower, dosed him in very cold water, shoved a water hose up his ass,
> dragged him out, made him stand to attention like a drill sargeant,
> then put him on the ground, pissed on him, and then tried to shit on
> him (Sibe has this thing about shitting on people without warning,
> since he thinks everyone is his personal litterbox to shit on),
> threatened to beat him some more if he didn't give over his PIN number
> for his ATM card, broke bottles all over the guy's apartment to keep
> him from escaping, and took his car keys, and then told him that if he
> called the cops, he would make Brian "disappear". That is certainly
> not self defense under the standard of any state. Sibe was lucky
> that he wasn't charged with sexual assault on top of his other charges
> for the hose thing.
>
Now you're raving like a lunatic. You probably got that from a police
report. The fact of the matter is, anybody can make a police report
about anything.
> Sibe is from all indications (and personal experience) a sick and
> depraved individual, with four individual police reports made against
> him, three of them rape, and one of them from a father reporting that
> Sibe had inappropriately touched his two year old daughter. This was
> stated in court at his probation hearing. The father apparently did
> not cooperate further with authorities and then disappeared. The
> father spoke only Spanish, and I can't help but wonder if Sibe made a
> phone call in the middle of the night to threaten to call ICE (formerly
> INS) on him and his daughter. Considering to what lengths he went to
> threaten me over the phone after what happened with me to try to shut
> me up, I'd consider that a strong possibility.
>
Most likely, the rape police reports are from people who had sex with
him voluntarily, and then later changed their minds. I do not believe
for one second that this Spanish father's child got molested by Sibe. I
bet what happened is either that the father didn't know what the
accuser really looked like so then accused Sibe, or Sibe was just
'scritching' the child, in an appropriate place, and the father got all
pissed off.
> Sociopaths like Sibe are Grade A scumbags of the worst order, and
> you're a fool to believe such people.
>
>From what I can tell, you are not only stupid, but a liar. Your
accusations are all based on vague accusations from police reports.
I've heard the story told several different ways. If this really
happened, there would only be one version of the truth. Not only that,
but you probably purposely misconstrued something Sibe told you as
threatening.
> You can continue being friendly with Sibe if you want, because
> "Sibeing" people, whether it be raping them, pissing and shitting on
> them, molesting their children, stealing artists work, and generally
> being a fucktard, is all for the "LULZ". Right?
Typically, lulz are generated when fagtards like you make unwarranted
accusations just like you've been doing. Your verbal diarrhea is not
convincing anybody but the anti-Sibe crowd. If you really wanted to
convince me, you'd PROVIDE easily accessible proof, and by that I mean
REAL PROOF, of ALL these things. You have not proven jack squat. Sibe
was only proven guilty of coercion, that does not prove all this other
stuff about him. I don't know what country you're from, but in my
country, America, people are innocent until proven guilty.
Ostrich!
> I don't know what country you're from, but in my
> country, America, people are innocent until proven guilty.
Sibe has been proven guilty.
--
-Ostrich! <")
Star...@earthlink.net
You fucking smart-ass. You took that out of context. He was proven
guilty of coercion. What you people claim he has done has NOT been
proven. A != !A.
> --
> -Ostrich, the cock-mongler! <")
Wanderer
news:1141087624.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Just because something is in a police report does not make it true.
<rolls eyes> Hark! We have new evidence! Because Starbles saw it in a
dream that Sibe has been framed by aliens from Alpha Centauri, the case is
hereby dismissed!
I'm sorry, but blatant intellectual masturbation like that is just too
painful not to laugh at. You *do* realize that, in order for a charge to
become actionable, actual evidence must be found? While that is not a 100%,
ironclad, 30-days-or-your-money-back guarantee, it's usually a pretty good
indication. Same reason Michael Jackson wasn't convicted on child
molestation charges: No evidence, no conviction. You have a conviction,
you had evidence.
> Furthermore, convictions are a package deal. The jury does not have a
> line item veto for the charges brought up against the defendant. It's
> all or nothing.
Actually, individual charges must be proven; there is no "package deal".
Had Mr. Reddick not stolen the vehicle, for instance, that charge would have
been listed as "not guilty". Had he stolen the car, but not provably
performed coercion upon the owner, then coercion would be "not guilty",
while car theft would be "guilty". <sarcasm> I suppose the courts may work
differently in your world... </sarcasm>
> Sophmoric argument. You're equating seeing Sibe in prison with seeing
> the tree on its ground. OF COURSE I know Sibe's in prison. He pissed
> off a lot of people, and DID in fact commit coercion. That's not what's
> being argued, however. What's being argued is whether he did all these
> other things.
Actually, you *were* arguing that the roommate "deserved it", if you care to
look back at what you posted. Apparently you feel it possible to "deserve"
having a hose stuffed up your anus; having someone stand over you and
urinate on you; having someone force you to give them access to your bank
account; having someone strew broken glass all over your apartment in order
to keep you from leaving; having someone threaten you with death to keep you
from calling the police.
The court respectfully disagrees with you, and would like to know if anyone
has "deserved" such treatment from you in the past.
In addition, you have "successfully" argued that reports from victims are
not proof of attack; that police reports are not proof of attack; that the
bragging from Sibe himself is not proof of attack. I take it you would only
accept something as "proof" if it involved Sibe beating you to a pulp?
> A court does not 'proove' anything. A court can just as easily convict
> an innocent man, and likewise, let a guilty one go free.
<nod> That is the weakness inherent to the system, yes. But the guilt must
be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order for sentencing to proceed.
>
> I'm making my own judgement call here. Sibe cares about morality.
True enough. He would not study the ways to violate it if he didn't care
about it.
> My personal belief is that Brian Floyd is a coward. Sibe probably
> punched the guy once and Brian immediately cowered and let him get away
> with all that. In my dictionary, once punch from a moderately strong
> person is not a beating.
I see. So you contend that Mr. Reddick punched the plaintiff (Mr. Floyd)
once, in exchange for which Mr. Floyd gave Mr. Reddick his ATM card, his
PIN, and his car keys. Afterward, Mr. Floyd, again by your contention,
spread urine upon himself, violated his own anus with a hose, and spread
broken glass all over the floor in an effort to implicate Mr. Reddick.
<shakes head> I liked you better with the aliens. At least that would've
made you delusional, instead of psychotic.
In any event, the law disagrees with you. "Battery" may indeed consist of a
single punch, just as "assault" may not have a physical component at all.
If it was done to procure the car keys and ATM card and PIN, it is still
coercion. In fact, even if it was done only to prevent Mr. Floyd calling
the police, it was still coercion.
> Now you're raving like a lunatic. You probably got that from a police
> report. The fact of the matter is, anybody can make a police report
> about anything.
<cocks head> Oh? Then I suggest you prove your contention. Have the
police fill out a report about aliens from Alpha Centauri coming to take
over the world. As soon as it's available, scan it and post it; you will
then have proven your contention that "anybody can make a police report
about anything". Until then, your extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof.
> Most likely, the rape police reports are from people who had sex with
> him voluntarily, and then later changed their minds. I do not believe
> for one second that this Spanish father's child got molested by Sibe. I
> bet what happened is either that the father didn't know what the
> accuser really looked like so then accused Sibe, or Sibe was just
> 'scritching' the child, in an appropriate place, and the father got all
> pissed off.
Ah, the old, "they changed their minds" defense, guaranteed to devolve into
a game of "he said, he said" in this case. Ah, and inappropriate
touching... "it was just scritching"? Hate to break it to you, but the
appropriate scritching, when dealing with a minor, is NONE AT ALL WITHOUT
THE CONSENT OF THE PARENT OR GUARDIAN!
You are assuming facts not in evidence. (You are also misusing the word
"accuser"; you might mean "molester", in its original sense, or
"perpetrator".) Even if Sibe meant the contact innocently, initiating
contact with a minor, without the consent of a parent or guardian, is
illegal. Some social contact, such as handshakes, is permissible given the
consent of the child; anything more involved is strictly "get consent".
(I'm a crossing guard. We HAVE to know this!)
>>From what I can tell, you are not only stupid, but a liar.
"You didn't really get hurt by Sibe! You just want to keep us apart! But
my love will never falter!"
Sorry, had to break the monotony.:> So, personal testimony by a victim
isn't enough to count as "proof". Conviction under the law doesn't count as
"proof". I was right, I see; the only way you'll believe that Sibe did
anything wrong since his baptism is for him to do it to you. Have you ever
looked into counseling... ?
> Your
> accusations are all based on vague accusations from police reports.
> I've heard the story told several different ways. If this really
> happened, there would only be one version of the truth.
<sarcasm> Oh, yeah, because eyewitnesses to a single event *always* tell
the exact same story! Like the Kennedy assassination! </sarcasm> To say
nothing of the fact that Sibe, as the perpetrator in the case, would by
definition have his own version of the story, making TWO, count 'em, TWO,
that's one more than one, TWO versions of the story.
> Not only that,
> but you probably purposely misconstrued something Sibe told you as
> threatening.
I suppose "Talk and you die" can be misconstrued...
>
> Typically, lulz are generated when fagtards like you make unwarranted
> accusations just like you've been doing. Your verbal diarrhea is not
> convincing anybody but the anti-Sibe crowd. If you really wanted to
> convince me, you'd PROVIDE easily accessible proof, and by that I mean
> REAL PROOF, of ALL these things. You have not proven jack squat.
<sarcasm> Yeah, nobody believes victims of sexual assault! They're all
lying! And Sibe knows best! </sarcasm> Mister, if you're the best friend
Sibe's got, he has bigger problems than being in jail.
> Sibe
> was only proven guilty of coercion, that does not prove all this other
> stuff about him. I don't know what country you're from, but in my
> country, America, people are innocent until proven guilty.
>
Actually, you seem to feel Sibe is innocent until he does something to
you... that's a little different.
Yours wolfishly,
The plain-spoken,
darkside
"Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> writes:
> <nod> That is the weakness inherent to the system, yes. But the guilt must
> be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order for sentencing to proceed.
Of course, "a reasonable doubt" is pretty subjective.
>> Your
>> accusations are all based on vague accusations from police reports.
>> I've heard the story told several different ways. If this really
>> happened, there would only be one version of the truth.
>
> <sarcasm> Oh, yeah, because eyewitnesses to a single event *always* tell
> the exact same story! Like the Kennedy assassination! </sarcasm> To say
> nothing of the fact that Sibe, as the perpetrator in the case, would by
> definition have his own version of the story, making TWO, count 'em, TWO,
> that's one more than one, TWO versions of the story.
I feel the need to "quote for truth", here. Eyewitness accounts
*never* match; even blatant contradictory differences are fairly common.
Further, the disparity grows with the time since the event.
It's a well-documented sociological phenomenon, covered in your local
Intro to Sociology textbook.
--
darkside
email: darksidex at charter dot net
website: http://silenceisdefeat.org/~darkside
Star...@earthlink.net
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2006 16:47:04 -0800, Star...@Earthlink.net declaimed the
> following in alt.fan.furry:
>
> > Just because something is in a police report does not make it true.
> > Furthermore, convictions are a package deal. The jury does not have a
> > line item veto for the charges brought up against the defendant. It's
> > all or nothing.
> >
> find on each charge individually.
Notice how in his conviction report, it only says coercion? That means
that only that part of it was proven.
Also, I've NEVER seen Sibe brag about having done all these other
things.
> --
> > ============================================================ <
> > wulf...@dm.net | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
> > wlf...@ix.netcom.com | Bestiaria Support Staff <
> > ============================================================ <
> > Home Page: <http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/> <
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Alexsander Troutnoodler
Hash: SHA1
Star...@Earthlink.net wrote:
>
> Notice how in his conviction report, it only says coercion? That means
> that only that part of it was proven.
Still using your selective reading skillz, eh Starbs?
He was offered a plea-bargain by the county prosecutor. Plead No
Contest to the charge of Coercion and go on probation for three years
and all the other charges will be waived. The waiver of those
charges-five in all-was CONTINGENT UPON COMPLETING HIS PROBATION.
Which he failed to do, quite miserably.
So now, the county prosecutor has asked that those charges be
RE-INSTATED, and that he be TRIED FOR ALL FIVE CHARGES. Those five
charges could put him away for twelve years.
But here's the really NEATO thing! The FBI seized his computer and are
going through it right now to find evidence of any wrong-doing, since
part of his probation stipulated that his computer could be searched at
any time for any reason. Whatever they find will likely only ADD to his
criminal case, so it's reasonable to assume that he's going to jail for
a while.
And the thing that makes me giggle is that the FBI agents jacked his
boyfriend and roomies against the wall and explained that if his
computer shows any signs of being "sanitized", they were going to charge
them and everyone in the apartment with accessory after the fact.
So yeah. Sibe is going down, along with his boyfriend and anyone else
he's been hanging out with in the last couple years.
So I wouldn't be too eager in defending him, Starbs. You might end up
as his bunkmate.
Oh wait...you'd like that! Oh well...
====O <==[IonOtter, LogOut]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEBPi3kxuYYyCbXqcRAlzAAJoDf46rpBPzSRIHTnLtNYdcEn20EQCgjs6M
qB/lWAYJAtdgMTWF4/0Pf3M=
=9HKb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Star...@earthlink.net
> And the thing that makes me giggle is that the FBI agents jacked his
> boyfriend and roomies against the wall and explained that if his
> computer shows any signs of being "sanitized", they were going to charge
> them and everyone in the apartment with accessory after the fact.
>
> So yeah. Sibe is going down, along with his boyfriend and anyone else
> he's been hanging out with in the last couple years.
>
them is a bad apple, and this is a good thing, why?
> So I wouldn't be too eager in defending him, Starbs. You might end up
> as his bunkmate.
>
> Oh wait...you'd like that! Oh well...
>
Better than having to put up with your crap.
(*Snip Retarded Signature*)
Ostrich!
Star...@Earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> So completely innocent people are being thrown in jail because one of
> them is a bad apple
You scored very low on the "reading comprehension" portion of your
achievement tests, didn't you?
-Ostrich! <")
Star...@earthlink.net
First off, that's a non sequitur. In fact, it's not even a well crafted
insult.
Your cowardice is evident in the fact that you refuse to show context.
My response was specifically toward the idea that if ONE of them wiped
the computer, everyone would go to jail.
It is you who score very low in the reading comprehention portion of
your achievement tests. In case you don't know, I got a 800 in math and
a 600 in reading. So I'm fairly confident that it is you who are in the
wrong. In fact, let me bring back the part of the quote you vandalized:
> And the thing that makes me giggle is that the FBI agents jacked his
> boyfriend and roomies against the wall and explained that if his
> computer shows -any- signs of being "sanitized", they were going to charge
> them and _everyone in the apartment_ with accessory after the fact.
> So yeah. Sibe is going down, _along with his boyfriend and anyone else
> he's been hanging out with in the last couple years._
So, I state again, completely innocent people are being thrown in jail
because some bad apple decided to wipe Sibe's computer.
Ostrich!
>
> It is you who score very low in the reading comprehention portion of
> your achievement tests. In case you don't know, I got a 800 in math and
> a 600 in reading. So I'm fairly confident that it is you who are in the
> wrong.
I'm sorry to see that you're quoting an SAT score* during a discussion
about achievement test scores. The SAT is an aptitude test, not an
achievement test. Perhaps if you read more slowly, or stopped to
paraphrase and summarize what you've just read, you'd be able to
better follow and more meaningfully participate in the discussions
here. We'll leave issues of spelling and sentence structure for
another time.
-Ostrich! <")
* Mine was 790/650. So neener on you! :P
Swipecat
>> And the thing that makes me giggle is that the FBI agents jacked his
>> boyfriend and roomies against the wall and explained that if his
>> computer shows -any- signs of being "sanitized", they were going to charge
>> them and _everyone in the apartment_ with accessory after the fact.
>
>> So yeah. Sibe is going down, _along with his boyfriend and anyone else
>> he's been hanging out with in the last couple years._
>
>So, I state again, completely innocent people are being thrown in jail
>because some bad apple decided to wipe Sibe's computer.
Ah, I see. Yes. You read "charged with accessory after the fact" as
"charged with being completely innocent". Fancy Ostrich calling that
poor reading comprehension. It's a perfectly reasonable mistake that
anybody could have made.
--
Farry/Swipecat
Wanderer
news:1141194628....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> So completely innocent people are being thrown in jail because one of
> them is a bad apple, and this is a good thing, why?
You might want to re-read what was actually printed on your screen, instead
of jerking your knees like that. None of Mr. Reddick's roommates have gone
to jail as yet; the threat is there, however. If it turns out that they
have deleted files from Mr. Reddick's computer, they are de facto guilty of
tampering with evidence in a state hearing.
(In which case, no, they would not be "completely innocent". Once they are
guilty of evidence tampering, "completely innocent" is rather impossible.)
Yours truly,
The delayed-by-a-mouse-spasm,
M. Mitchell Marmel
Swipecat <swip...@see.replyto.header> wrote:
> Ah, I see. Yes. You read "charged with accessory after the fact" as
> "charged with being completely innocent". Fancy Ostrich calling that
> poor reading comprehension. It's a perfectly reasonable mistake that
> anybody could have made.
Actually, it's a tribute to modern technology, because now individuals
having the IQ of your average houseplant can make themselves heard on
the Internet.
Of course, the bad part about this is that they insist upon doing so.
-MMM-
--
http://www.livejournal.com/~marmelmm/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TaliVisions
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sawyercatunleashed
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/furry_city/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/losgatosafterdark/
Star...@earthlink.net
person may not have in fact swiped the computer, but if another person
does so, there's nothing they can do about it and they'd get charged
with accessory after the fact even though they weren't the one that
wiped the computer. That's why I said an innocent person would be
charged with a crime he or she didn't commit.
(...Stablade Riven Darksquall...)
Wanderer
news:1141609852.3...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> If anybody here had a sense of context, they'd see that I mean that one
> person may not have in fact swiped the computer, but if another person
> does so, there's nothing they can do about it and they'd get charged
> with accessory after the fact even though they weren't the one that
> wiped the computer. That's why I said an innocent person would be
> charged with a crime he or she didn't commit.
>
Then you should have appreciated my post, which did not make that error. As
I pointed out, only those who "sanitized" (not "swiped") the computer would
be charged with destroying evidence. If someone saw them erasing the files
and did nothing (or knew the person erased the files and did not report it)
then they would be made accessory after the fact. If they helped the person
erase the files (providing passwords, etc.) then they would be accessory
before the fact.
Clear?
Yours truly,
The explaining (and explaining, and explaining),